Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper Obtains James Damore's Complaint Against Google (siliconbeat.com)
A Silicon Valley newspaper brings this update on fired Google engineer James Damore:
California law allows employers to fire workers for virtually any reason -- and the Constitutional protection of free speech doesn't apply to private company workplaces. Until now it was unclear how Damore might fight back against Google over his termination. Now, this news organization has obtained the U.S. National Labor Relations Board charge sheet that reveals the basis for Damore's battle. His argument hinges on the contents of his memo, which went far beyond discussing a possible biological reason for the gender gap.
The document contained detailed criticism of Google's diversity initiatives and their effects on employees, and it said that the company's biases led to alienation among employees holding conservative views. His Labor Board charge rests on Section 8(a) subsection (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to engage in activities for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection." Google discriminated against Damore by firing him "in retaliation" for activities protected by law, and also possibly to discourage such activities within the company, the charge sheet said. It appears clear that the protected activities Damore refers to are his communications, in the memo, with co-workers, about issues in the workplace.
Google was unavailable for comment, but the newspaper quoted an earlier statement from Google CEO Sundar Pichai that "An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
The document contained detailed criticism of Google's diversity initiatives and their effects on employees, and it said that the company's biases led to alienation among employees holding conservative views. His Labor Board charge rests on Section 8(a) subsection (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to engage in activities for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection." Google discriminated against Damore by firing him "in retaliation" for activities protected by law, and also possibly to discourage such activities within the company, the charge sheet said. It appears clear that the protected activities Damore refers to are his communications, in the memo, with co-workers, about issues in the workplace.
Google was unavailable for comment, but the newspaper quoted an earlier statement from Google CEO Sundar Pichai that "An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
Maybe you should read what Damore wrote. Copies are easily available from multiple sources, though look for the unedited copies, not the ones selectively edited to push an agenda. In short, he said there are differences to how men and women approach topics and Google's workplace tended to be more accommodating to men than women, and some changes could help the situation. This was interpreted the way your question implies (which I hope was an honest question rather than a passive-aggressive snark), and he was terminated for what was phrased as an attack on women.
"An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
weasel words
noun
words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.
-- Has the definition of harrassment and creating a hostile workplace culture broadened to include when the offensive activity in question is actively engaged in (through calmly / voluntarily reading a website) by the person who claims being harrassed or antagonized?
-- Does the person who claims being harrassed or feeling antagonized have complete free reign to define what constitutes this and is reasonable for someone to be fired over?
-- If all of the claims in the "manifesto" were true, does it change whether someone can legally be fired over it? (truth of course is hard to judge)
I haven't read the memo either but I have it on good authority that he said Hitler did nothing wrong.
Oh yeah and that was after his managers told him to drop it and he then made the company look bad.
You do realize that federal law explicitly grants workers the right to bring up discriminatory practices in the workplace, and therefore telling a person who brings it up is a federal law violation? And retaliating against them for bringing it up, or not dropping it, is also a violation? You realize that, right?
And for those unaware of how these laws work, the person bringing it up does NOT have to be a person negatively effected by the practices.
Let's put it this way - a very left wing employee of a very right wing company gets fired for advocating her views at the company. Do you still think the company is ok to violate free speech?>
There is nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to a particular job.
Maybe it's because you're ACTUALLY trolling, under the guise of "I just don't agree with you".
Because that's all leftists do, is claim to be the voice of reason when in actuality, they're just trolling anyone who can read and think logically. Since you are obviously incapable of using logic and critical thought when reading the memo, you simply state that it's "underwhelming" not because you disagree, but because you just "don't get it".
You may not even realize you're trolling, but you're still trolling nonetheless and deserve to be modded as such.
An important part of our culture is lively debate. Unless you start making arguments that threaten our position that we cannot refute.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to be written by an engineer - who thinks that because he's so, so smart, he can easily grasp argumentation, social sciences, and politics. But the reality is, this is the guy who - when he walks into a meeting - the room rolls its eyes because the meeting is going to take twice as long and accomplish half as much. But boy, are you going to hear his opinions.
The irony is staggering!
There is nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to a particular job.
You might want to let Colin Kaepernick know that. He seems to think otherwise.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I don't know, MightyMartian. The answer depends on whether or not you've stopped beating your wife yet.
Google fires James Damore for writing a conservative memo.
Liberals: It's a private company, they're not obligated to respect his free speech rights.
The NFL fires Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the anthem
Liberals: THEY VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Instead of being as clueless as all the other group-think-morons, you could actually read what he wrote and edited, which was based on feedback of coworkers. But then that would require effort, something virtual-signalling does not. And if you did read it, or got past the TLDR... Nice! Is it that your reading comprehension sucks? Or is it that you're so biased, it has clouded your comprehension?
> I found the arguments essentially rehashing rather old, tired talking points without adding anything new
> All he did was take a contentious topic and give the pot a very thorough stir without adding anything new (IMO).
Since none of the points are discussed as part of the topic, within Google (as he stated and Google then characterized as hateful), it's hard to understand how your mind comes up with some of these opinions.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
You do realize that federal law explicitly grants workers the right to bring up discriminatory practices in the workplace, and therefore telling a person [to stop] who brings it up is a federal law violation? And retaliating against them for bringing it up, or not dropping it, is also a violation? You realize that, right?
They didn't retaliate against him for bringing it up.
Umm, yes they did.
What happened is he didn't like his manager[']s answer and created a hostile workplace environment (something which they are 100% entitled to act on) by posting his opinions to the entire company.
He posted it to an internal mailing list dedicated to discussing issues about inclusion, not to the entire company. It was then forwarded by someone else who objected to his memo. So, posting a concern about inclusion to an internal mailing list dedicated to discussing issues of inclusion is now deemed creating a hostile working environment? Interesting theory you have there.
Now of course you can argue back and forth as to whether you think he's right and whether or not that did create a hostile workplace environment. But that doesn't make your interpretation of the law one I think is correct.
And sooner or later we'll get a definitive answer on this unless google settles which I doubt they will.
If you mean if a decision is made by a court, that will only address whether Google's actions in this case violated the law, not whether the interpretation I cited is correct. BTW, go do some research and you may find the law journals I pulled it from. Also, I doubt it will reach a trial since Google will make it go away before that point is reached.
No, this is the case where a liberal presents a view that maybe women don't want STEM careers. And those critical of him and who fired him didn't bother to actually read what he wrote, and just assumed the author was a conservative who said that women are inferior at STEM.
Really, this case has become a great litmus test at determining who actually reads the facts and decides for themselves, vs. who doesn't care about the facts as long as they can use the issue to publicly demonstrate that they're being compliant with the socially acceptable conclusion.
The Economist posted the response Google should have sent to James Damore here:
https://www.economist.com/news...
It is far more eloquent than a typical Slashdot comment. If you're interested in this subject, and in seeing what in my opinion is the most thoughtful commentary on this subject, the above article is highly recommended.
Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Here i thought it was the case of someone learning that there are consequences of causing a bunch of shit where you work. I get it, you conservatives have to latch on to every immoral dickhead that comes around just to make you feel like you're not the filthy, lonely, ungrateful dregs of society that you are.... all it really means is there's a few more dregs for decent people to be disgusted by.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Don't say that you want a dialogue about something, then fire somebody if one actually happens.
> He says things - over, and over, and over - like they're facts, with zero basis for them. His citations are often ridiculous, and he certainly does spend some time talking about how unbiased HE is.
Way to contradict yourself. He has zero basis... except for all the citations of scientific studies. What could be more ridiculous than hand-waving away all the evidence without bothering to engage with it? Why don't you read the memo some more and discuss that? Right, then you'd have to deal with scientific facts that make you uncomfortable.
So please explain the factual basis of your disagreement with the citations or GTFO. There are facts on this side in the paper. You haven't presented even one specific factual basis for disagreement. That only serves to show people that you know your basis for arguing is weak and you therefore are reluctant to disclose any specific factual disagreements.
In short, facts or GTFO.
the fact that this all shakes down in public is insight to the dysfunction of the company. Like when a family argument spills out into the street.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
In case you've forgotten, here's an unretouched photo of Mr Damore with two former co-workers who had just had their way with him. If you look closely, you can see that one is still holding the fork that Damore used to toss his salad. According to several other co-workers, it was entirely consensual.
I want you to take a step back and think about how you're trying to shame him based on his physical appearance and mock him by implying his sexuality, and then think about how you'd feel about anybody who did that to a woman for any reason.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
The memo is here. There are these crazy things called "quotes" that one normally uses to support a particular point like that. You have posted six times on this story as of a moment ago when I went here and counted. I note a conspicuous lack of supporting quotes in your posting.
I do not and will not believe that you have read the actual, uncensored memo until and unless you quote from the memo to support your claims. You appear to have read reports about the memo while ignoring the memo itself and then conflated what's been reported about the memo with that which was actually written. This is hilariously bad because some outlets have done stupid things like strip all the citations.
Because what reader would want to bother with pesky things like facts in a discussion like this?
> However, as much as you might use the dogwhistle of "free speech," this has nothing to do with it; Google is not the government
Funny thing about that, but California's free speech protections go beyond just the First Amendment. Damore may have a state law claim under California's laws that prohibits discrimination based on political activities or affiliations. I think he would have to raise that claim in California's courts, rather than the NLRB, however, so I'm not clear that it will ever get heard.
So there is a free speech angle here, though I can imagine that many of the courts in CA might be hostile to his claims.
Perhaps the issue is your baseless assertion that you've determined his conclusions are invalid because his citations are [all the negative characterizations], when neither you nor any of his other critics have actually presented evidence to support that argument. That's what makes it a troll argument. I've already commented so couldn't mod either way, but had you backed up your criticisms of his citations with research invalidating those papers, which weren't riddled with flaws, biases, etc, themselves, I would have been very interested in reading it and would have upmodded. But repeating the same old "Well I think the science he cited is wrong" is just a troll at this point without counter-cites.
It is kind of ironic that right now Google is facing a lawsuit for discriminating against women, and also one for discriminating against men. Where will the insanity end??
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
>Remains to be seen: I don't see google settling out of court on this one.
I do. A couple of mill in return for silence would be far more convenient for the company than having it's internal communications dragged through open court. I've deal with big corporation lawyers enough to know this angle will have been considered.
I'd say that it is more than enough, and almost certainly would get you fired.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So, you're saying he's a modern day civil rights leader, but we shouldn't listen to him because you think he's gay? This is one of your least coherent insults, and that's saying a lot.
Referring to free speech as a dog whistle, as if Nazis supported free speech, which is something no educated person even remotely believes, is so ludicrous as to defy comprehension.
Free speech is the bedrock of a free society. Either you support free speech for all, or you are a wannabe dictator who thinks you have the right to censor others. You had better hope the censors are not turned on you.
It is kind of ironic that right now Google is facing a lawsuit for discriminating against women, and also one for discriminating against men. Where will the insanity end??
When we start discriminating against people for machines.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Why does a conservative snowflake's need to work only with men trump my desire to not work with conservative snowflakes?
No one said that. You aren't addressing what the man wrote; you're addressing the misinformation spread about what the man wrote. Inform yourself, and the outrage you're feeling will subside.
Unless, perhaps, you enjoy being outraged. In that case, avoid looking up the actual facts.
Been looking for a down-mod badge for a while. Thanks!
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
It's entirely valid to consider it sloppy work. However, have you applied the same standard to the writings that got us into this echo chamber in the first place?
It's everything from fake stats, to motivated reasoning, to outright cult indoctrination. But because it's feminism, criticising it as a man gets you dismissed as a misogynist who's mansplaining women's issues to them. Strangely, these same people don't seem to see anything wrong with women talking down to men and dictating how feminism is going to solve men's issues... Something which in the history of the movement they've never once done.
Damore's memo has to be seen in the context of a company that pushes the view is criticizing as official dogma. In that light, what he's done is not only a valiant effort, it's speaking truth to power from a position of oppression. The thing social justice pretends to care about.
You seem to be a tool, as he's not making any such claim. What he is claiming is that owners are engaging in collusion to deny him a job, deliberately passing him over for inferior quarterbacks.
Speaking of the Constitution, though, it's the government paying the NFL for players to be on the field during the National Jingoism, making it a free speech issue as well.
Well yeah, you can't exactly say a bunch of scientific papers are wrong by supplying flawed ones yourself.
The second link is an opinion piece with no scientific debate simply asserting how wrong all mischaracterizations were like everyone else, the first was more interesting, but of the portion that wasn't just explaining how horrible the author thought his opinions were without challenging the facts, and consisted of actual scientific references, the author has a few valid points here and there, but the bias is so incredibly thick and it's full of so much "no you're wrong and you're a racist sexist because I say so" it doesn't even seem worth pursuing the nitpicks; and there's lots of attacking straw men (by erroneously claiming Damore is asserting biology *alone* accounts for something, then linking to evidence for nature and nurture). I mean seriously, the author explicitly states we shouldn't judge people on their individual merits.. how can you really take that as a serious rebuttal? It's clear someone on the far left was extremely personally offended and tried to take it apart, but the extreme bias and desperation produced nothing but opinion, straw men, and minor nitpicks, among the small percentage of the article that actually directly addressed the actual content.
But that's not a comment I would mod down, since you did at least try to back up the opinion with a non-troll source. Might not mod it up since it's wrong and contradicted by lots of other scientists, but not down.
I mean seriously, the author explicitly states we shouldn't judge people on their individual merits.. how can you really take that as a serious rebuttal?
This is actually the premise behind social justice. Really, it is. I've been told by at least 6 people here on slashdot that if you have any success at all in life when there are other people who don't, then that is an injustice no different than if you had stolen from somebody else. So in other words, social justice says to throw out the Martin Luther King message that people should be judged by the content of their character, and unfortunately, postmodern liberalism has done precisely this.
I'm a liberal. The view below is mine, but typical amongst the liberals I know.
I think that there are significant issues with equality of opportunity to be dealt with in society, but equality of outcome is impossible as people have different capabilities. I don't think that your opportunities should be constrained because of membership of a group, and that instead your capabilities should determine things within a meritocracy.
There are some complexities in that some may need additional support, and given how much of a child's developmental path is determined before school, equality of opportunity is very difficult to achieve.
How to achieve equality of opportunity universally is not simple, but removing gross discrimination is a first step.
Both lost their jobs and can express their views or whine (depending on your own view) as much as they please.
did we read the same document...? Or is it that you've never had to administer a project before and so don't know how many nonsense assumptions he made?
It is not the best thing since the bible, it is not novel, it is not an entertaining read. However since it is the argument of the discussion, one shoul read it before posting his/her insights.
I read his "essay" in full. It's not completely bad, it has few good points, it has several bad ones, but ultimately this is about the image of the company.
All in all, no matter how much he tried to make it technical, cold or like a scientific study, it's still basically - men are biologically more apt to some types of jobs rather than women, the "extreme left" is hindering Google as a business, and attempts to bring more women into the company is getting to some extremes he doesn't like and feels threatened by.
Are there possibly some extreme left inside Google that is blindly against his views? Probably yes. Could they have had a hand in leaking the essay which ultimately led to him being fired? Also probably yes.
But ultimately, the problem is that Google could not keep him as an employee without it becoming a huge liability. He's smart enough to realize that. His defense will fail because Google will put it up that his attempt of "mutual aid or protection" was obviously damaging to the company as a whole, to several employees, and to general company policies. He has no ground to stand.
The press took his essay to say it's an attempt to biologically label women as inferior. It's not exactly that, nor it is what the full thing is about, but that's the image that was left.
With this, it's pretty much unsustainable to keep him there both for Google's image as a company, and as an employee that would most likely create an internal divide that the company really cannot afford.
Now, Google is a company that has been struggling, spending a whole ton of money, and reforming itself internally to adopt a more progressive role and go exactly against speeches like his. This is probably the current money sinkhole there, as it is on several other social networks.
His steps towards a better company, at least some of them, are not bad per se, but the way he put it isn't great for anyone.
It's all about the tone. There's a bunch of useful stuff in his write up, but unfortunately, it came with a bunch of other stuff that threw mud in entire areas where Google is investing a whole lot of money and effort. It calls for elimination of parts of Google. It certainly wasn't only mutual aid and protection, it was also an attack on parts of Google's internal structure. And to make things worse, he politicized his views - the sort of polarization that Google and other big companies are definitely trying to run away from. There's a lot of unjustified and baseless labeling in his speech where he keeps trying to defend stereotypification and labeling with general statistics. It's poor science at best, prejudice at worst.
If Google kept him there, even if the argument was in defense of free speech or whatever, it would bring the polarization and toxicity of political discussions inside the company more than it probably already is.
This is a personal opinion of course, but I think Google did the right thing. Even if he somehow wins his complaint, in the long run it'll be far less damaging to the company as a whole.
No, this is assholes taking the conservative name because its sounds better than "the assholes" and "alt-right" has taken on a pretty negative tone recently, even in conservative media.
It must suck to be a decent conservative (or a Republican) these days. All of your valid arguments and viewpoints are grossly overshadowed by bullshit like this, Charlottesville, etc. "Women should stay in the kitchen" or "blacks should still be slaves" are just not really valid political viewpoints anywhere on the spectrum anymore.
Or at least they weren't before the US elected a president who wants to set the country back 200 years in terms of civil rights and basic human decency. It won't be long before China's calling the US out for human rights violations the way things are going.
Which is why metamoderation is a thing. Of course that's just one step further down the potential rabbit hole..
It's not protected, as long as the company disagrees with you?
No, its not protected at all. The first amendment only applies when the government is infringing free speech -- private entities, including companies, are not restricted in any way and can prevent all the free speech in the world if they want -- at least in whatever parts of the world they have jurisdiction over.
Now that said, barring things like libel, you're welcome to walk 10 feet away from the company's headquarters and on to private land and free speech the hell out of them if you want. They don't have any jurisdiction there. (Of course, they could file a complaint with the police and you may be removed on charged unrelated to your actual speech such as being a public nuisance, and there's room for argument there as that IS the government getting involved at that point, and its a "your right to speech vs everyone else' right to not be annoyed by you" problem at that point.)
Do you still think the company is ok to violate free speech?
I don't know if its "ok" morally, but its certainly ok legally since the company is (presumably) not a government entity and is thus not bound by the first amendment.
So only some people get protection from very powerful people?
This is a far far bigger problem than simple speech. We may see exactly how big a problem in the next few weeks if Trump decides to start pardoning people that Mueller's pulling in.
No, this is the case where a liberal presents a view that maybe women don't want STEM careers.
Uh no, you're leaving out the most important part. His assertion is that maybe women don't want STEM careers, and therefore that's why they're having a hard time at google. But his assertion is false, and so is his conclusion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why hasn't the person that leaked it been disciplined? They're the person that damaged Google's reputation. Damore merely wrote a document for internal use.
I've never written "These views are mine and mine alone" on a document created for internal use. I've never written it on one written for external use either, as those do represent my employer.
so, it really only matters what his contract said. could he be fired for this legally? yes. his comment makes no difference except to burn bridges he's never seen before. what a dumbass. it's crazy how self-described libertarians are sticking up for him. he's like the posterchild for the free market removing a cancer.
Conservatives in general oppose welfare
Only for "other people". They're more than happy to receive it.
so "ungrateful" is hardly a useful label either
I think it's okay. They think they deserve the handouts they'd deny to others because they believe themselves to be the "right kind of people" who "deserve it". 'Grateful' isn't an emotion I'd associate with them.
Required reading for internet skeptics
That step was accomplished decades ago.
If you don't see that, you're not a "liberal", you're a neo-Marxist.
So is it the case that the conservative view is that women are inferior in STEM careers?
Hard to tell what all conservatives think.
There really wasn't anything exactly wrong in his memo, and I doubt that it reflects all conservative thought.
His mistake was circulating it as a memo.That was what did the dumbass in.
There is no denying that there is a powerful faction that demand that all accept the notion that men and women are exactly alike in the way that their minds work, and any differences are culturally instilled. So that except for artificial distinctions enforced by the patriarchy, there would be almost a 1:1 ratio in all fields.
One disagrees with that notion at their own risk, as is quite clear here.
I'll merely point out that it is rather strange that in a patriarchy, a person who expresses viewpoints that might be considered patriarchal is fired for it.
Funny thing is I would have fired him as well, for being so stupid as to send a memo with a forbidden opinion.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You have the most bizarre take on such a straightforward document. His points were:
* Men and women, as groups, as statistically different psychologically
* The way Google recruits and approaches problems is biased towards men, because it's focused on a narrow aspect of the job that men are more likely to be interested in
* Google should fix that, as a better way to improve the gender ratio than what they do now
Seems like a legitimate topic for discussion on a mailing list about inclusion.
When I interviewed at Google it was the least social interview experience I've had (or at least tied with Facebook). No soft skill or team fit type questions at all. No leadership skills probing questions at all. Purely design and coding questions, and in those questions, the interviewer was the least interactive of any place I've interviewed (and I've interviewed at a lot of places including 4 of the Big 5).
Do you see the problem there? Solving purely abstract technical problems with no social interaction is less than half the job at any development shop I've worked at. It's an important skill set to interview for, to be sure, but it's far from the whole picture, and statistically it's biased towards men.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
California law trumps his employment contract
Yeah, someone posting their view on Jews totally wouldn't have a negative view on any Jewish coworkers. Oddly enough most human beings have emotions.
Whoa, hold on.
I am convinced that as a generalization, that men and women think differently.
I am likewise convinced that individual women and men do not all think alike
Therefore, any woman who wishes to work in a field where her thinking process lends itself to working in the field is welcomed to work there.
And of the female engineers and scientists and technicians I've worked with, almost all were quite competent. There was one unfortunate exception, who got into the field and was miserable, eventually leaving to start a day-care center.
Thinking that there are differences in thought processes is not holding negative views.
Those women I worked with were highly capable, and were highly capable by virtue of how their minds worked.
Counter example is my spouse, who is every bit as intelligent as me, but her thought process is geared more toward an accounting and organizational outlook, or a dear friend woman who is scary smart, yet very much more "traditional feminine" in her outlook, and makes a living as an artist.
I could give more examples, but those will suffice.
Point is, neither my wife nor this lady friend would ever thrive in what I do. They take great amusement with my "overly" analytical approach to everything. My STEM lady friends rather like my approach to the world.
Point also is that I could never do what they do proficiently. One of the most destructive aspects of modern education is the lie that "You can be anything you want - if you only try hard enough." for 90 precet of us, that is simply not true.
And as strange as it might seem to some in here, for a person who expresses opinions not in line with the present day dogma, that there is no difference between male and female, I have quite a few female friends. Both in male dominated fields, and more "traditional" situations.
I wonder if it is because I make my judgements on the individual level, and not try to force fit ideology to gender, which is as prevalent on the left as well as on the right.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
As opposed to the right who haven't had any ideas since Reagan.
Not true at all: what's missing is a Republican leader who is as good at articulating the ideas of the right as Reagan was. This is because the GOP stopped being conservative a couple decades ago (except on meaningless distraction-devices like gay marriage), so thoughtful people on the right aren't interested in the GOP.
Trump is trying to appeal to where conservatives are now, but he's sort of an idiot and neither understands the ideology nor can he articulate much of anything.
Meanwhile Clinton-style Dems and Bush-style Republicans are the same in all but a few donors. Both parties have wandered fairly far from their base, and the cracks are showing on both sides.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
No, this is the case where a liberal presents a view that maybe women don't want STEM careers.
Uh no, you're leaving out the most important part. His assertion is that maybe women don't want STEM careers, and therefore that's why they're having a hard time at google. But his assertion is false, and so is his conclusion.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if many women don't want STEM careers though.
It's only my experience that on a very general level, there is a different thought process between men and women. On an individual level, there are no hard and fast differences. I cannot tell unless I know them and have been around them.
I look at both the conservative and liberal concepts of how females "are" as very prejudiced and stereotyped. To the point where they remind me of the Bell curve fallacy, in which racists try to declare one race superior to another.
Which is, even if true, it is useless, because it does not tell me one single thing about any individual.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It must suck to be a decent conservative (or a Republican) these days.
You have no idea. I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid, that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible, and that everyone gets a chance on the individual level.
And I think for myself, rather than get my ideology handed to me. I think that's what the crypto-conservatives really hate.
Anyhow, it's kind of lonely out here.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I don't think Google let him go because he sent out the memo. They probably let him go because the memo was becoming a point of embarrassment for the company. Too many people on all sides of the issues raised in the memo were complaining about the company which needed to be stopped as quickly as possible. Easiest way to do that is to release the employee behind the memo. So it's not the impact of the memo inside the company that led to his removal but the memo going public outside the company
Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin comments on an impresario in the news for allegations, which the subject of these allegatiions has as much as admitted, that he had assaulted many women. Mr. Baldwin remarks on Twitter or other public places that "everyone knew" what was going on but said impresario was not held to account because "women accepted settlements."
The response to Mr. Baldwin was yes, women accepted financial settlements in exchange for their silence but what choice did they have given how the "system is rigged"? Excellent point, and there is also a "you go first" problem. Once many women come forward with corroborated stories, it is not anywhere near as hard as if you are the first woman to come forward against a well-connected man and how you as the accuser are going to be put on trial.
But that is not how the correct-thinking persons are responding to the once correct-thinking Alec Baldwin. There is not a conversation of the form, "This wouldn't have been such a problem if the women hadn't accepted financial settlements" to which the response could be offered, "Yes, I see your point that maintaining silence perpetuates the problem. But you also have to take into account that the first woman to speak out will be facing tremendous obstacles, especially not knowing if other women will follow in speaking out."
No, Mr. Baldwin offers his opinion and then it is, "Oh the Humanity! How can Baldwin make such a sexist, insensitive remark? Alec Baldwin is the worst sort of man in Hollywood with no regard for what women in Hollywood go through! Mr. Baldwin's career is finished."
The subject here is a somewhat different aspect of men's inhumanity to women, but do not many of the "debunkings" of James Damore, here and elsewhere, fit this pattern?
Just asking.
I had thought that Mr. Damore posted to an internal Google message board where employees were encouraged to post their views on the diversity policy?
If he had posted publically in his role as a Google employee, I would concur with the sobriquet "dumbass."
Had he on his own initiative circulated an "you are entitled to reading my opinion" memo within Google, also "dumbass."
Since he responded to an internal Google request to carry on a conversation on a potentially controversial company policy . . . wait, "conversation" doesn't mean having a back-and-forth exchange of views, "conversation" means the company speaks with one voice and the employee politely listens. This is a widely known social convention, this is not by everyone in the world apart from maybe a 'spergie coder. Never mind, "dumbass"!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I would expect this from an AC, not someone that at least pretends to have an informed opinion.
Engineer? He has a degree in biology. Also, you can betcha an engineer will research his topic before diving in, unlike the CEO type, who will certainly rush in with a virtue signalling opinion rather than science.
Refusing to play the ball is not a free speech issue. Neither is refusing to stand when you are supposed to. And it's not collusion when everyone simultaneously comes to the same conclusion.
> Well, by reading the memo, for one.
So that isn't rehashed, by the standard you set. The mental gymnastics you employ, are staggeringly transparent.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
They've got ideologues setting policy bases on post modernism. The memo recounts a fair bit of current research behavioral psychology as backed by peer reviewed double blind studies. Those studies reveal results that are counter to some of the tenets of post modernism. The ideologues demanded that he be fired based on a dishonest representation of the contents of the memo, the motives of the author and based on it being a heresy.
Given that the memo was a communication eliciting discussion about the race and gender based employment practices as Google, and that the input was solicited by Google I find that Google is behaving dishonestly at the least. The vast majority of the negative coverage of the memo misrepresents what it says or asserts that the ideas expressed are discredited which is untrue. They do appear to be counter to the dominant political groupthink at Google however.
They're both awful. But Trump is awful in a way that might change things in the long run.
In the meantime, the supreme court is good for a generation, easy. More when Ginsburg drops.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
After editing it.
Once Damore collects from Google, he will be coming for those outlets that libeled him. He's set for life.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Why are you discussing a caricature of a "conservative snowflake" in a discussion about a liberal's heartfelt desire to make the workplace more inclusive of women?
Do you not have the intelligence to understand what Damore was writing?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Eh, Virtue Signaling is real. And I say that as a liberal who loves fags and safe spaces.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid,
Sure, that's a conservative value...
that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible,
...but that's a liberal one...
and that everyone gets a chance on the individual level.
...and there's no value more liberal than equality.
Thanks, though, whatever you call yourself.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm a liberal.
A modern liberal or a postmodern liberal? My beliefs tend to align really well with the former (also called classical liberals,) but far less so the later, and I would really like to see a general shift in political ideologies back in that direction. Interestingly, postmodern conservatives and liberals seem to think they're more like them than the other side is, when in reality they're both very far from it.
I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid,
Sure, that's a conservative value...
that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible,
...but that's a liberal one...
Keeping in mind that Goldwater was pro choice and anti-religious fundamentalist, I'm right in step with him:
Fundies:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Gay Rights:
"The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least – and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."
Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar"
Abortion:
A woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.
Environmentalism
While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.
I think the problem is that it's so difficult to see just how horribly today's crypto-conservatives have drifted into whatever the hell they have become. It isn't conservatism, but corporatism. And they have found a wicked successful formula. Single issue voters of the Fundamentalist stripe Ex-Dixiecrats who can no more let go of theire racism than the people in the middle east can get over whatever the hell got them started thousands of years ago, And poor people who can be convinced to vote against their own interests. And now they have outside help.
Some people might call Goldwater's tendencies Libertarian, but even today's libertarians are just Republicans that won't take telling. "Don't let the Government tell you what to do - Jaywalk for Jesus!"
Anyhow, Barry was an interesting fellow who is well worth looking into. I don't agree with everything on his agenda, but he respected freedom of individuals. was open to compromise, which is the only way a government can function (today's federal guvmint is exhibit A) Hated Fundamentalists, and we need conservatives like him badly.
He made some pretty funny quips at times too
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
California law trumps his employment contract
Sure it does, but it is amusing to see libertarians try to justify how this time it's good for the government to do what their ideology says it should never be allowed to do.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
He wants to play ball, dumbass.
When the government is paying for it? Of course it is - dumbass.
Willful dumbfuckery. The military is directly paying the NFL for anthem celebrations as a recruitment ad - which is straight up jingoism.