Slashdot Mirror
'I See Things Differently': James Damore on his Autism and the Google Memo (theguardian.com)
"James Damore opens up about his regrets -- and how autism may have shaped his experience of the world," writes the west coast bureau chief for the Guardian. An anonymous reader quotes their report:
The experience has prompted some introspection. In the course of several weeks of conversation using Google's instant messaging service, which Damore prefers to face-to-face communication, he opened up about an autism diagnosis that may in part explain the difficulties he experienced with his memo. He believes he has a problem understanding how his words will be interpreted by other people... It wasn't until his mid-20s, after completing research in computational biology at Princeton and MIT, and starting a PhD at Harvard, that Damore was diagnosed with autism, although he was told he had a milder version of the condition known as "high-functioning autism"...
Damore argues that Google's focus on avoiding "micro-aggressions" is "much harder for someone with autism to follow". But he stops short of saying autistic employees should be given more leniency if they unintentionally offend people at work. "I wouldn't necessarily treat someone differently," he explains. "But it definitely helps to understand where they're coming from." I ask Damore if, looking back over the last few months, he feels that his difficult experience with the memo and social media may be related to being on the spectrum. "Yeah, there's definitely been some self-reflection," he says. "Predicting controversies requires predicting what emotional reaction people will have to something. And that's not something that I excel at -- although I'm working on it."
Damore argues that Google's focus on avoiding "micro-aggressions" is "much harder for someone with autism to follow". But he stops short of saying autistic employees should be given more leniency if they unintentionally offend people at work. "I wouldn't necessarily treat someone differently," he explains. "But it definitely helps to understand where they're coming from." I ask Damore if, looking back over the last few months, he feels that his difficult experience with the memo and social media may be related to being on the spectrum. "Yeah, there's definitely been some self-reflection," he says. "Predicting controversies requires predicting what emotional reaction people will have to something. And that's not something that I excel at -- although I'm working on it."
Nope nope nope nope. Duck Google.
implication that a rational argument should not be offered (and should be regretted once offered)because it would hurt feelings is not acceptable. autistic state of author of argument is irrelevant.
NO, intolerance of what you believe is just as bad as intolerance of what you are. Intolerance is intolerance. It's the same thing. There is no excuse for Google's behavior.
Everything instantly gets turned up to 11.
L'Idiot
This sounds like Asperger's Syndrome to me (which I'm aware is on the Autism spectrum), I'm wondering how that's different from "high-functioning Autism."
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
That's why when I attend funerals, I make a speech suggesting that there is no evidence of an afterlife, and that the deceased's death was objectively meaningless. Don't even ask what I say at weddings.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I don't he's right in this regard. His original analysis of intellectual monoculture was better. I say this because also normal people are also having similar problems. I think the line of reasoning proposed by Mr. Damore here is dangerous as it implies that difficulties to conform to the lunacy of this new authorian left is some sort of mental illness. We've seen that before and it wasn't pretty.
Knowing what angers the modern intelligenzia requires constant following of their social media environment. I believe that is, in part, the purpose of the whole thing. For example, they don't make noice about trans-people because they are worried about their well being. (If they would, they would ask them for an opinion and figure out quite quickly that they don't want to be the battle ground of the next proxy culture war. On the contrary, they want to be left alone.) The whole point is to signal ideolgical group identity and demand conformity.
So this clown now pretends to be a minority and demands to be treated specially?
Fuck him. He already has shown that he's a simple racist, confirmed by his association with the fucking Klan.
If you want to see why there was such a backlash to his memo, I think it can be made clearer in light of the #metoo discussion we are presently having. The scales are tipped the way they are these days because of corrupt men at the top taking what they feel is entitled to them, including unwanted groping, kissing, and outright rape. While the general public may be shocked by what is transpiring, it has been known to HR departments for decades. In the case of the major tech firm I used to work for, it was always quietly dealt with or outright swept under the rug, paying a quiet settlement and forcing the victim into a nondisclosure agreement. The victimizer got a slap on the wrist but was consideres too important to let go. That's the backdrop for this memo and why it landed with a wet splat. It is callous to those who have had illegal things done to them against their will at work. Those are just the women with the courage to come forward. Many never speak out.
I don't have much sympathy for DaMoore, he could have made his helpful suggestions directly to HR. He wanted the most attention though. It was a totally voluntary thing he did. Ducking behind autism doesn't save him and doesn't make what he did less callous or more correct. His memo reads like the old trope of telling women to smile more to the eyes of someone with this background.
Posted as A.C. for obvious reasons.
"From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink — greetings!"
That is a rational rebuttal that requires input of the emotional nature. Atheists hate heretics as much as the next person. You would understand this if your morality was not inconsequential because you have a criminal mind.
The question is, how are any of those things relevant for the memo? I don't recall this specific problem being mentioned it in, or in any other way being relevant to the other issues that he does mention.
Ezekiel 23:20
Damore's memo was just misogynist bullshit.
That's a very cheap claim to make without any reasoning. That's probably it's so popular on Twitter and such (mostly because reasoning doesn't fit into 140 characters).
It's certainly not an excuse that deserves instant forgiveness, he'll have to do a fuck of a lot more than that.?
He doesn't need any excuse or forgiveness. It's not like he stole something or killed someone.
Ezekiel 23:20
In the case of the major tech firm I used to work for, it was always quietly dealt with or outright swept under the rug, paying a quiet settlement and forcing the victim into a nondisclosure agreement
And you know that how, if it was a quiet settlement involving a NDA? You. Are. Full. Of. Shit.
It's the normies who are incapable of understanding the other point of view, but the autist can understand all POV simultaneously.
He wanted the most attention though. It was a totally voluntary thing he did.
He wanted the most attention, so he posted something in a closed newsgroup? What kind of logic is that?
Posted as A.C. for obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons, BeauHD (1)?
Ezekiel 23:20
Wow saying men and women are different and have different abilities and interests is misogynistic ?
Thankfully this sort of stupidity's days are numbered and the number is a small one.
Trying to use the #Metoo discussion to build your own public profile like that is vile and disgusting. This is completely unrelated to what this story is about, you're just trying to get attention.
It is good that he started reflecting. But he still has a long way to go. He got a friendly journalist for this article and that is OK, since he also got a lot of the other kind lately.
But even this author cannot help noticing, that he has been cherry-picking and using studies where even their authors say, that his conclusion are not supported by the studies. It is not presenting (disputed) facts that drew the fire to him, but putting them into an invalid context to (badly) veil his misogynistic undertones.
In my impression his (not well written) memo was mainly a whiny complaint about brilliant men like him having to put up with diversity issues. It is rather that attitude that will make him hard to employ because companies (like Google did) will judge him to be a risk for their image. And I do not see him working on this issue yet.
His bad luck was that this memo drew a lot of attention. But he did everything to get this attention and to his own demise he succeeded with it.
I hope he will not end up as a pariah in the tech industry. But two things need to happen for that: He has to fully understand what he did and others need to give him a second chance. The chances for either do not seem good at the moment.
Will you do my Eulogy? That is literally the most comforting thought you could have when someone dies. Don't worry ... nobody is in danger of spending an eternity in Hell; any Hell you experience is karmically based on your behavior and the behavior of those in your sphere of influence in the here and now, and any way you slice it he's good now.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Observing reality as it is should override "seeing things differently". So there's something to work on.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
So when a woman comes up to me at work talking about her new stilletos and how cute they are I should tell her she ain't gonna get any pussy wearing those? "The Rock Test" is fucking stupid, and I can assure you if you treat all women the same, and especially if you treat them all as you would Dwayne Johnson, things will not go well.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So you didn't read the memo?
You should watch this guy get interviewed, he's a hell of a lot nicer than you...or me.
> If you want to see why there was such a backlash to his memo, I think it can be made clearer in light of the #metoo discussion we are presently having.
I don't see why. The memo didn't deal with rape at work in any kind of way. It had a different subject.
> In the case of the major tech firm I used to work for, it was always quietly dealt with or outright swept under the rug, paying a quiet settlement and forcing the victim into a nondisclosure agreement. The victimizer got a slap on the wrist but was consideres too important to let go.
Good on you for speaking out now, then! Instead of, say, standing up for the victims at the time when it actually happened. Really shows what you're made of.
> That's the backdrop for this memo and why it landed with a wet splat. It is callous to those who have had illegal things done to them against their will at work.
Nope. Because this memo was not about rape at work.
> I don't have much sympathy for DaMoore, he could have made his helpful suggestions directly to HR. He wanted the most attention though.
No; he was taking part in an ongoing internal discussion and posting a _reply_ on an _internal_ forum in Google. He was not the person who broke company confidentiality and posted it on the internet. Incidentally, was this person ever found and punished?
> goatse
And don't forget to mention his KKK-membership, his nazi sympathies, the fact that he eats baby pandas every sunday, and the fact that he is a known child molester. Geez...
I don't share your optimism. A very large number of people is deeply invested in the idea that society can be created as an utopia. They feel actively threatened by statements contradicting that view, and will not stop at anything to destroy the threat.
Damore's memo was not only factual but about as uncontroversial, well-written, and polite as a memo could be. The fact that one of the world's most powerful companies is being managed by emotional infants, that feeling leaders (I won't call them "thought leaders") are pressuring him to recant, and that even on Slashdot there are people attacking him, is pathetic and embarrassing.
If humanity is too emotional to even deal with obvious, mundane, and benign facts, there isn't much to say in favor of humanity.
Maybe the problem isn't with autists, but with the absurdly defective normies.
people break NDAs privately to their friends all the fucking time. Especially if the NDA is "shut up about this bad thing that happened to you that probably affects your mood and demeanor for a while, and oh by the way we're not meaningfully punishing your abuser because money is more important than you",
I don't know what you're full of, but it's definitely not empathy or perspektiveneinnehmen.
If anything the problem is that his memo tried too hard to be rational, to the point where it blinkered him to issues that don't have simple statistical definitions.
For example, he says that women are on average more neurotic, and that explains some of the gender gap. The problem with this argument is that it minimizes the other issues that cause the gap, which was in fact the entire point of his memo. It's also a huge generalization and the conclusion massively exaggerates the significance of the test results.
Damore also undermines his claim to be rational with his tweets. Once fired and free to speak his mind without filter, it becomes obvious what his biases are.
https://twitter.com/JamesADamo...
https://twitter.com/JamesADamo...
A since deleted tweet documented here also demonstrates just how naive Damore is, and how he fails to understand historical context before making bold statements.
because it would hurt feelings is not acceptable
Unfortunately, it is very hard to have a rational conversation about these issues because Damore supporters mod down any dissent as "flamebait" or "troll".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In what way was he wrong? His observations seem pretty accurate and his reasoning is pretty sound. The only thing he did wrong was to say something that society does not allow to be said.
Oh, i'm sure you do.
that's the impression I get from reading this and every other article about it.
The overdiagnosis of autism and Aspergers is not useful. Many of us have difficulties in social situations. Being officially diagnosed provides an excuse to stop trying. It also provides an excuse for other people to write you off, and ignore what you say.
Damore's letter was on point. Google, and apparently most of Silicon Valley, is stuffed full of SJWs and political correctness, and this needs to stop. Diversity is oh so important, as long as it does not include diversity of opinion. Having a non-PC opinion cannot be tolerated, in fact, counts as a micro-aggression against whoever chooses to feel offended that day.
It's a total shame that Damore is retreating into an autism diagnosis. Piss off the SJWs? The best defense is a good offense. Don't apologize, don't excuse yourself. Instead, keep right on telling them that they're full of shit.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Damore's memo was just misogynist bullshi
I actually found it rather presidential...
Where is the outrage toward "transgender" people who insist not only that "gender" is indeed concrete rather than wholly abstract but at the same time entirely separate from sex and defined in a wholly subjective and ambiguous way by every individual as they desire moment-to-moment?
How is that not completely contradictory to every aspect of feminist and egalitarian principals? Such individuals rather than asking to be treated fairly and equally want to be stereotyped according to their own self-stereotype which incorporates many misogynistic aspects and champions them as ideals!
You said "Thankfully this sort of stupidity's days are numbered"; just wait and see how much worse it will continue to get.
This is a fundamental rejection of rationality and objectivity on a frightening scale in our society. "I don't care if I'm right or wrong, this is how I feel."
Nobody gave a flying fuck when Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham openly admitted to being rapists and pedophiles. Nobody cared when Amherst expelled a man who was raped while unconscious because his rapists claimed to have "withdrawn consent".
Your entire argument falls flat on its face when confronted with reality. This isn't about victims or equality, it's a witch hunt where all it takes is a social media post to ruin people's entire lives and career without a shred of evidence. Hell a Welsh Labor MP killed himself because he was suspended on charges he wasn't even allowed to know. We've literally hit the point where people are having their lives ruined and aren't even allowed to know what they're being accused of.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
It's true that many people have difficulty even if we've not been diagnosed with anything.
I disagree that it gives someone an excuse to stop trying. It shines a light on what may be wrong and hopefully there are things they can try to improve the situation.
I do agree with the flip side of what you said as far as providing others with an excuse to write you off. It's easy for people to just say someone has a problem or a condition and should therefore not be paid any attention to.
And how would one go about being diagnosed anyway? Do people actually go to the doctor if they're not physically ill? Yeah, of course they do, but many do not. Bad experiences or other underlying conditions may actually make them anxious or even fearful of talking about how they interact with and view the world.
I love watching people like you try so desperately to flip the term "snowflake" around that, like every other slur you've invented, you just throw it randomly in sentences as a sort of generic grammatical exclamation point.
Also those two tweets are both perfectly rational and one is supported by so much hard data that it's an entire field of research unto itself in political science. Right up through the end of the Vietnam war, and continuing today in less developed countries, women were and are substantially more conservative socially and politically than men. This is an objective fact. It's a direct result of the fact that those roles evolved over thousands upon thousands of years to ensure human survival during the millenia we went without modern medicine and birth control and an information-age economy.
As for not challenging women just look at what happens to people that do. Literally an entire slur has been invented just to silence people who disagree with women about anything, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
An official diagnosis (which I got 23 years ago at age 46) can provide the excuses you mention - but it doesn't have to. An individual's awareness of their own profile of cognitive strengths and weaknesses can lead them to seek workarounds for, or make extra effort in, problem areas. Other people's informed awareness can lead them to try meeting an autistic individual halfway in reaching understanding; a useful strategy in general. Neither of those sound anything like a retreat...
Defend the down-modding of my post as flamebait. Explain why it is purely inflammatory and malicious.
Otherwise you have to accept that it's just people who are offended and upset trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
... that the people who are loudest in claiming to be highly empathetic never make the slightest effort to empathize with those who are not naturally empathetic. Isn't that odd?
And if we are so enthusiastic for inclusiveness and diversity and not offending anyone, how come there is no tolerance of those who identify as autistic or near-autistic?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I would have thought that the "Rock Test" was simple enough, but apparently no. If Dwayne Johnson comes up to you talking about his stilettos, answer as you see fit. If he comes to you talking about a proposal for the project, don't answer as if he talked about his stilettos.
Posted as A.C. for obvious reasons.
TFTFY.
Damore's memo was just misogynist bullshit.
That's a very cheap claim to make without any reasoning.
It's been reasoned many times before. For example here are two rather well written articles about it:
https://www.quora.com/What-do-...
https://www.economist.com/news...
Now, the defenses in respnse to these articles involve giving huge amounts of benefit of the doubt to the point of ignoring almost everything implied or that follows from the arguments in the memo. That's one option I guess except that here's James Damore in his own words:
https://www.salon.com/2017/09/...
https://mobile.twitter.com/Jam...
https://mobile.twitter.com/Jam...
I think it's clear from these comments that my (and others) inferences about where the memo was coming from were actually correct.
Anyway bring on the -1 trollbait mods! If there's one thing James Damore supporters can't stand it's the free speech they claim to support.
And one more thing: if you actually support some varian of improving things for men, then don't support this guy and his bullshit about gender roles. If you've ever pointed out how few men there are in certain jobs here, then don't support Damore's bullshit about gender roles because that is enforcing that separation. If you've ever complained about how men often pursue dangerous, but well paid jobs (contributing to increase workplace deaths for men) then don't spport this gender role bullshit because that's where a lot of the pressure comes from.
IOW this bullshit is bad for men and women. If you're a man and not a feminist you should still not support it because its bad for you. This guy and his army of supportes are trying to coerce you into a mould whether you want to be in it or not via this enforcement of gender roles.
It should be your choice not theirs.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Diversity has won over merit. The people who made things great let themselves be chased out.
Look to asia to pick up the technological torch as the west dies. At least they can feel good in having believed a liberal fantasy before they die out.
It's been reasoned many times before.
That's not exclusive with the fact that cas2000 didn't offer any reason.
Ezekiel 23:20
Well it is quite ironic that you thought that and then showed that you didn't understand it at all then, isn't it. The woman clearly means approach them as if you are afraid that if you say the wrong thing you will be body slammed. She certainly is trying to claim that there is never any time to respond as you fit. The crux of her message is be afraid; be very afraid.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Here is an article, arguing that social norms such as "do not discriminate", ironically are discriminatory to people born with a different brain type that is incapable of following these norms, or something. Anyway, this would be a perfect example of that.
Whoa slow down cowboy
Good on you for speaking out now, then! Instead of, say, standing up for the victims at the time when it actually happened. Really shows what you're made of.
Why designate him as eligible to speak on the victims' behalf? *I would wait to see the vic's response; it's their call to make, not his
Todays captcha:hiring
Are you saying that testosterone and estrogen don't give men and women different benefits? Men, on average, have significantly higher levels of testosterone than women. Woman, on average, have significantly higher levels of estrogen than men. These biological differences make them better and worse at different things. It's an objective fact.
All you've done is rephrase it so someone's PC narrative mind doesn't get hurt in the process, to which I say, who cares?
His memo was fine. There was only controversy because it was misrepresented completely. Plenty of non-autistic people get hit by this type of witch hunt and they also tend to have difficulty seeing it coming.
It's entirely inflammatory and malicious because you're trying to paint him as an asshole. If we remove the "feelings" factor from the KKK portion, many geeks / nerds will find titles like "grand wizard" pretty cool. It's not hard to see that point. You're being the snowflake by over reacting to it and spinning a narrative to paint the guy in a negative light. Your post was modded correctly. Perhaps understanding nuance in a persons statements rather than kowtowing to a PC narrative would suit you better long term.
Bingo. You find arguments that you disagree with offensive, because you feel that they are making someone you like look like an asshole. You can't set that feeling aside and simply make a counter-argument, you want the post removed from your sight so it can't upset you any more.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Calling something "flamebait" doesn't mean it's offensive. Calling it flamebait means you think it's something that's done with malicious intent. Here you go again, trying to insert feelings into an argument.
It was a statement that needs about as much reasoning and evidence to back it up as "fire is hot".
Actually, I beg to differ. It's not that there aren't cases where you can say that but this is rather far from them.
Ezekiel 23:20
The reasonable thing to do is evaluating the consequences of your action.
A lot of people, in particular women, are driven by emotions, cannot apply reason, and will seek refuge in morals and groupthink.
He should have known that Google is no ivory tower full of scholars, able to analyze and see the merit of his memo without going hot-headed and triggering zealotry.
I'm actively campaigning to get more women at my startup, as different is *better.* Diversity of *thought* is critical to an organization. Something Google could internalize.
Danmore should probably get a bit of a hall pass re anticipating emotions. He's clearly brilliant and articulate, but also clueless if he didn't anticipate the reaction from a mono culture of same think.
It's ironic to call him a brotard, as I'm sure the bros have always shunned him due to his being socially inept.
You can't set that feeling aside and simply make a counter-argument, you want the post removed from your sight so it can't upset you any more.
It's even worse than that. Because it makes them look like an asshole, they want the information removed from the sight of others so that nobody knows they're an asshole, so they can keep being a shitlord.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If I say that you, personally, Kneo24, whoever the fuck you are in real life, are a fucking moron then that's not sexist. That's just a factual observation.
That's a subjective observation.
Not a single thing you wrote covers the fact that men and women are different, in part, due to biology. You're not even trying to refute it. No, instead, you would rather sort to name calling and telling me to fuck off precisely because you don't have an argument.
Flamebait means it is designed to provoke an emotional response, specifically offense and anger. Calling something flamebait is literally saying it offends you.
There is no -1 Disagree or -1 Wrong mod. The correct response is to post a rebuttal. A rebuttal to the actual argument, not an accusation of malice.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Stand up for your rights to think differently and be able to speak out!
This!
Flamebait means it is designed to provoke an emotional response, specifically offense and anger.
Yes, that sounds like someone might have some malicious intent in their actions through and through.
Calling something flamebait is literally saying it offends you.
That's not necessarily true. You can see things as a malicious act and not be offended by it. You don't need to deal in absolutes here.
The correct response is to post a rebuttal. A rebuttal to the actual argument, not an accusation of malice.
You aren't the thought police. You don't get to decide what is and isn't the correct response. It's frowned upon to moderate and comment (anonymously). It's always been that way. This is why you can't comment and post under your username in the same discussions. If you do, it undoes any moderation that you did. You get to choose one option. Some people chose to moderate the content of your posts. Deal with it.
You're incorrect in the definition. Misogyny is *hate* of women. Look it up. Maybe there's a pejorative word for those who recognize that there are differences in the sexes. That, for the vast majority, those sexes are physically attracted to each other. And , that's OK. Actually, it's critical for the survival of the species.
It's *OK* that on the whole there and differences in the way that men and women think and act. I for one welcome different ways of thinking, and being.
Except that as groups men and women perform differently with different strengths and weaknesses even if individual men or women may not match the average of their group.
There's nothing misogynistic about treating groups as groups so long as when it's an individual you treat the case in regards to that individual.
Woman are more likely to get breast cancer, so maybe we should target breast cancer education at women... that doesn't mean ignoring men who get breast cancer, just that we have to treat groups as groups.
Isn't that what happened to Damore? He made a bunch of arguments, the left claimed they were 'offensive'. And by 'offensive' they mean 'we can't come up with a coherent counter argument, we must stop him speaking'.
It's weaponized offense really. Back in the old days of course this sort of thing was the tactic used by religious fundamentalist types and was denounced by people like Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens.
https://www.goodreads.com/quot...
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Now it seems like the social justice left think that 'What you said is offensive' means 'You must be silenced/fired/beaten up'. In fact they've invented a whole new term - speech they don't like isn't just offensive, it's 'oppressive' to the oppressed groups they claim to speak for.
Normally they'll say something like 'silencing this sort of speech doesn't violate the First Amendment because it's not the government doing it'. Which is true in a narrow, legalistic American sense, but completely irrelevant. It's perfectly possible for freedom of speech to be violated by non governmental entities - e.g. the KKK was not a governmental organisation and was able to shut down speech they didn't like. Right now AntiFa is non governmental and does the same thing. Mobs can be incited online to get people fired or banned. All of these things violate free speech but probably not the First Amendment.
Of course a lot of people on the US have argued for Europe style hate speech laws as well, which would violate the First Amendment. E.g.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Countries throughout Europe have seen the danger in certain hate speech and have created laws that punish racist incitement without compromising their democratic values on free speech. These laws protect Jewish and other minority residents and show that societies clearly value their safety and security in their countries. These laws have not prevented all acts of racism and violence from occurring, as the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France remind us, but they send the right message to vulnerable minorities and galvanize public and police support to prevent future atrocities.
If the Oklahoma chant happened in, say, Germany and the n-word was replaced with a derogatory epithet for the Jewish people, and the method of murder was changed from lynching to something employed by the Nazis, the perpetrators would be in jail right now and few outside the extremist right would argue that an injustice was done. How can so many in American society condone this incitement as youthful indiscretion and even redirect blame away from the perpetrators to the people who have had to suffer the oppression inflicted by those who spew these vile words?
America can learn something from the international community, where the legacy and dangers of certain types of speech are better understood. We too must find an effective way to monitor and forbid dangerous speech, without unjustly infringing upon freedom of speech. We should have started the discussion long ago.
Now you know why it's irritating when people try to silence your arguments rather than trying to address them. Congratulations. You know why people despise the left.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
like every other slur you've invented, you just throw it randomly in sentences as a sort of generic grammatical exclamation point
You mean just like "SJW". Actually "snowflake" was used as a gramatical exclamation point already, the argument being:
You dislike X, only snowflakes dislike anything, therefore you're a snowflake, therefore your arguments are invalid.
Turnabout is fair play, bro.
Also those two tweets are both perfectly rational and one is supported by so much hard data that it's an entire field of research unto itself in political science. Right up through the end of the Vietnam war, and continuing today in less developed countries, women were and are substantially more conservative socially and politically than men.
Except you know, that's not true. You can find examples where it's true, and you can find exaples of the polar opposite. For example every pre-agrarian society observes is much more egalitarian.
It's a direct result of the fact that those roles evolved over thousands upon thousands of years to ensure human survival during the millenia we went without modern medicine and birth control and an information-age economy.
that's kinda bullshit. Agrarian and later societies are only over the last 15,000 years or so, which is not much in evolutionary terms. It's the hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years of evlution towards modern humans as hunter gathereres that you should be concentrating on if you want to make evolutionary arguments.
Literally an entire slur has been invented just to silence people who disagree with women about anything, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances.
No it hasn't, that's called "making shit up".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I don't think I agree with AmiMojo about Damore's motives, but nonetheless you might want to read that, and step away from the keyboard for a moment: you claim some (from what I can see) are pretty objective statements about Damore are "malicious" - presumably because they don't paint him in a good light, and then claim AmiMojo is the one "inserting feelings into an argument."
I do agree with AmiMojo about the moderation: an apparently easily offended moderator, and many responding them, have decided that because the facts make Damore look bad, that it must be a sign of malice to be even mentioning them.
The problem here is that it isn't. Damore's words had (and have) real life consequences. Despite the claim he was totally non-sexist when writing it, that isn't actually true when analyzing the arguments he used. Damore worded his essay in a way designed to make it look pro-diversity while cherry picking and exaggerating facts to cause an opposite impact.
Some have suggested Damore's honesty and intentions should be questioned because of that. That's a reasonable thing to do.
But... I'm not sure they're right. I think it's more a cause of an expert in one field (computing) thinking that makes him an expert in others and failing spectacularly trying to prove the real experts wrong.
I say that because I'm a nerd too, and while I was never stupid enough to start claiming minor biological differences explain women's poor advancement in careers they should have no problem with, I certainly have been stupid in the past latching onto "contrarian arguments" about everything from the Civil War to economics.
You see this on Slashdot all the time. How many people here disagree with the 97% or so of climate scientists on Climate Change, for example? It certainly is more than 3%. Are these people experts in climate change? Do they have all the figures available to them? Do they have insights that Michael Mann et al don't?
No? No, what they are are really good developers. Their friends consider them geniuses, because they can do things with computers that other people can only dream of. And they keep getting told that all the time, that they're geniuses.
And so, when they wade into another field of study, one they know little about, it's a trainwreck.
Damore didn't lose his job and become unpopular because he's autistic. And he probably didn't because he's the next Harvey Weinstein or Roger Ailes. No, I suspect he lost them because he's a typical computer nerd going through a contrarian phase.
That should be a learning experience for most, but nobody here wants to hear it, because the experts being wrong is a sexier story.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Brilliant troll. You used a phishing name, bumbled about some emotionally sensitive matrial that was irrelevant to the discussion by insisting that it was relevant, and ended up with a goatse link. I havenâ(TM)t seen a troll this good on /. since the late 90â(TM)s.
I can never decide if the heat death of the universe making everything ultimately pointless is comforting or horrendous.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
All he is doing here is playing a victim card. It's bullshit.
The memo dealt with males and females having different needs and strengths and in order to get a more balanced workforce, the work and workplace would have to adapt to that.
I don't remember there being ANYTHING about sexual attention forced on another.
Their logic, and it's stretching the definition of the word, is along these lines:
Normal person: Men are generally taller than women.
SJW: What, like Danny DeVito and Michelle Obama?
Then something gets designed that's unusable because anthropometry is fundamentally racist, because it just is.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Good SJW response!
implication that a rational argument should not be offered (and should be regretted once offered)because it would hurt feelings is not acceptable.
Many arguments purported to be rational are in fact, specious, unfounded, and biased. Furthermore, indifference to "hurting feelings" is often utilized as a means to disparage people who react dis-favorably to one's preferred argument, purporting that emotions are bad things to have, and thus you can use that to dismiss anybody who disagrees merely because they phrase something as "I feel" even if they are actually using the phrase to indicate a particular rationale.
It's actually quite a flawed and irrational approach that makes Spock cry because it is so illogical.
autistic state of author of argument is irrelevant.
Tell that to James Damore then. Of course, more likely than not, he's the one who thought his MRA-driven ideals would necessarily be accepted, and all would quickly toe the line once his preferred truth was exposed.
Being rude and dismissive is at times totally appropriate behavior. If Attila the Hun is on your lawn with a sword it is time to destroy, not time to hold out a welcome sign.
If Atilla the Hun is on your lawn with a sword and you are rude and dismissive, he'll most likely stab you. Try killing him instead and don't waste time on the rude dismissiveness.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Generally speaking, I don't disagree with the overall theme of what you're trying to convey, but I do disagree with a couple parts of it. I'll address those below.
I don't think I agree with AmiMojo about Damore's motives, but nonetheless you might want to read that, and step away from the keyboard for a moment: you claim some (from what I can see) are pretty objective statements about Damore are "malicious" - presumably because they don't paint him in a good light, and then claim AmiMojo is the one "inserting feelings into an argument."
It's not unreasonable to call something flamebait, when the sole purpose is to "inflame". It's not unreasonable to call that a malicious act when you're doing that to malign someones character. It's all a carefully crafted narrative, perhaps not by AniMojo, but they are spreading it none the less. Let's be realistic here. Salon is a great example of an outlet that pushes social justice narratives through and through, and works to malign people they ideologically disagree with. It works well for Salon because people are driven by their emotions.
The links to tweets AniMojo posted previously to the Salon link are again, trying to somehow paint him as a bad person. There is next to no discussion around those ideas coming from AniMojo. It's more or less, "look at these ridiculous things he's saying!" Ok, why are they ridiculous? I have seen a lot of this on the Internet over the years and it's pretty easy to spot when someone wants actual discussion and when someone is pushing a narrative. This is narrative pushing, whether AniMojo realizes it or not. A more thoughtful post would have went into some discussion about this.
Damore didn't lose his job and become unpopular because he's autistic. And he probably didn't because he's the next Harvey Weinstein or Roger Ailes. No, I suspect he lost them because he's a typical computer nerd going through a contrarian phase.
He lost his job because someone in Google made it public. While it was contained in Google for a month or so, no one fired Damore for it. Google will 100% try to protect their image given the recent lawsuits over wage discrimination and the fact that they're very vocal about trying to have gender parity. It's hard to say for 100% certainty that he would have kept his job at Google if this never went public, but the fact that a month later it was still fine until the public leak, I'd be willing to make that bet that he would still have his job.
>"autism or not, reason should override "feelings" "
Common issue nowadays. These two videos explain it better than I can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Out of interest, how well do you know Mr "the rock" Johnson? Is he---not his persona in the wrestling ring, or his acting roles---is he the kind of person you'd say "you ain't gonna get any pussy wearing those" [*] to? Or, is this how you generally talk to male complete strangers (who could incidentally, but likely won't, pull your head off)?
[*] do you know for a fact that's accurate?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's a weird comment to make. Are you accidentally posting on the wrong article? This one is about James Damore, the guy who was fired from Google after writing a screed about female engineers that was based entirely on his feelings. The evidence he cited in it either didn't say what he was claiming it said (there was quite a bit of cherry-picking bits of claims without understanding the context that made those claims not actually agree with his points) or was previously debunked. He was fired in large part because the memo he wrote showed such a complete inability to understand research and form logical arguments from evidence that he was clearly incapable of doing his job. He followed that up with things like claiming that the way his personal Google search results were tailored was some kind of proof that everyone secretly agreed with him (in a series of tweets which he has now deleted, surprising nobody), showing that he didn't even understand the basic workings of one of the major products of the company that he had worked for.
Let's agree to disagree then. I maintain that you did not understand the "The Rock Test". Maybe it's because you have a pre-made idea that feminists are there to get you cut your balls and whatnot. In any case the "Test" has failed in its purpose, since it's not a useful guide to you or people thinking similarly. What could be done to help people get along then?
They're related in the same way all male rapists have a penis and all males have a penis. Ie, there's a shit ton of supposition that paints all males as would-be rapists. Meanwhile, the memo was about, you know, how all the discussion about hiring women specifically to avoid discrimination was itself an act of discrimination, and the focus on "equal" hiring that didn't focus on merit first would invariable result in more positions that were not staffed based on merit.
Clearly your float chart begins with "person [presumably man] doesn't get sucked into unrelated, but otherwise important, discussion about sexual harassment -> ad hominem -> absolute vague generalization -> 'you figure it out'". How about we just acknowledge that the discussion has moved off-topic and using an unrelated discussion as a platform for ever social issue that exists is stupid?
PS - Seriously, the only way they're connected is if you believe that all perceived inequality in the work place is a result of social white male dominance that includes sexual harassment. Too bad that the reality is a lot more complicated with that. There are more insanely overly competitive men who will do just about anything to "win" in business which tends to put a lot more men, on average, in positions of leadership and authority. Meanwhile, women having the biological desire to procreate will tend to bow out of their careers for possible extended periods of time to raise their offspring. Sexual harassment, meanwhile, is definitely an entitlement issue where those who are in leadership will dominant their subordinates in a variety of ways, possibly including sexually--and hence it happens that both men and women are sexually harassed mostly in ratio to sexual orientation and gender of those in leadership positions.
PPS - On an unrelated note, which you seem to be a fan of in this and other posts, the next time you start complaining about "several unsupported statements in his little memo of failure, so his logic is suspect", you might wish to note the pot calling the kettle black. The degree of "unsupported statements" involved in just about everything involving perceived issues of white male dominance are so pervasive that having an honest discussion is near impossible. That includes all the stuff I stated above which has the air of truthiness but is unsupported. Just like all the claims of inherent gender equality that would inherently lead to equal job positions if it weren't for <insert conspiracy here>. I mean, if we want to get into the discussion of off-topic, if you think it's hard to get people to acknowledge male sexual harassment of women or male sexual harassment of men, imagine the difficultly of getting people to acknowledge the pervasive female sexual harassment of men or female sexual harassment of women. If you think those aren't things or they're not pervasive, then, well, you've already broken the whole premise of gender equality. You don't need a job to sexually harass people.
Well, no, the issue was that he ignored decades of arguments on this subject, but that they didn't exist. People assumed that if he had done that much research he must have been aware of them, and ignoring them is a common tactic used by actual misogynists.
To be clear I don't think he was being malicious or that he hates women, he just tried to tackle a very difficult subject (because it relates to people he works with every day) in a very badly misjudged way. He ended up sounding like a typical "rational" misogynist, and didn't make any effort (even to this day) to clarify.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's not what you say, it is how you say it. That being said, the point was that the proposed "simple solution" is not the solution it is purported to be by the author.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Do you understand the difference between an opinion and a law? Because my opinion is that the correct response is a rebuttal, only you think I'm trying to police it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I am autistic and I too have that same difficulty that James Damore has. I always have someone else look at a letter or document first to get their interpretation, even when I am invited to give my own unadulterated opinion. Why? Well, in the neurotypical (i.e. non-autistic) world people rarely say what they mean. The hidden meaning behind this opinion invitation could be, "Please compliment and flatter my decision or do not bother me. You risk sneaky retaliation if you disagree." I have to remember that the workplace is not a democracy, and in rigid oligarchies, you tow the line or your expunged.
James Damore made the classic mistake that some high functioning autistics make, they fire from the hip and sometimes act impulsively in matters that they are unable to understand or visualize the ultimate outcome. I found that it was key to recognizing this to make my behaviour more socially acceptable and I had to learn how to put myself in someone else's shoes, so to speak. If I have to send a letter or document that I even suspect might offend or alienate, I *always* have a neutral third party read it and then tell me their interpretation. Also, like some people on the sprectrum, I tend to have no filter and do not suffer fools very well so I have to take extra caution when dealing with people so I do not alienate them.
I actually suspect that James Damore was not really fired as a result of his memo itself but rather as a result of a behavioral-threat model. Damore's memo might have erroneously pinged a warning sign for workplace violence and Google let him go out of an abundance of caution. This is also the problem with the classic behavioral-threat model, it is geared towards analysis of non-autistic behaviour. Autistic behaviour could easily be misinterpreted as potentially dangerous. Most autistics however do not suffer from anti-social personality disorder or psychopathy. The differences between classic autism and Anti-Social Personality Disorder are rather stark. The easiest way for Google to rid itself of this perceived threat was just to terminate him for discrimination.
Google revealed themselves as evil the moment they publicly replied to the memo. The only non-evil move from the start was not to acknowledge it in the first place, and then if they wanted to be secretly evil, fire him down the road for whatever reason. Instead Google could not stop themselves from showing they were ideologically motivated, just as this memo accuses them of.
I've been using duckduckgo.com for search, and it's fine. It's not 2001 any more, the horrid results of Yahoo and the others aren't relevant any more. God help me I've even used Bing a couple of times. And hey, if it is that rare occasion you can't find something, go ahead and use Google just that once. But please stop using them on a daily basis because they're evil.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Picking two women is exactly his point, retard
You're saying SJWs at Google are in mourning 24/7, therefor Damore should treat them as funeral attendees all the time and never say anything upsetting.
I don't think there's a progressive word for that. Look how to them the word 'hate' means 'you said something I disagree with'. It's especially hateful if other people are likely to agree with you, btw.
As you have clearly shown, nothing can be done. For example, you randomly decided that my belief about this woman's idea somehow defines my outlook toward a faux category of humans. There will always be myriad personalities and conflicts. It will always be true that whatever you say some people will like what you said and done won't. Some will appreciate honesty while others will consider it to be insensitive. It will always be true that if you hold a door for a woman and call her sweetheart some will smile and perk up and others will sneer. All one can do is be honest with oneself, try to be respectful, get the often confusing clues right and correct course quickly with minimal damage to either party at the first sign you got it wrong. There is no solution, just a bunch of humans trying to be perfect in an imperfect world.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
First, no it's not just how you say it, what you say matters too.
Firstly, I don't think there's any good way of saying "you won't get any pussy wearing those" to a complete stranger.
Second, You are massively overalaysing a one line, humourous point. Except that your analysis is wrong because no you wouldn't go up to the Rock and say that.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You're judging someone by completely ignoring what that person has straightforwardly written, and basing your conclusions entirely on what is implied, or more accurately what you cynically infer.
I think you'd have to provide some proof that you are indeed a psychic mind-reader.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Completely with you on this. I was diagnosed at 40 and haven't disclosed to my colleagues or management team. I have however been able to address some of the social interaction challenges that were causing me workplace problems.
In my personal life I tend to tell people, but if I act like a twat then I'll be treated like one anyway.
The main area it makes a difference is with romantic partners. Saves a lot of time and bullshit to just let her know upfront.
Slashdot should have a "snowflake trigger" category.
getwith the times.
It now means that some hypothetical entity might potentially be offended by it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You probably couldn't pull it off, but I do such things all the time. And specifically with regard to Little Dwayne, of course I would say that to him. First of all, because of how I said it he would laugh. Second of all, even if I am wrong he isn't going to risk a lawsuit over something so trivial.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
What parent is referring to is that in the UK right now, there is a similar witch hunt underway in which all men in positions of power are being opportunistically accused of pedophilia.
Nobody gave a flying fuck when Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham openly admitted to being rapists and pedophiles.
There was a lot of backlash over the Dunham story (and there still is every time Dunham comes up). The story also gets misquoted quite a bit to make it sound worse than it was, just to add to the backlash.
The Schumer thing was drunk sex and it's up to the guy she slept with to decide whether it was rape. Until he comes forward and says otherwise, it's not up to you to decide whether he was consenting or not.
It's also kinda crappy that you wrote the above sentence in way that intentionally suggests Schumer is a pedophile. That actually meets the requirement of malice that's needed to make you guilty of violating defamation laws.
Hell a Welsh Labor MP killed himself because he was suspended on charges he wasn't even allowed to know.
He was suspended while allegations of sexual misconduct were investigated. He didn't have specific details, but he knew what he was being investigated for.
It's fun how you have sympathy for the man suffering the consequences of his sexual misconduct while you seem to feel the women aren't suffering enough. What point between having their reputation smeared and them committing suicide do you feel is the right level of backlash?
You can tell who is really in charge these days by saying "women are good X, men are good at Y, women are bad at Z, men are bad at Q" and the only part people care about is that you said women are bad at something.
FTFY.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He doesn't need any excuse or forgiveness. It's not like he stole something or killed someone.
In a modern corporation, getting crosswise with HR is an equivalent offense.
Whoa slow down cowboy
Good on you for speaking out now, then! Instead of, say, standing up for the victims at the time when it actually happened. Really shows what you're made of.
Why designate him as eligible to speak on the victims' behalf? *I would wait to see the vic's response; it's their call to make, not his
Todays captcha:hiring
If I ever see a male coworker molest a female coworker, I can tell you I will report it, no matter what.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
The age of your account is probably close to 18 years old based on the user ID. In all this time you have yet to figure out that "thought police" isn't necessarily a reference to a legal entity, and that, the moderation system here is the way it is. It makes me wonder why you stick around participating in a system like this.
Its so easy to spout the usual "no it wasn't" line when your position is criticised, slightly less easy to google for an answer. So I did it for you.
https://thoughtcatalog.com/ano...
One day Matt calls her at 8 am, inviting Amy over to his dorm room. When Amy goes to his dorm room, she immediately recognizes that he is drunk:
I won't give you all the details, but it is important to note that Matt was repeatedly falling asleep during the encounter, according to Amy's story. It gives an indication as to how impaired Matt was, and how Amy let it continue despite the interruptions.
Now is that rape? If not, then all those other cases of men having intercourse with women who were drunk can't be considered rape either.
Lena Dunham though, I can't find any case there except for her defence of a Girls' Writer who was accused.
You have not debunked anything he said. NB the article in TE is just a biased BS typical of TE these days. The publication deteriorated much under new editor/owners.
Well when technology makes men obsolete for procreation the problem will disappear eventually. I am not saying somebody is working with this specific goal but eventually it will happen.
You see, the moderators' lived experiences make them feel that your posts are violent.
You can't argue with that because arguing against moderation judgment is exactly what violent flamebating people do.
You just need to accept that you are a bad person and apologize for your violence.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
You haven't given an example at all, just sweeping generalities and personal attacks. An example would be mentioning someone like Nicola Adams. It still wouldn't disprove his general point, however.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In most jurisdictions you are wrong, many crimes are not "it's up to the victim" (and for good reason).
And if you are any kind of manager in a company, it is (at least in some countries/states) not only on you to report it but also to stop it, otherwise both you and your company can expect to pay for it.
Well, there's your problem. You're working on your problem using Excel.
#DeleteFacebook
It couldn't possibly be the case that, for the reason highlighted, he's a tad pissed off, could it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Pretty much. But it gives the "Emotion first!" people a pseudo-justification for their completely ridiculous reaction. You know, those people that want "safe spaces" at a place of learning and growing, were anything should be happening except that you can comfortably stick to your established misconceptions. Anti-reason and anti-understanding is on the raise. And, if not stopped and firmly put in its place, it will kill society.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The person one before is not an atheist. He is a nihilist and that is a religious stance.
(In actual reality, he is just an evil sadist troll, because he does not care about consent of his victims.)
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You're judging someone you've never met and making assumptions about his behaviour based on his origin & ethnicity? What a xenophobic cunt you are!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Damore's memo was just misogynist bullshit.
Not by any halfway sane and rational analysis. In fact it was very far from it. Sure, he gave rational and fact-based arguments (i.e. "valid" arguments) for some things that a specific faction of the population does not want to hear, but it is you giving propaganda-lies as a non-factual response. The truth hurts and many people cannot deal with it. You are just one more example of that.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Right. But people didn't say "Oh you ignored this study, here's a link". They just tried to silence him by getting him fired. Gizmodo accused him of writing an 'anti diversity screed', and reproduced it without any of the charts and hyperlinks
https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-...
Vox called it a 'sexist screed' and said it reflected a 'divided tech culture' and said it ignored 'well documented gender biases'
https://www.vox.com/identities...
Vox didn't try to address his arguments, they all said he was
The memo's stereotype-based arguments and cries for less empathy sparked immediate controversy
In Damore's memo, he states that women are more "neurotic" and have a lower "stress tolerance" than men, and that these characteristics - not systemic harassment, routinely being passed over for promotions, or other well-documented instances of sexism in tech culture - are the reason why women do not succeed as often as men do in the high-pressure industry.
He also argues that men have a "higher drive for status" than women, and suggests that this factor, rather than well-documented gender biases in the workplace, may be responsible for the lack of women in leadership positions both at Google and in the tech industry as a whole.
Finally, Damore calls for Google to "De-empathize empathy," arguing that "being emotionally unengaged [with the issue of diversity] helps us better reason about the facts." He decries political correctness, discounting the very concept of unconscious bias and arguing against unconscious bias training for Google employees.
Google's VP of diversity said it 'it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. and also refused to link to it because "itâ(TM)s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages". I.e. no one addressed his arguments - they caricatured them and effectively labelled him a heretic to the diverse faith.
And you haven't addressed his arguments. You put rational is scare quotes, implying he's actually motivated by sexism.
And I think we can all agree that as traumatic as being downvoted on slashdot is, it's not as bad as being fired. Also look at the the difference in institutional power between the two sides of the argument. The CEO and VP on one side and some hapless engineer on the other. As soon as the engineer disagreed with them, they fired him. Which was a sign to other engineers not to argue with their ideas.
Not to mention most of the media immediately sided with Google and denounced him.
In the old days the left would say that racism/sexism was 'prejudice plus power'. I.e. that white men could be sexist and racist because they held institutional power, but non whites and non men could not be because they did not. The problem with that is that the left holds institutional power these days, at least in the media and at Google. So in that case Damore could at worse be prejudiced, not actually sexist.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
And there you have outed yourself as an anti-reason fundamentalist. This argumentation is not valid in anything a bit more complex and the questions this is about are pretty complex.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Actually, you can claim that most men are fucking morons without being sexist. After all, most humans are fucking morons, and all men are humans, so it would be true unless stupidity were disproportionately relegated to women.
Of course, you aren't even bothering to give a good faith argument, because the claim is that there are statistical differences on certain traits between men and women. Now, you might argue about the balance of biology vs. society in accounting for those differences, but they are merely statistics. The difference is also largely moot in the context of Google and diversity, as even possibly changing them would require changing society, and society is much larger than Google.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
For example, he says that women are on average more neurotic
Actually, he quotes well-established and absolutely solid science that says that "women score higher on neuroticism". That is a bit different from your statement. And it happens to be a verifiable fact. Your whole wording screams "lie" when seen in comparison to what he actually said.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
In actual reality, you have a problem with the truth and said reality. The moderators just pick up on that.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I don't have much sympathy for DaMoore, he could have made his helpful suggestions directly to HR. He wanted the most attention though. It was a totally voluntary thing he did. Ducking behind autism doesn't save him and doesn't make what he did less callous or more correct. It's as wrong as goatse (shock site, as in, DONT CLICK) His memo reads like the old trope of telling women to smile more to the eyes of someone with this background.
His "suggestions" do not fit the narrative. As such, his options were to shut up and quit, or shut up and stay.
All groups have a narrative, be it the Republican Party in Alabama, Huffington Post, or Google. The narrative is the permissible opinion. Conform or be cast out.
A person having an opinion contrary to the narrative who expresses that opinion is stupid. I have zero sympathy for Damore for stupidly expressing his opinion in an atmosphere that does not allow such an opinion. He deserved firing.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
people break NDAs privately to their friends all the fucking time.
Sounds like a character issue. I wouldn't trust a person who violates an NDA.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Wait, seriously? You can't see how these things are related?
Everyone can see that they aren't.
It's all one world. Everything is related.
This is a factual discussion. Put down the hash pipe.
For clarity, I use quotes around rationalism because his arguments have the superficial appearance of being such while actually failing to integrate decades of debate and rebuttals on the subject.
I'm not implying he is sexist.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And you feel the need to mod posts down just in case this hypothetical entity is offended?
That's even worse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Simple: There is no mod option for "malicious propaganda lies"
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It is good that he started reflecting. But he still has a long way to go.
To address a problem, one must first admit that they have a problem. James Damore attempted to address disparity issues in a rational, scientific manner. He relied on the research that was at hand, and made a few assumptions. Approaching a social problem scientifically and methodically is befitting a high functioning autistic person. I know because my family is full of them.
Whether his facts are right or wrong, does not negate the fact that he tried to start the conversation. Society is simply not ready to listen or even engage, instead deferring to labeling James a misogynist.
Under pressure, Google executives lack the will to approach the subject rationally. No matter the content of the paper, Google executives were concerned that the fallout could hurt sales. Google executives took the easy way out by firing James Damore and publicly distancing themselves from his paper. If they were really interested in solving the problem of wage disparity, gender gaps, and racism in the workplace, they might also try using the scientific method. The first steps of which are:
-Ask a question
-Do background research
-Construct a hypothesis
Let's try this out with a similar question: If children are our most precious resource, then why are day care workers (who are mostly female) paid so poorly?
Now, do the background research, construct a hypothesis, update your resume, and prepare to be crucified.
The usage of "The Rock" is clearly because he would possibly kick your ass if you dismissed or harassed him, reversing the typical power dynamic. The power dynamic is an essential part of this test. Otherwise, it would be the "Billy Crystal test" or "Chris Rock test." p.That doesn't mean that the idea of this test is castration, but rather, an empathetic understanding of power structures, along with a somewhat comical juxtaposition of norms.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Wait... You thought I meant literal law enforcement... After you used the same metaphor... Ok.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Scientist, biologist, realist...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You seem to regard arguments that you disagree with as "malicious propaganda lies".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No one really knows what it is, but it is diagnosed whenever someone exhibits behaviors that offend others. Then the sufferer can blame whatever he or she did on autism, and the whole thing is forgiven and explained. And if you don't accept this, you have no compassion.
> If you want to see why there was such a backlash to his memo, I think it can be made clearer in light of the #metoo discussion we are presently having.
I don't see why. The memo didn't deal with rape at work in any kind of way. It had a different subject.
It's the narrative. His opinion doesn't fit the narrative.
Trying to make Damore's memo the equivalent of meetoo or whatever indignity women have ever suffered is an example of howaboutism, which is usually aimed at conservatives, but it turns out that liberals are just as prone to it. A memo or email pointing out possible differences between the sexes does not fit the narrative that there is no difference at all between males and females except that instilled culturally by the patriarchy."
This memo != Harvey Weinstein's disgusting behavior. This memo != Roy Moore's penchant for underage girls.
What this memo and equating it to meetoo is - Howaboutism, and a great example of it.
If Damore was insinuating himself in a sexual manner on female employees, there aren't many of us who would stand up for him. But that isn't what he did. He wrote forbidden words. Some people didn't like those forbidden words. They don't fit the narrative. Conform or be cast out.
To broad brush this memo into Damore is a sexual predator because Harvey Weinstein or Roy Moore is bigotry, stereotyping men as all sexual predators. It may or may not be legal bigotry, but it is bigotry nonetheless.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The first guy is just as full of shit as he claims the "liberals" are. (Did not watch the second one, my quota of stupidity for today was amply filled bu the first guy.)
The sad fact of the matter is that there are people that try to see what is actual truth (a minority, that typically coincides with the 10-15% independent thinkers) and that there is a vast majority that will do and say anything to justify their misconceptions and will make zero effort to find out what is actually going on, as they themselves are "obviously" right. Sure, you find the anti-fact, anti-reason people in large numbers on the political right and the political left in the US. Whether you are a tree-hugger or a climate-change denier does make little difference in the end: You are a person that denies rationality. In the end, the problem is people that go with emotion and ego over ratio and facts. They are a vast majority and they think they are doing it right. And they are basically the source of all evil in the world.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The way Amy tells it... http://www.vulture.com/2014/05...
The short version of the story: A guy named Matt, whom Schumer had a giant crush on, called her at 8 AM for a booty call, after he apparently had been turned down by every other woman in his little black book. Amy, thinking she was being invited for an all-day-date, only discovered his real intent when she got to his dorm room and he romantically drunkenly pushed her onto the bed and started fingering her.
After several failed attempts at intercourse, and what she describes as an âoeambitiousâ attempt to go down on her, he finally gave up and fell asleep on top of her. Lying there listening to Sam Cooke, she decided she didnâ(TM)t want to be âoethis girlâ any more, âoewaited until the last perfect note floated out, and escaped from under him and out the door.â
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hey guys, did your realise that when a butterfly like flaps its wings in Australia it could totally change the direction of a hurricane in America? It's cosmic, man...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Economist is basically your British propaganda tribune, not a science journal of any authority. They speak for certain political creed, and not in the business of finding the truth about the biology of human species.
Your own argument has words like bad for X, bad for Y. It is not that scientific.Damore spoke th truth, and offered solutions based on the truth. Too bad this autist didn't notice he did it Ina Society that is actively denying th truth and seeing it as its own mission to social engineer based on , well, lies.
Wait, seriously? You can't see how these things are related? You don't think you're smart, do you? It's all one world. Everything is related. Do you really need a flowchart drawn for you?
I hope you are being facetious, DrinkyPoo.
Otherwise all women are pedophiles because there have been a lot of female teachers boinking their underage male students lately - and getting caught.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Right. But people didn't say "Oh you ignored this study, here's a link".
Except they did.
They just tried to silence him by getting him fired.
Nope. See above. They did say that. You ignore it because it suits your own agenda.
It only took you two complete sentences to lie in order to start serving your own rhetorical agenda, by which you commit the very same sin you denounce in others.
Sorry, but your hypocrisy is repugnant as you are yourself are interested in the very same disparagement which you profess to lament in others.
Well, either that, or you are so lacking in self-awareness you can't see your own fault.
Neither is good for you. No matter how much you keep insisting that no one has addressed his arguments, it only makes you wrong, and that you do so when exposed to the contrary facts, well, that makes you a liar.
But hey, no surprise you end up denouncing the left. Now let's see you examine the right's actions, their frenzy of defensive support, full of false protests, their own "virtue signaling" and well, conduct just like yours.
Oh wait...that'd take too much work, wouldn't it?
Sorry though, you shouldn't throw stones from your glass house. We can see inside. Not that you should start throwing stones if you build a house of straw, sticks, or bricks, but well, that isn't advice, it's merely informing you of your own mistaken apprehensions.
That's really why there is a problem with Damore and many, if not most, of his apologists, because of how you've already set yourselves up on a pedestal of false sanctimony upon which you go around denouncing anybody who dares to criticize you.
Interesting that.
What is your evidence that they are opportunistic? Almost all so far have been either admitted or supported by strong evidence.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you have access to actual facts, you will always offend many people, because they do not. They do not in the sense that they cannot recognize and understand facts. Telling people with access to facts to "shut up" in order to not offend anybody is really the road to hell.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
In the case of the major tech firm I used to work for, it was always quietly dealt with or outright swept under the rug, paying a quiet settlement and forcing the victim into a nondisclosure agreement. The victimizer got a slap on the wrist but was consideres too important to let go.
So what is the problem here? The victim was compensated. It would be a different story if the victim was fired under false pretense.
What more do you need? Public shaming of the person who misbehaved? Firing them, even though it would hurt the company more than keeping them (as is implied by their decision)? I don't know in what kind of retarded homeschooled environment you grew up but this is how business works: cost vs benefit. You can bet that if the company had the option to NOT have this kind of incident happen they would take it, nobody wants this kind of aggravation.
lucm, indeed.
What I've learned from the "#metoo" disclosures is that predatory behavior happens in every field, and that it happens to men too (e.g. Kevin Spacey). In other words, sexual harrassment doesn't keep women out of Hollywood or any other field, so it's probably not the thing keeping women out of tech.
If you want to figure out why there aren't more women around, you have to check your assumptions and start coming up with better ideas (maybe women just aren't interested, so figure out how to make it more interesting for women). And that's all Damore was doing.
What I find interesting is that you think it's totally acceptable to tell Damore to keep his mouth shut and quietly tell his concerns to HR while no doubt you would never say that to somebody posting "#metoo". Would you ever say a woman "wanted the most attention"?
dom
John Wyndham has a scifi text about it.
For clarity, I use quotes around rationalism because his arguments have the superficial appearance of being such while actually failing to integrate decades of debate and rebuttals on the subject.
Why should anyone making any argument about anything, also include some arbitrary set of counter arguments?
Even if he had, the inquisition would just say they're the wrong ones and condemn him anyway. Zealots won't accept challenges to their orthodoxy.
disability? Jesus H Christ.
Not only that, but I'm waiting for a man to complain about a woman raping or sexually assaulting him. The rank hypocrisy of all of this shouldn't be stunning to people. Women have always had a get out of trouble free card in this areas. Yes, we often ignored or victimized women that reported these sorts of problems, but men get that and the possibilitly of getting a high five. You were raped by your teacher? High five.
In terms of the memo, microaggressions are not a real thing. They're an individual snowflake that can't deal with the world. If it's actually repeated often enough to cause harm, that's not a microaggression that's actual harassment that should be taken seriously. Microaggression is just a way of outsourcing emotional regulation to other people without having to do any of the work. If you look at all the complaints that have been filed against various powerful people lately, I have yet to see a single one that could reasonably be described as microaggressions. Most of it is criminal or at very least an obvious violation of civil law if true.
Quick; bring a knife to a gunfight! Oh, wait; you already did...
I only read The Economist one, but if you think that's a "well written [sic] article" then you have pretty low standards.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He wrote forbidden words. Some people didn't like those forbidden words.
He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
-Thomas Paine
Just like Fundies who loudly espouse their anti-gay views while setting off every gaydar system for a hundred klicks...
And that right there is the problem. For one thing this isn't a gendered issue. And for another thing, fuck you for ruining somebody elses life.
It's one thing to tell that person that you saw it and will support reporting it, but it is unbelievably arrogant of you to make that sort of decision on somebody elses behalf. What happens if the report goes nowhere? Now you've got somebody that's probably going to be in an incredibly awkward position and probably going to have to ask that person for a reference to find work elsewhere.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. That kind of decision isn't yours to make. Your coworker is presumably an adult and one that gets to make her own decisions about things of that nature.
Wish I could mod you up but I've been running off at the mouth again... ;)
Nobody gave a flying fuck when Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham openly admitted to being rapists and pedophiles.
Citation needed. Googling Schumer and pedophile didn't come up with anything.
Lena Dunham DID get a lot of heat for writing that she touched her one year old sister when she was seven years old. It was predictably all from the far-right smear machine, the same one that has convinced many Americans that Hillary Clinton murdered soldiers at Benghazi on her way to build atomic bombs for Russia.
it's a witch hunt where all it takes is a social media post to ruin people's entire lives and career without a shred of evidence
You're projecting here. That is literally what you're doing.
people break NDAs privately to their friends all the fucking time.
Sounds like a character issue. I wouldn't trust a person who violates an NDA.
True that. The leakers who intentionally got him fired for an internal memo need to be outed and canned.
"Brilliant" to a dimwit, perhaps. Obvious to anyone who noted the absence of the (/.) badge.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
A story about a guy with autism and 266 comments without your Amazon spam, off-topic shitposting, transparent attempts to build karma, and fake outrage?
The whole episode is simply pathetic.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Sticks and stones will break my bones but words are oppression and require federal regulation.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I won't give you all the details ... Now is that rape? If not, then all those other cases of men having intercourse with women who were drunk can't be considered rape either.
Why rely on someone who admits to leaving out the details when you can read her actual words?
The only vaginal sex was him putting his fingers into her. He rubbed his dick on her thigh and tried to lick her pussy but ended up just slobbering on her and falling asleep face-in-crotch.
And then came the sex, and I use that word very loosely. His penis was so soft, it felt like one of those de-stress things that slips from your hand? So he was pushing aggressively into my thigh, and during this failed penetration, I looked around the room to try and distract myself or God willing, disassociate. ...
The only wetness between my legs is from his drool, because he's now sleeping and snoring into me.
So I call bullshit. Her passively laying there as he drunkenly paws at her is not remotely rape. But that anonymous author elides all those details in order to make a false equivalency. In other words, he's lying and based on the kind of neo-fascist MRA types who have jubilantly pushed those lies, it seems likely that was the entire point.
But what if you ever see a female coworker molest a male one? Why did you gender that statement?
Sexist.
You make this far too easy for yourself. Hence you are very obvious for others. My advice is to try harder.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I reported it once. But the coworker in question was the CEO. It took a long time but he eventually got shitcanned.
This is an objective fact. It's a direct result of the fact that those roles evolved over thousands upon thousands of years to ensure human
See this is where "your side" looses it. Science? "thousands and thousands of years"? What, you have the fossilized records to prove this?
It is like "your side" is shoving it into female's faces that "hey baby, you've been subservient to males for thousands and thousands of years! It is like it is built into your DNA or something, so might as well get used to it as that is how it is going to be in this here software development team"
Have you considered that this apparent bias between the sexes (which I don't dispute), can be swapped within a generation?
I used to own a development business in the 90's. Not once did I ever get a female developer applying to our positions. Looking back I don't know how I would have handled it. In honesty I would have been on "your side" and said "Female? She obviously wouldn't know a thing, I am going to have to teach her everything".
Now I have changed my mind after working in a modern large scrum team with females in it. All of them can kick my ass when it comes to programming, and I am the old hand expert with "experience". There is one male whom everyone hates and wants to have kicked off the team. My advice to "your side" is to try and get along with the new way of doing things.
Damore's memo was just misogynist bullshit.
That's a very cheap claim to make without any reasoning.
No reasoning required, any reasonable educated person could see that it’s bullshit.
What are you going to do next? Defend slavery? That could never happen in America!
Oh wait.
Here, this may help. To provide one quote:
I plan on reading the book to make sure this insanity is not taken out of context (you never know), but AFAIC she's far worse than she claims men are.
If Attila the Hun is on your lawn with a sword it is time to destroy, not time to hold out a welcome sign.
Maybe you should have built a border wall to keep him out.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Here's my take. After the 2016 election, all the women were very upset. All the things they were going to do, a new society, breaking the glass ceiling and all that gone. So now they're mad. Call it sour grapes or whatever and they're going to take it out on the men. We don't like it and therefore we're going to upset the apple cart. As demonstrated here, men are arguing among themselves at who's fault it is and walking on eggshells trying not to make the situation worse. This Damore guy just got caught in the crossfire. Too dumb to duck when he should have. Takeaway: Women have always been poor losers, or that old chestnut "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
"Coming forward" years after the fact may constitute a case in the alternative legal system that SJWs are building for themselves, but the real world legal system is perfectly capable of prosecuting molesters if you tell your family about molestation by your teacher, minister, or counselor at the time it happens. If you are an adult, you can call the cops themselves when a rape kit will identify the perpetrator according to the real rules of evidence that have been ironed out by years of experience and judicial review.
not surer about amy schumer, but lena dunam flat out admitted to molesting her younger sister
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
He wrote forbidden words. Some people didn't like those forbidden words.
He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
-Thomas Paine
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
George R.R. Martin
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
A man posts a very true statement
about neck beard shitheads
Right after a creimer post
When applied to someone like Damore, I'm not convinced this is a real diagnosis. It reflects who holds power over diagnosis.
If scientists hold the power, like in the ninteenth century, women incapable of or trained to project a disgust for scientific thought will be overdiagnosed with "hysteria" and prescribed vibrators or sedatives.
If social justice warriors hold the power, like now, men who contradict them using reason will be diagnosed with "autism" for failing to privilege feelings over reason.
The autism "movement" disturbs me and, I think, may become deeply embarrassing once we understand the causes of actual autism, or simply after a few years of reflection. Both the "extreme male brain" hypothesis that suggests all men exist on a spectrum of brokenness, and overdiagnosis turning into a way of defining "normal" as exclusive of behaviours a lower caste of engineers must cultivate, seem like cultural constructs, new forms of scapegoating gender-war and nerd-shaming.
Just read that story that you linked to, for the first time. From a man's point of view the man in that story was definitely not raped. Not even slightly and without any ambiguity. "Too Drunk to Fuck" is a Dead Kennedy's song, not a rape. To a man, at least.
If swapping the sexes (i.e. the women had been drunk) causes that definitely-not-a-rape to turn into a rape, then that's .. interesting.
... but my ISP is Spectrum.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
people break NDAs privately to their friends all the fucking time.
Sounds like a character issue. I wouldn't trust a person who violates an NDA.
True that. The leakers who intentionally got him fired for an internal memo need to be outed and canned.
Problem is, they have a permitted opinion that fits well within the allowable narrative. When you have a permitted opinion, you are allowed to commit any atrocity, and you will be praised for it. The people who published his unpermitted opinion are praised as heroes.
This is not a right or a left issue, it is an issue that speaks to bigoted intolerance, where one is cast out if one does not adhere to dogma.
All it would have taken is a reasoned argument against him in a rational world. Firing him in an attempt to merely silence him has merely shown that he has said things that they do not want heard.
This is not classified data, this is not encouraging violence, or a call to secede, or commit crimes.
Just some words that appear to be heresy, given the reaction.
It certainly tells you what opinions you are allowed to express.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
> Fire is hot
That's not a quantitative statement. Like most people who decried the memo (like the Quora link, just wow), there's a fundamental mismatch in what constitutes evidence and the bar for deducing conclusions. In the realm of carcinogens, far lower statistical deltas are used to make food safety determinations (in europe and the US) than what appear in the behavioral models in recent studies on gender proclivities. The memo was based on existing scientific analysis, despite the constant refrains that his memo was not, which is not to say there aren't differing views and studies. There always are and, in this case, almost exclusively by career ideologues. No equality of outcome behavioral study matches Finland's futile attempts, where there are still wide disparities in distribution that match biological gender. The idea that differing views are equally weighty, is just more of the same wishful equality of outcome hand waving. Damore's citations were relevant and removed early on in the smear attacks. That does not make the document baseless nor change existing behavior that you can re-examine. This is yet another particularly high-profile inconvenient truth that is not accepted, despite existing data.
You fail to make a compelling argument that changes the facts of the matter and you have had a lot of time to construct a coherent argument. I think you are just wrong on this one, due to bad ideology. Good Luck in the world.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
"well written [sic]
I think that's the first time I've seen someone try t otake the moral high ground on slashdot over pedantry around hypenens.
Well-done!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You asked if I understood the difference between opinion and a law.
You probably couldn't pull it off, but I do such things all the time. And specifically with regard to Little Dwayne, of course I would say that to him. First of all, because of how I said it he would laugh.
How do you know? You don't as far as I'm aware know the guy. He might just think you're being incredibly crass.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
His only difficulty is being a normal fucking human being.
"Microaggressions"? Fuck you, you're sowing the wind and you're going to get aggression.
Way to miss-characterize Damore's memo. Damore's memo wasn't about one's ability to do the work, but that the gender differences means people are more or less inclined towards doing certain tasks. He even suggested ways Google could better reach their lofty goals of gender parity by taking advantage of that.
You're judging someone you've never met and making assumptions about his behaviour based on his origin & ethnicity? What a xenophobic cunt you are!
The trouble is that when fine, upstanding people such as yourself attampt to parody the left, it doesn't work because you have to actually understand something before parodying it. Otherwise you sound like a 5yr old attempting to parody his teenage brother.
See, it doesn't work because Atilla the Hun was a real person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't need to make assumptions about him based on origin and ethnicity because he was a real person and reasonably well documented, so I can make assumptions about his behaviour based on his actions.
I'm all for personal resopnsibility see. Peope should be judged by their actions. apparently this is antiethical to you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Wasn't the core of most of the drunk-rape accusations that a drunk person cannot give consent?
Could you state which things are "betterly" or "worsely" done by men or women due to their biological difference?
Cheers,
everyone
it's about time we start diagnosing these feeble monsters. i blame all wars on their herd reactions.
Since when our testosterone and estrogen levels are measured while applying for a job?
> it is misogynistic when you use phrasing like that "men and women are different and have different abilities and interests".
Please be cautious. It is often decried as misogynistic, but in terms of life insurance, medical insurance, and even the Olympics Committee handling transgender athletes, it is not.
Zero. None of those things are relevant.
Because they all lie all the time and routinely violate paths of office.
But then there's Cody Mathieson, who spoke at a Boston DevOps gathering about how "Binary is for Computers" and proclaimed that all workplaces should be entirely non-gendered whatsoever. It took me a while to stop laughing when I realized that some people in the room were taking her seriously. And then I laughed even harder when I realized that this what her employer, ZipCar, were spending their resources on instead of actually dealing with Lyft and Uber in the marketplace. Lots of non-gendered bathrooms? Check. Sensitivity training? Check. Finding ways to improve their services and make Zipcar a viable tool with Uber around? Not so check.
The problem for a bunch of companies as they grow is that they start spending their resources on internal political goals instead of the reality of the market
He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
That doesn't imply the converse that someone who causes offence must be being honest and correct.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Lena Dunham though, I can't find any case there except for her defence of a Girls' Writer who was accused.
Lena Dunham wrote a book in which she described how she sexually abused her younger sister. Here's a 2014 USA Today article about the subject: Lena Dunham: Sexual abuse or sexual exploration?
make sure this insanity is not taken out of context (you never know)
Kinda weird how the only actual quoted parts from the book are about something she did when she was seven years old.
Or, given the source, maybe its not so weird and actually par for the course.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/david-horowitz
Hell, even smug douche Ben Shapiro couldn't stand to be associated with them any more and he was a founder.
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
That's nice and all but given we're arguing on a thread about something Mr. Damore said, it's not like he's been silenced now is it?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
âMicro aggressionsâ(TM)? Somebody is in his ear about his straight talk (aka speaking truth to power). He doesnâ(TM)t need to be shamed for being honest. There was noting intellectually dishonest with his statements and the research that backed them. He was being genuine and the perpetually offended got offended. The autism doesnâ(TM)t matter. He shouldnâ(TM)t have mentioned it because weakens his original paper as some sort of apology. Donâ(TM)t apologize, man. They are living in an alternative sjw reality which is far away from the meritocracy you and many of us expected them to be.
Wait - "got a lot of heat" for molesting for a little kid ?
That doesn't really seem ok.
Comforting, my friend.
The guy had no tech background, and was basically a wannabe doctor who couldn't even finish a biology phd, but since he dropped out of harvard the fucktards at google hired him right away without considering if he was a rich privileged dickhead with no empathy for anyone. I blame Google HR and their horrible hiring practices for bringing such a turd on board.
You wouldn't trust them as a friend, or you wouldn't trust them as an employee?
The general idea behind "rape" is that A) it was without consent at the time the incident occurred and B) the non-consenting party disapproves of what occurred either during or after the incident.
Both conditions must be met, and the timing of each condition is important. Plausible non-rape scenarios:
1) consent is given at the time of the incident, but one person feels regret about it and claims non-consent later
2) consent is not given at the time of the incident, but the person who did not consent does not disapprove of the incident
I think scenario #2 is what happened with Amy Schumer. Scenario #1 is why some people dream up scenarios where "she was just asking for it because she was dressed slutty". That frame of mind didn't come about for no reason, after all. That's not a blanket excuse, but it does happen at a non-zero rate.
From your own link:
In the world of sexual behavior, experts says it's not unusual.
"This type of touching and exploration is relatively common," says Debby Hebernick, associate professor in Indiana University's School of Public Health and author of Sex Made Easy. "It's common for young children to explore their own bodies and even those of friends or siblings in this way.
Susan Segal, a Washington, D.C., sex therapist who has treated many sexual abuse victims, says, "Do I think it's sexual abuse? I really don't. It's a sensitive issue, but I don't think it's abuse. I think the way she wrote about it was very flip. Seven-year-olds do get into looking at each others' bodies – that's pretty natural between 5 and 7."
Do you realize that stating that the universe will expand unbounded?! Everyone knows that spacetime will eventually stretch until it causes an volume of lower minimal vacuum energy which will nucleate, expand, and replace the laws of physics with a higher gravitational constant that will result in a big crunch. ;-)
When you have a permitted opinion, you are allowed to commit any atrocity, and you will be praised for it.
Woah, calm down on the hyperbole there, boy.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Score: -1 -- ahh the taste of melted snowflake downmods, your sad little lashing out in response to arguments you can't refute is the most delicious sign of obeisance.
James Damore is not a scientist specializing in evolutionary neurology and his memo was not a scholarly work. You can tell this easily because the memo wasn't submitted to a journal of neurology or even sociology, it was posted to an internal company forum aimed at software engineers. It was also poorly researched and cherry-picked studies (some of which apparently have been discredited).
If it's not science, then what is it? It's opinion, it's politics, and it's written with the specific intent of marginalizing an entire group of people with statements like 'women are better suited for pair programming because they are hard-wired for cooperative interaction'.
Guess what, that kind of thing annoys people. Google got a *lot* of internal feedback from engineers that were offended and there were serious concerns that this would affect recruiting. At that point they did what businesses do, they made a business decision.
"If there's one thing James Damore supporters can't stand it's the free speech they claim to support."
I really don't think you have any idea of what it is you have actually said here. You've removed all possible context from this situation. The fact is, Google asked for feedback regarding this issue. Damore just happened to comply in a way that didn't fit with the existing Google corporate culture. You need to stop being a disingenuous prick about this. Damore only shared his memo with the internal powers-that-be at Google. The memo was leaked by an nefarious actor, and then Damore was fired. He was literally fired for giving private feedback that he was prompted for by leadership inside of Google. That goes beyond how you feel about the content of the memo itself, and speaks to the gravity of how much you truly misunderstand the ideas of free speech. The fact that people like yourself exist is fucking scary. It is completely possible to disagree with the contents of the memo, and still support the principles that should've allowed him to write it in the first place. There is no dichotomy here.
Shut the fuck up, please.
"It's not what you say, it is how you say it."
That's priceless coming from you.
There is scientific consensus that men are, on average, taller than women. There is absolutely no scientific consensus that men are better wired neurologically for software engineering than women, which is what James Damore wrote.
Flamebait means it is designed to provoke an emotional response, specifically offense and anger. Calling something flamebait is literally saying it offends you.
Thinking something is designed to provoke offense doesn't mean it actually offends you.
There is no -1 Disagree or -1 Wrong mod. The correct response is to post a rebuttal. A rebuttal to the actual argument, not an accusation of malice.
When something is designed to be offensive rather than be convincing and likely motivated by a desire to cause offense rather than to discuss varying points of view there is often no point in making a rebuttal - there isn't actually a discussion happening after all.
Do you mean 'whataboutism'?
What happened to having thick skin? If the world is going to revolve around tippy toeing around sensitive narcissistic divas we might as well start ww3, at least you know what to expect from that.
God you're an intolerant, jack-booted anti-sex league thug. Go play in traffic.
The problem is not progressives being offended, it's the right wing snowflakes who can't stand any hurt feelings or suggestion that they are wrong. It's an epidemic on Slashdot and the wider internet.
No. The problem is *both* sides are acting exactly like this and are unable and unwilling to meet in the middle. This is why nothing is getting done in politics, too. The polarization is nearly bipolar at this point, with no middle ground.
Both sides have snowflakes. Both sides are sick and tired of being trod on for so many decades. That's how I see it. Both sides have had it up to *here* with the other. It's the same on both sides, folks.
This isn't limited to the internet and /. either. The internet just serves as a gigantic amplifier.
This inability to see each other's point of view will be our doom. I fear the winner will be chosen mainly by luck - by who happens to have control of Government at the moment when the SHTF. It may be progressives, it may be conservatives. I really feel it'll be luck - a matter of timing, not design.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Says one of the least-trustworthy regular posters on Slashdot.
The one written by a female software engineer at Google claiming that men are inherently inferior, violent, and evil and should be reduced to 10% of employees?
Lol. No, I think his point was context is everything. You intentionally, I hope, pretending to not get the context in an effort to make a point is delicious in it's irony and stupidity. Oh btw, merry catfish is telecine but you don't deserve a response under my own nick.
It was a poorly research psuedo-sciencey political manifesto, couched in a lot of faux-rational language. Anyone with half a brain recognizes it immediately for what it was.
I personally wouldn't have fired him for it, but I would have shut that shit down. Google was dealing with a near-mutiny of offended internal engineers and real consequences for their ability to recruit, so I don't fault them too much for making the business decision to fire the guy.
You're one of those no-freedom-after-speech totalitarian monsters. So it's unsurprising you feel having one's career ruined and one's name publicly dragged through the mud is not tantamount to silencing.
Nice dystopia you got there, broham...
but at least he didn't whip it out and start jacking off
Good afternoon, Ivan! How's the snow in Moscow today?
"I'm glad I was caught; I was mentally deranged. Now I am cured.
I ask only to be shot while my mind is still clean."
Lena Dunham though, I can't find any case there except for her defence of a Girls' Writer who was accused.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/11/06/lena-dunam-sexual-abuse-sister-grace-exploration-lawsuit/18524915/
geek. lawyer.
And if we are so enthusiastic for inclusiveness and diversity and not offending anyone, how come there is no tolerance of those who identify as autistic or near-autistic?
Ain't nobody got a problem with autistics being autistic. They do have a problem with assholes being assholes. The fact that some assholes happen to be autistic does not mean being autistic means we have to be assholes. As an aspie myself, I'm kinda pissed you are trying to use my tribe as a shield for assholes. Like we don't have enough problems to deal with, you gotta try and use us for your own assholery? That's a real asshole move, big league.
Plus, pedophilia is *normal* in the human condition. It's *natural* to desire a young body to implant ones seed inside, as the baby will be healthier. Puritans, being what they are, made this "wrong" and have been viciously dragging it through the mud for centuries.
Not by any halfway sane and rational analysis. In fact it was very far from it. Sure, he gave rational and fact-based arguments (i.e. "valid" arguments) for some things that a specific faction of the population does not want to hear, but it is you giving propaganda-lies as a non-factual response. The truth hurts and many people cannot deal with it. You are just one more example of that.
To Progressives and other collectivists pushing identity politics, truth is a WMD and writing truth where others may read it as Damore did is a WMD attack. Pointing out that men and women naturally tend in general to have different likes and preferences is anathema to the gender-nazis pushing the 'patriarchy' meme, and threatens its fundamental underpinnings. It's no surprise they react violently
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If you're not here posting we don't feel the need to talk about your apparent support of 3rd world child marriage.
Remember when you said marrying underage Mexican girls was all about getting "the most bang out of your retirement dollars?"
Yes that was an odd thing to say.
It's the ultimate free pass.
AmiMoJo fondled my wee-wee when I was a tyke. Off with his head!
What he wrote does not exist in a vacuum.
There's a huge amount of context, for example the large number of studies he didn't cite. The claim being made is that his memo was well researched. If that's the case he knew about others but didn't refer to them, and chose to make his arguments from the ones he did cite. That in itself has meaning.
Secondly, words do not exist in the bland state on the page. He is clearly making inferences from what he's read in his sources about what they mean and how they relate to his particular argument, since none of them address the exact situation at google.
You are therefore arguing on one hand he can make use of inferences and implications assessing his sources, but it's wrong of me to make use of inferences and implications when assessing him.
I personally think that's a massice case of double standards.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
That's nice and all but given we're arguing on a thread about something Mr. Damore said, it's not like he's been silenced now is it?
If you follow the way the thread has gone, it all fits into place.
Something tells me your actual problem with me is that you do not want anyone who has a different opinion in the workplace. Which happens to coincide with your opinion. And that you belive that Damore deserved firing because his opinion hurt women? That a safe space, or in other words, a bubble is needed becuse some groups cannot tolerate people like Damore. Conjecture on my part, but why tou've decided to weigh in and declare me offtopic when a cursory examination of th ethread shows where things were going.
Thir great irony is that the safe space demanded by some women and many liberals is exactly the same sort of Bubbleworld that is practiced by many Fox News listeners. Self validation.
Me? I like hearing different viewpoints. Why? Because some conservative ideas work. Because some liberal ideas work.
But both have enough bullshit in the mix that you have to separate the wheat from the chaff to find the good stuff.
Damore was a dumb asshole. He deserved firing. Not because he had a different opinion, but because he should have foreseen the results of his expressing it. He was in an environment that was an enforced safe space.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You wouldn't trust them as a friend, or you wouldn't trust them as an employee?
Either. Most assuredly never as an employee. It's like having an affair with a married person. One thing you do know for certain is that they cheat on their spouse.
No one has anything more precious than their word.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
When you have a permitted opinion, you are allowed to commit any atrocity, and you will be praised for it.
Woah, calm down on the hyperbole there, boy.
Seriously. How do you think religious wars start and have occurred throughout most of history. You simply have your gawd or ideology construct "the other" and then you destroy them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
According to current feminist dogma, unless consent is given both in writing in three languages and verbally at shouting volume before a judge, a rabbi, and the entire city council - then there's no consent and the man is guilty of rape.
Well, your sig is a pretty clear declaration of who the "other" is for you.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Do you mean 'whataboutism'?
Yeah, same difference, but yeah. The concept that an acceptable argument is trying to turn the other into a hypocrite because of something someone else did before, without actually answering the argument. It is a non-sequitur as well.
And example might be "Roy Moore is a pervert going after underage girls", and the reply is "Well, what about Bill Clinton?", and thinking that that wins the argument. It's a tactic all too widely used today.
Or "Global warming is real" and the response is "It snowed last night - so much for global warming". Comparisons are not fallacies as long as they can be supported. But soundbite attempts to make the other person into a hypocrite while providing nothing but a howabout surely is.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Says one of the least-trustworthy regular posters on Slashdot.
Elucidate.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Have you stopped raping your 12 roommates yet?
Well, your sig is a pretty clear declaration of who the "other" is for you.
My sig is a response to someone actually making that ridiculous claim. It's such a ridiculous claim that it transcends Poe's law - or so I thought until now. I thought it was rather funny, and nothing to be taken seriously other than by nut cases like the guy that posted it.
If I were to be pigeonholed into a political position, it would be center-right, but even that is too restrictive. I'm not certain that most people can even comprehend the idea of a pragmatic these days.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
He then went on to do interviews
You do interviews, you're seeking attention. You don't do interviews, you're hiding because you can't back up your arguments.
He showed zero discretion by talking to all those alt-reich types
Talking to the wrong people? Clear evidence of witchcraft — er, I mean wrongthink — er, I mean ... well, we all know what I mean.
He associated with people, so he's guilty by association. With people who are guilty by association with people who are guilty, in turn, by their association. They're all witches (or whatever — something bad anyway). The true faith must be defended!
Atrocity is the correct term, if you consider speech violence or simply injurious.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Chris' case is getting worse, he spends all day replying to himself as AC on /.
The tests we ran on Chris have shown that Chris has the intelligence of an ameba:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, technically, he is able to conceive some kind of agenda but it will be silly or impossible to follow on a human scale.
For example, Chris had an agenda to post anything he felt like on Slashdot which did not work well because it was based on his false beliefs that he had an infinite number of karma points as he wrote here several times.
Several people here explained to Chris that karma maxed out at some level like 50 or so but Chris kept on insisting that his python script had confirmed that he had millions of karma points!
Oh well, as I wrote before: "It isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody."
For the valuable /. users that might already have read the following, please note that there is an important update.
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education has invested money to buy Chris a new chair:
http://www.keynamics.com/image...
Information about Christopher Dale Reimer and autistic people:
Autistic people have obsessions about things normal people don't care. For example, one of our autistic patient went haywire when he realized that there was a penny missing in his pocket change.
To calm him down, one of our educator pretended to have found it on the floor and gave a penny to him.
The autistic patient condition went even worse because he realized it wasn't the same penny!
Chris has an obsession with budgeting every penny. He doesn't understand that most people do not budget to the penny and have a flexible amount they allow for miscellaneous items.
I am Nancy Guerrero and I am Director of Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education. We use Chris' (a.k.a. creimer,cdreimer) picture in our document because he is the hardest case we have ever had to handle:
http://www.sccoe.org/depts/stu...
Our artists were inspired by the low carb diet that Christopher follows scrupulously for the small lunch box and by the picture linked below for the rest. I am sure that you will notice the similarities such as the bump on the side of his chest and more:
https://ibb.co/gVad65
Please be easy on Christopher although, I am aware that some of our staff handling Chris post joke comments here and obvoiusly, the Santa Clara County Office of Education disapprove that behavior vehemently:
https://school.discoveryeducat...
But it isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody.
Thank You dear users,
---
Nancy Guerrero
Director
Special Education
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Pretty much. But it gives the "Emotion first!" people a pseudo-justification for their completely ridiculous reaction. You know, those people that want "safe spaces" at a place of learning and growing, were anything should be happening except that you can comfortably stick to your established misconceptions. Anti-reason and anti-understanding is on the raise. And, if not stopped and firmly put in its place, it will kill society.
Ah, somebody who wants to disparage those who have emotions, eh? Perhaps you're the one who is anti-reason and anti-understanding, after all, you're putting people into what is, for you, a very convenient box, when you can throw them out.
All in the name of your own putative support for reason and rationale behavior. Interesting.
You're making your own pretenses rather obvious, perhaps you might want to think about that. Maybe you can't handle the truth.
> Lena Dunham though, I can't find any case there except for her defence of a Girls' Writer who was accused.
Dunham wrote about doing something to her little sister's vagina in one of her books.
The Daily Mail of all things actually covers it pretty well with excerpt's from Dunham's book as well as Dunham's tweets on the topic, such as:
"And by the way, if you were a little kid and never looked at another little kid's vagina, well, congrats to you."
I should note that they revised the book to say that Dunham's age at the time of this was 7, not 17, as originally printed.
Damore was writing in an environment where sexism and discrimination are commonplace and encouraged. He had the temerity to question one of the justifications used for this sexism ... and he was fired for it. His words had real-life consequences, yes - but why is that a bad thing, if the consequence is for people to question discriminatory policies?
Thanks for the laugh!
And again!
He associated with people, so he's guilty by association
This ain't a court of law. You are known by the company you keep. Lots of legitimate reporters were willing to interview him. Instead he chose the illegitimate because they were willing to coddle him.
lol so if a micro-agression is serious, then a memo that gets spread around on the evening news must be horrendous beyond comprehension?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No goal posts have been shifted. Do you even understand what that term means? You want to cry about non-response's, but you make these wild accusations that are either completely wrong, or don't bother backing them up.
If you read the memo more carefully, without your rage blinders, pages 2 - 5, discuss the differences between men and women. He spells it out there. What part specifically do you not understand?
As far as him discussing race goes, he doesn't just casually lump it in there with gender biases. The whole discussion in the memo is about Googles diversity initiatives. That part seems to be more observational of what's happening at Google than anything else.
Perhaps in your next response could lay off the hyperbole and have an actual discussion, that is, if that's something you're capable of doing.
...given we're arguing on a thread about something Mr. Damore said, it's not like he's been silenced now is it?
He has been fired for saying something. Other people who may be sharing his concerns will take note, and think twice before raising them. This is effectively shutting up the discussion.
As an aside, the way Google fired Damore for raising concerns in an internal forum specifically presented as a place to raise concerns reminds me irresistibly of this little gem:
"I want someone to tell me", Lieutenant Scheisskopf beseeched to them all prayerfully. "If any of it is my fault, I want to be told."
"He wants someone to tell him," Clevinger said.
"He wants everyone to keep still, idiot," Yossarian answered.
"Didn't you hear him?" Clevinger argued.
"I heard him," Yossarian replied."I heard him say very loudly and very distinctly that he wants every one of us to keep our mouths shut if we know what's good for us."
"I won't punish you", Lieutenant Scheisskopf swore.
"He says he won't punish me", said Clevinger.
"He'll castrate you," said Yosarrian.
"I swear I won't punish you," said Lieutenant Scheisskopf."I'll be grateful to the man who tells me the truth."
"He'll hate you", said Yossarian."To his dying day he'll hate you."
I wonder if the commenters are just as aspie as Damore.
Damore was a dumb asshole. He deserved firing. Not because he had a different opinion, but because he should have foreseen the results of his expressing it.
To a large extent, it seems we agree.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I've never seen one person embody the sociopathic and contrarian ideals of that segment of 4chan which religiously and sexually idolizes abusive dominant patriarchalism as much as James Damore.
He has been fired for saying something.
Yes? You say this like it's somewhat surprising, but there's lots of thing you'd get fired for saying. I can think of many. Can you?
Other people who may be sharing his concerns will take note, and think twice before raising them.
Good! H=I have read (and frequently linked to analyses of his) memo and I and many others do not believe his concerns were well founded. I believe they were simply a result of some rather unpleasant underlying biases.
This is effectively shutting up the discussion.
As I see it he wasn't really discussing anything in that he didn't bring anything new to the conversation that had not been brought up and largely debunbked before.
Basically he took a contraversial topic and gave the pot a huge stir without adding anything new. Not really surprising that got some blowback.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No goal posts have been shifted. Do you even understand what that term means?
Lol. Why don't you tell me? First you said "These biological differences make them better and worse at different things. It's an objective fact." When I said those biological differences are not relevant to doing the job you explicitly said it wasn't about "ability" (i.e. being better at 'things') and instead its about being "inclined."
Goal posts moved.
What part specifically do you not understand?
Lol. You are asking me what part I don't understand? The problem here is that you don't understand anything but the most facile, surface level meaning of what he wrote. You are like a color-blind man telling everyone that the sky isn't blue.
As far as him discussing race goes, he doesn't just casually lump it in there with gender biases.
Lolwut? Yeah, he threw it in with lines like this:
However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices ...
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race ...
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races ...
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
And... that's it. He throws race in but makes zero effort to explain it.
Perhaps in your next response could lay off the hyperbole and have an actual discussion
Me: You are ridiculous.
K24: Stop being mean to me! If you don't take my vacuous bullshit seriously then you are the stupid-head!
Ah the mods go up and the mods go down.
Seems I've been modded flaimbait that people supporting James Damore really do hate dissenters more than anything. Flaimbait is not for arguments you disagree with. I've posted sources and reasoning.
If you disagree, post a response, that's what a properly thresded forum like slashdot is for. If you mod flaimbait for disagree it only means you can't rebut.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Allow him to continue is tantamount to allowing it to happen to more women.
I agree not brilliant, but it was better then average compared to the current state of discussion.
I am pleased that more people are realizing the tactics that AmiMoJo has been using for many years.
" without my name being mentioned."
Your fragile balloon-animal ego can't handle it?
She was seven years old at the time for fuck's sake. Seven year olds' have no concept of sex (unless they've been raped by a republican.)
I love watching people like you try so desperately to flip the term "snowflake" around
Yeah, who does he think he is? That's our word. He has no right to use it!
I missed that on my first read. Thanks.
It was a poorly research psuedo-sciencey political manifesto, couched in a lot of faux-rational language. Anyone with half a brain recognizes it immediately for what it was.
Ironic projection in two sentences. Impressive.
If someone is fully sexually mature it isn't considered paedophilia. People drawn to young teenagers are more properly termed ephidophiles (so?). Or so law and order said. 15 year olds getting married was a thing once it is true, or even 13 which statistically is kind of risky from a reproductive sense. Also a man losing 3 or 4 wives in childbirth was a thing. A lot of dead young girls and a lot of unmarried old men. Things have gotten better mostly. Birth control in developed countries has damaged the reproductive strategy of the edgy sexy "badboy". Now it is the supportive nice guy who used to raise his kid and the bad boy's that is having more reproductive success. Not sure how that will change society.
I don't share your optimism. A very large number of people is deeply invested in the idea that society can be created as an utopia.
The entire history of civilization has been steady progress towards increased fairness. Your argument is exactly what we would expect from someone arguing against the magna carta or the US constitution back when they were being written. Or against fire departments, public schools and universal healthcare.
They feel actively threatened by statements contradicting that view, and will not stop at anything to destroy the threat.
That is some serious projection right there. Ayup.
What obvious reasons, BeauHD (1)?
So he can continue to push the envelope towards abuse of his unlimited mod points.
Because I quoted just 2 paragraphs of the entire article rather that post it all. That's what you do with other people's articles, give just enough to understand what the link is, so if you're interested you can RTFA yourself.
Found the autist.
Because I quoted just 2 paragraphs of the entire article rather that post it all.
Wait, what?! Now you are claiming to be the anonymous author of that article?
Because if that's not what you are saying, you totally missed the point of my post. What I quoted was not in the article you linked to.
And meanwhile, regardless of your mental malfunction, you've said nothing about the actual content, the fact that the article you linked to was deliberately deceptive and did not accurately represent the facts.
Chris is a joke with regards to his attention grabbing personality.
Contrarily to popular belief, not all autistic people are super-brains. Chris sure isn't one.
See my other post just above.
---
Nancy Guerrero
Director
Special Education
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Nazi
Thanks for the laugh!
I aways aim to please.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And again!
Cute, Boring as squash soup, but cute.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Just for your information, the first thing Russian leftist revolutionaries destroyed were fire departments because they were instruments of the oppressing Czarist state. Street police and public sanitation followed.
So just you wait for more social progress. It will come.
Just for your information, the first thing Russian leftist revolutionaries destroyed were fire departments
Spacial thinking and coordination is better in men, for example. So make sure your dentist is a man.
And make your project manager a woman so she will not be as dominating and ego-clashing with your autist code developers( all men of course because women are not interested in coding).
That the radical "inclusion" philosophy ends up making everyone feel uncomfortable and excluding people more towards the autistic end (which is more people than I think most people understand.) is highly ironic.
However I would say to Damore that his paper was very carefully worded, but there is no amount of careful wording that will satisfy the radical leftist bubble. He engaged in wrongthink, and there is no escaping from that.
There is a theory, scientifically well regarded, albeit contested and controversial, that autism is just the extreme case of maleness. Men are less interested in people and more interested in things. Same diagnosis as being autistic. Personally I think there might be something to this. Half of men are probably bordering on autistic behavior. They wouldn't be diagnosed with it, but their thinking is close.
WTF good is "The Rock Test"?
It's not like The Rock is going to misinterpret my offer to catch the game and have some drinks at the hotel bar after work as a date. And if he had one too many, I'd have no problem offering to let him sleep it off on my couch. There would be no accusations of misconduct when he woke up without his clothes on. I wouldn't have to worry about people starting rumors if we show up at work together the next morning.
Being a man, those are all things I wouldn't dare suggest to a woman coworker, lest they be construed as inappropriate (if not downright harrassment). But to The Rock? That's just part of being buddies.
dom
When you make have this sort of career suicide move and it blows up in the media you start to get phone calls and emails from attorneys who specialize in repairing PR mistakes.
One of the options they always present is to tell the media that you did what ever you did because you're sick and you need help.
Then you don't have to take responsibility for your actions.
You're the victim! The poor, ailing victim.
Fascinating. I am an actual scientist with a lot of experience reviewing papers and spotting bullshit in them, quite a few of them with statistical arguments. Apparently, I do not qualify as "having half a brain", because my finely tuned bullshit detector did not even ping once in reading his text. Sure, there were areas of uncertainty where more research was needed, but he clearly marked them. And there were some opinions, also clearly marked.
So no, anybody that immediately recognized it as what you would like it to be is full of it. Same as you.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
He doesn't need any excuse or forgiveness. It's not like he stole something or killed someone.
But ... but .. he said stuff they didn't like!
Off with his head!
Reminds me of this song:
Do not ask me to write you a song as one is supposed to / Correct, white, soft, very clean, very light / Sounds, words, are razors / And I can not sing as it should be done / Not wanting to hurt anyone.
Circumcision is child abuse.
I'd rather hear it straight from an autistic. At least they say what they mean at all times, and they don't mince words, lie or attempt to manipulate. We live in a screwed up social world.
My bullshit meter went off as soon as I realized that the author was writing about neurobiology, he was presenting opinions that are clearly in the minority [in fact virtually non-existent] among experts in that field, but rather than presenting his 'research' to neurobiologists he was presenting them to software engineers.
If I have a problem with the standard template library I don't go post a manifesto to a chemistry forum.
You're one of those no-freedom-after-speech totalitarian monsters. So it's unsurprising you feel having one's career ruined and one's name publicly dragged through the mud is not tantamount to silencing.
Nice dystopia you got there, broham...
I do not know about Damore, but my career was of utmost importance to me. My political or personal opinions, If a person was not a very close friend, it was emphatically none of their fucking business.
Because for me, losing my job over something as petty as expressing my opinion would be viewed by me as my ultimate failure. I was however smart enough to know that there are people who either left or right, have a totalitarian outlook, where an expression of opinion, even a non-violent one or one that is not lawbreaking in any form, is an excellent reason to fire one's ass.
Funny, the left used to be about personal freedom, now it is turning into rigid unwavering forceful conformity, masquerading as "protecting" people. Conform or lose your job. Crime and punishment FTW.
Which is never a good idea, because some day it might be the left's turn in the barrel.
The right shouldn't feel any better though, because they have shifted to unwavering support of perversion.
Goddamit Barry Goldwater, we need you, why'd you have to go and die on us?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's only a Utopia if you believe in a life of "continual victimhood" where it pays great money to hate on white men in a family court system more than willing to cater to the stereotype that men have it coming to them, and that those men need to be continually shamed for all the magical and unearned blessings bestowed at birth. You had better pay up or you're going to jail buddy.
Forget the vast vast majority of homeless are men, or that the vast majority of suicides are middle age white guys.
If life was such a grand Utopia with femenism at the helm, we wouldn't have any of that!
For over 30 years ago I have been watching people whing and whine about ever smaller real and imagined insults. At 73 I figured I'd likely be dead by the time it came to a head. Now I am not so sure. The reductio ad absurdum situation has everybody being perpetually insulted, mentally crippled, and cowering in basements just because somebody else is still alive. We're approaching this with frightening rapidity. I expect within the next few years to see some major construction project go up with major design flaws because somebody considered it a nasty micro-aggression to call designer's attention to the design's fatal design errors.
Have fun, children. You let yourselves be duped into this world view. Now you get to live with it a heck of a lot longer than I do.
{o.o}
Oh please, the conversation about how white men are better than others based on centuries of the white mans science is far from being shutdown. Call me when you expierence real systemic oppression.
A self-diagnosed developmental disorder contracted by reading the Wikipedia page about the condition. Having Asperger's means that you are smarter than everyone else and it totally forgives all of the lazy anti-social choices you make in life.
There are literally women with more testosterone than you, so you should be treated like a woman.
That's why when I attend funerals, I make a speech suggesting that there is no evidence of an afterlife, and that the deceased's death was objectively meaningless. Don't even ask what I say at weddings.
Wow, I'm an atheist, and if you did that at the funeral of someone in my family, I'd break my up to now lifelong non-violent behavior and punch you in the face. Saying something mean when someone is grieving is just stupid.
Go home Damore, you're drunk.
Have you been tested? Autistic people who don't know they are autistic, or who just ignore on fact, but don't seek non-autistic help when deal with the healthy world care on like you are. Some to the point that they get themselves fired despite their bullet proof logic based on some scientific facts they have found in isolation.
isn't that more of a problem???
You don't really understand words like "probably" and phrases like "most likely" apparently.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Given the amount of PR flak that Uber has gotten for their executives' behavior towards women, sensitivity training is in fact appropriate. And if you think that it somehow detracts from their ability to develop services any more than dealing with the shitstorm that companies deal with for not having their nondiscrimination ducks in a row, then you probably need to get your head checked.
Perhaps, but I'm not a expert, and I've yet to see an expert debunk his cherry picking. Some would claim he was just trying to present his evidence.
That's a bit circular. They question his intent and then use that as justification to question his intent. I'm not sure why you need the rationalization. Seems the guy is mildly autistic, so the whole point is that he's probably hard to read. However, it's fine if you don't like what he wrote, and you can support that with arguments.
He claims many experts support him. Also he has some background in these areas (PhD student.) Previous slashdot comments linked to a blogger that did a good job of defending him. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017... It's a bit long, but much better than any articles I found that attack his position. Again, I'm not an expert, and I could be swayed. In fact, the expert, Adam Grant, he debunks politely rebuts his comments. By the time I got the far, I was a bit drained, and I found Grant's arguments somewhat persuasive. However, the blogger did a sound job dismantling the points. (Though the blogger's reply was a bit rude which might have stopped a productive back and forth.)
Now you might wonder why few experts vocally supported Damore. (I think a few did.) However, it's not surprising that supporting experts did not want to get involved in this firestorm...
I think the is an interesting issue. For the most part, neither side of the slashdot debate are experts. How do they determine which experts to listen to. Why should they even believe that 97% of the climate scientists believe in climate change? What experts give them this information? If they are not listening to experts, how do they form their opinion?
The case for social science is even more complex. I think the most damning argument against Damore is not that he thinks he can beat the experts, it's that maybe there are no good experts in this area. I think this is the real danger; if all science is lumped together, questionable research can be used to weaken the strong work. Personally, I assume climate science fits in the strong camp, but I don't have the time to do extensive research myself, so I have to pick my experts.
Chris Mesterharm
And you have no idea if it was consensual. As the AC above you pointed out, your coworker is presumably an adult and capable of reporting it herself if it was not. At the very least, you could, you know, ask her if it was consensual before reporting it; if it was, you'd be the one in the wrong for speaking up.
At least, that's one perspective. Another is that both her and the other coworker involved would be in trouble, given that it was consensual. Most companies have policies against sexual acts on premises, including at company-sponsored events and, unless you've made verified with the alleged victim that she was, in fact, being victimized, well... By reporting it, you're making her your victim, when she has to find another job over what may well have been a consensual act.
Of course, if your whole point it to ensure that company policy is enforced, you can drop the white knight facade and just admit that. Then, of course, you report what you saw with no regard for whether it may have been consensual: rules were broken and those who broke them must be punished, after all.
People who think and act like you have the (I'd like to believe unintended) effect of watering down real issues like rape and molestation in the workplace by pointing to anything even the slightest bit off-color and screaming that you see these major offenses in their place. By pointing at something as minor as a coworker putting their hand on another coworker's shoulder (a sign of trust) and screaming "rape" over it, you begin to give the impression that rape is nothing more than a touch on the shoulder and should be ignored as harmless, when the reality is anything but that.
Ask a victim of an actual sexual assault or rape if they appreciate you taking this overbearing position on their behalf. Before you do, though, I should warn you: you should be prepared to be less-than-politely asked to go to hell. It's really difficult to move on and have a healthy sexual relationship when there's always someone like you standing around, just waiting to tell us how raped we just got.
DISCLAIMER: The first three paragraph of the above post take on several contradictory points of view, in an attempt to illustrate how ridiculous those individual points of view actually are. If you want to know how we really feel about people like you, see the last two paragraphs.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
For example, he says that women are on average more neurotic, and that explains some of the gender gap.
This is point to which everyone, who criticizes him, latches on. Unlike the rest of the memo, I am on the fence on this point. If used as an industry term (the industry being the formal study of human psychology), his use of the term is correct. But the neurotic in the context of modern psychology has a different interpretation than it does in plain English. Damore may have muddied the waters a bit because, as someone who formally studied biology rigourously, he might have thought that his readers owe him the deference of interpreting his usage of the word as a formal term. But, because he was addressing a general audience, that expectation was not necesserily justified.
Once he realized that this word was not being taken as he meant, he probably should have course-corrected with an addendum specifying that he was using the word in the narrow professional meaning, as it is used in psychology. Instead, he dismissed the criticism by stating on a few occasions that the word has a specific meaning in psychology and that while that may cause confusion, his use was accurate.
He was, however, being defensive. This, however, is somewhat understandable since he was thrown into a public controversy without being prepared for it. The shouting match which ensued speaks more about lack of training to resolve conflicts (by both sides of the debate) than it does about either side being right or wrong.
The problem with this argument is that it minimizes the other issues that cause the gap, which was in fact the entire point of his memo.
His current legal argument, as he stated in a few public appearances, is that the point of the memo was to suggest creative ways to address the gap in order to reduce it. So the "entire" point of the memo was not as narrow as just identifying the issues.
But that's his argument. I would argue that it doesn't minimize other issues. It may de-emphasize other issues by drawing his readers' attention to his usage of "neurotic" and, in so doing, it undermines his intent. But that's only the case if the readers of the memo choose to ignore the balance of the memo and put all their emphasis on this short passage from it. Again, he didn't realize that would be the case when he wrote the original, but he should have made an addendum once it became clear.
Once fired and free to speak his mind without filter, it becomes obvious what his biases are.
I don't think you can fairly judge a person's intentions during their attempt to be introspective if you try to observe them when they are beaten down and put on defensive. When people are introspective, they are often much more aware and critical of their own biases and often try to genuinly correct for them. When people are defensive, they embrace and defend their biases.
A since deleted tweet documented here [salon.com] also demonstrates just how naive Damore is, and how he fails to understand historical context before making bold statements.
The series of tweets doesn't show that he was naive. It shows that he was ill-informed on a topic which he used as an example for the purposes of constructing an analogy. But he was anything but naive. If you disregard the origins of KKK (as described by Tyson) and only view them in the context of the modern world (as DaMore was doing), DaMore's analogy would work. But he was already on the defensive and posting snap replies using ill-researched references. I don't think you can accuse him of naivette, because he did not double down, but erased the tweets. Presumably he did that after researching Tyson's claims. While it is true that DaMore could have taken the high road and acknowledged that his statements were made in haste, taking a high road is not something you can expect from a 26-year-old who is bein
Something tells me your actual problem with me is that you do not want anyone who has a different opinion in the workplace.
Considering that the AC you're replying to just stood up to defend someone's right to voice their differing opinion in the workplace... I'd guess you probably couldn't be more off-base if you tried.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
DERP. I jumped the gun on that reply. You were replying to serviscope_minor, not the AC above you. Damn /.'s broken nesting at this level and carry on. My apologies.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And exactly what makes it "stupid"? Is it that it can't possibly be true, or that it goes against feminist orthodoxy?
Remember, you're the one reading "can't" into "don't". That is, Damore said that biological differences explain why women don't take certain jobs. He never said that women can't take certain jobs, but that's certainly how people are reading it.
Women can do tech jobs just as well as men -- and you can tell because there are tons of women in tech in patriarchal societies where fathers decide what jobs their daughters will do (like India, or the US before the '70s). But when you tell women that they can be anything they want to be, fewer of them actually want such tech jobs.
dom
Guys, that's disgusting. Really. Fact is, women being raped by men is (still) the rule, the other way around is (still) the exception. What you are doing is called "whataboutism".
The world *I* want to have (and I am a white male Western guy) is a world where *both are the exception*. Best zero, but I know that's unattainable.
Do some women abuse the "new power" they have now, with calling out? You bet. Women are (gasp!) humans, and capable of abusing power as we guys are. Shit happens.
But something like Weinstein, abusing his power over women all his career long (and people around him knowing) is so boringly normal that I nauseate when I think of it. *That's* fucking gotta change, and I accept some fallout along the way.
Now get back to discuss the current case about Denmore and Google (no, I don't like either how it was handled).
> Yeah, same difference, but yeah. The concept that an acceptable argument is trying to turn the other into a hypocrite because of something someone else did before, without actually answering the argument. It is a non-sequitur as well.
That is way beyond disingenuous.
If John Doe decries the act of rape, but only when it's someone he doesn't like doing it, that is hypocrisy if his argument is that rapists should be punished.
You don't get to label an action as "career-ending", and then ignore it completely when your side does it.
Actually, he made it quite explicit, in many of his interviews, that:
1. No mainstream reporter, except Fox News, was willing to cover him. A point that Dave Rubin has repeated many times. Hence, the "echo chamber" thing in the memo.
2. All mainstream media went out to smear him as "anti-diversity". They removed all the references in his memo, and claimed that he called women "neurotic" (which he never said).
That's why we were, and still are, outraged.
Nice weasel wording but iy won't get you out. You have no way of knowing if the Rock will most likely think you're funy or think you're an idiot, because you don't know the guy.
Also, when people make a sort of stunted nervour half chuckle, that's often someone feeling really awkward, not you being funny.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
He was fired in large part because the memo he wrote showed such a complete inability to understand research and form logical arguments from evidence that he was clearly incapable of doing his job.
He was commended on being one of the top performers at Google (within top 3%). The reason stated for his firing was "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Get your facts straight, please.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I see what you did there, but technically they're legumes.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
As usual you are an idiot, and for more than one reason. First, I said he might not laugh in my post, and second it is immaterial. The woman writing the post suggested that a world full of men treat her as if they would treat Johnson, so knowing him or not has literally nothing to do with it. Are you really a fucking idiot, or are you trolling?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Putting up shelves. Having babies.
It's left as an exercise for the reader to work out which way round.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I wrote "say", not "post " ... In this case I am referring to voice inflection and body language. You are also not understanding that when I tell you what a moron you are, and make no mistake little stalker troll ... you are one, that I am worried about how you might take it.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Funny how suddenly having sex with someone who's too drunk to know where they are or who they're with isn't rape when it's a feminist doing it.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You literally claimed someone was helping and supporting the KKK just because they thought the phrase "Grand Wizard" was cool sounding, which it is. That's an utterly repugnant thing to claim on its face let alone to use as an underhanded smear tactic when you've got nothing on them otherwise and are flat out lying about things they said and did.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Except actual experts in the field including non-white women whose doctoral dissertations were in this field say the exact opposite.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I claimed he was inadvertently helping the KKK. That word is important.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you read her account of it, he was the one trying (and failing) to have sex with her.
Of course, if this person ever comes forward to provide a different account it should be fully investigated.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So, you agree that he was silenced, then? Or are you arguing that it's not silencing a person to fire them? Or that the chilling effect of firing a person doesn't silence other and reaffirm the notion that you're fearful of what was said?
Btw, if you want to argue that it's okay to silence people at times for what they say, especially in the context of firing a person, I agree that it's a reasonable thing at times. There's no reason, though, to be in denial of the act of silence. The only thing really is to support the justification of said silencing.
Great, and others believe they raise legitimate concerns. So, we're having an honest discussion about these things, then? Is it time to silence him for that?
One, part of a discussion as far as framing something is most often not about bring something new to the conversation. It's not a new idea that there's gender inequality, right? As far as being largely debunked, that's rather the problem, isn't it? He did try to cite various sources to affirm the positions he took. If one wants to go through and debunk those sources with other sources, that's great. Then you're still having a discussion.
Which is precisely the whole problem. You note it's a controversial topic. That inherently means there's a substantial level of disagreement about the topic. Whether he added anything new or not to the discussion, anything that amounts to "gave the pot a huge stir" by speaking in terms that goes against the group think of the organization you're a part of will "not really surprising[ly] ... [give] some blowback".
The fundamental problem is precisely this does nothing to actually resolve the controversy because it simply turns it into a binary situation where one side can push their own agenda/beliefs and those on the opposite side, instead of trying to actual resolve the controversy by having an honest discussion (which admittedly may never really result in a consensus) only further polarizes the controversy by effectively codifying it. And in the context of the memo, specifically being delivered to a closed group that was tasked to discuss discrimination in hiring practices at Google to be leaked to the media, it's not merely a message that one can't in said group honestly talk but that in Google in general the whole notion of honest self-reflection is simply impossible because one must always follow the perceived, but always unstated, consensus.
If you don't see what is so fundamental wrong with this or how it so clearly matches the GP's point with Lieutenant Scheisskopf, I don't know what can really be done to help you. At that level, you're clearly delusional (and I don't mean that as an ad hominem).
Your idiocy here is just the same as Damore's: you wrongly believe some generalization you made, without even seriously testing its reliability, can be applied to a specific set of people.
Let me make this clear- you have no fucking idea what women programmers working at Google "tend" to do, you have no idea if female applicants to Google are similar to women as a whole.
The major issue in today's world is rarely consent explicitly given. Instead scenario #1 usually goes where the man and woman actively engage in sex and then a lack of explicit consent later can be used to justify rape or sexual assault charges. Of course, normally it stops at that point because prosecutors don't generally want to push such a case because they will almost certain lose in court. However, before that happens the [almost always] guy will have been potentially arrested and forever have the stigma attached that was arrested for rape but that prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to press charges.
Meanwhile, in scenario #2 is often almost identical to #1 except alcohol or significant exhaustion is involved. At that point, prosecutors might well press charges because any after the fact approval just remove the point that the law has been written in most States that one simply cannot consent while being in an impaired state of mind. There's no grey area of implicit consent. At that point, the prosecutors in many States have an explicit duty to at some level at least look into the case and push for some sort of punishment against the rapist, no matter how much the rape victim is disinclined to push the issue because they don't want either retribution or simply, as you say, don't retroactively disapprove of the incident.
No matter how you look at it, though, it still makes person in scenario #2 a rapist. And like others have pointed out, if the roles were reversed the whole notion of incorporating the story into one of self-empowerment would make just about any male look like some sort of predatory monster. Of course the reality is that, again, it probably wouldn't legally amount to much.
No, he wrote stupid words that admit he stereotypes women. It has nothing to do with "accepted" ideas, it has to do with the fact that he assumes women working at or applying to Google are the same as women as a whole.
Whenever someone mentions "SAFe", it really isn't at all.
That's why when I attend funerals, I make a speech suggesting that there is no evidence of an afterlife, and that the deceased's death was objectively meaningless. Don't even ask what I say at weddings.
All weddings should start with the words "Divorces are expensive".
Besides, I think we as a culture have things backwards. A funeral should be a joyous occasion full of festivities where we remember someone who has lived, enriched our lives with their mere presence and made a mark on many people. Weddings on the other hand should be sober and somber occasions where one reflects on the freedom they have lost and the responsibilities they have gained.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Damore's memo was just misogynist bullshit.
That's a very cheap claim to make without any reasoning. That's probably it's so popular on Twitter and such (mostly because reasoning doesn't fit into 140 characters).
It was bullshit that had no rational basis, but was worded to sound so. A lot of people cant tell the difference sadly.
Basic scientific rigor was missing, it relied on information/soundbites taken out of context, broad generalisations were made to apply to individuals, extrapolations were exaggerated and evidence that did not fit his conclusion was ignored. Whilst I wont say it was strictly misogynistic (I've read and heard far worse) I will say it came of as angry towards women, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's not misogynistic but he definitely misunderstands.
However a lot of people are championing it because they they think it helps in playing the white male victim card.
Now I fully expect to see this modded down because I dare to question the document, let alone the victimisation of white males.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Something tells me your actual problem with me is that you do not want anyone who has a different opinion in the workplace.
Considering that the AC you're replying to just stood up to defend someone's right to voice their differing opinion in the workplace... I'd guess you probably couldn't be more off-base if you tried.
You know who all AC's are right?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
DERP. I jumped the gun on that reply. You were replying to serviscope_minor, not the AC above you. Damn /.'s broken nesting at this level and carry on. My apologies.
No Problem, these threads get pretty convoluted at times. All's good.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No mainstream reporter, except Fox News, was willing to cover him. A point that Dave Rubin has repeated many times. Hence, the "echo chamber" thing in the memo.
lol, that's a lie contradicted by his own words in the linked the BI article he's quoted whining that he's afraid the "mainstream" reporters won't uncritically interview him, not that they refuse to interview him. He's hiding from them because they won't respect his safe-space.
Also logic fail on your part thinking something he wrote in the memo proves something you think happened after he wrote the memo.
They removed all the references in his memo, and claimed that he called women "neurotic" (which he never said).
lolwut? Have YOU read the memo? He literally wrote this:
Women, on average, have more: ... ... ...
o Openness
o Extraversion
o Neuroticism
Furthermore, he didn't even try to base that claim on any biological factor, in fact all he did was link to wikipedia (srsly? wikipedia, wtf?) - completely undermining his claimed point of view.
Seriously, are all you damore acolytes total fucking idiots? Is that biological or did your parents just drop you on your head?
> Putting up shelves. Having babies.
Just a typical day at work for a google engineer!
I was with you up until the end. Damore didn't lose his job because he's going through a contrarian phase; he lost his job because labor relations in this country are fucked and employers may destroy a worker's livelihood at whim.
If you haven't read it please consider doing so, it contains solid insights:
https://blog.ycombinator.com/a...
Many of the engineers agree with certain aspects of the original memo while respectfully debunking the logical fallacies it presented.
Enjoy.
because there is insufficient or conflicting data. The scientific consensus [as I understand it] amongst neurobiologists is overwhelmingly that race & sex are not predictive traits for knowledge worker performance; and there's no neuro-biological explanation that leads us to any such conclusions..
Amongst sociologists, on the other hand, there is an overwhelming consensus that economic & cultural factors have a huge impact on how demographic categories are sorted into professions
So, if you're asking me what I believe, I'd say that 'cultural factors' are the most-likely explanation for why some demographic categories are under-represented or over-represented. That doesn't mean I believe it is due to direct racism or misogyny from tech companies, either, BTW; because that theory struggles to explain why male of Asian descent are over-represented in tech relative to their population, and why Asian females enter tech at higher rates than white females.
You're basically saying that software engineers have done a thorough review of neurobiology and have determined that this entire field is operating in an unscientific way. The only hope for advancement in the field of neurobiology is C++ hackers posting psuedo-sciency bullshit on internal company forums.
I'm not following. You're simply pointing out that there are some crazy people on both sides? Agreed.
then that must represent scientific consensus of the entire field. Also there's no such thing as climate change and the Earth is flat.
I would follow you up with the statement that there is also no scientific evidence that there is no immaterial afterlife since it's impossible to test something immaterial and that the deceased may, in fact, be in a horrible hellish environment or surrounded by hundreds of virgins, but that we won't know for sure until we die ourselves and either visit the deceased in hell or hear about his whereabouts in a virgin paradise. Either way, the deceased's death might be subjectively meaningless or very meaningful depending on what actually awaits him (and us) on the other side.
Kinda weird how the only actual quoted parts from the book are about something she did when she was seven years old.
Oh, would you prefer the quotes from when she was older?
"As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a "motorcycle chick." Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just "relax on me." Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying."
"I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out."
Hell, even smug douche Ben Shapiro couldn't stand to be associated with them any more and he was a founder.
Funny how dishonest you are when you act as truth-bringer. Your link says nothing about Shapiro's feelings. All it said was that he resigned and a bunch of other writers were let go.
I'll condemned Roy Moore when you and the media condemned the Clintons.
Lena Dunham admitted to molesting her younger sister, but I guess the pussy pass protects her huh?
I mean it's just molestation, all little girls should get a pass for sexual assault.
It's a miracle that science advanced as far as it did before we had computer programmers who have the unique ability to push the frontiers of every scientific field.
Understandable especially the way they have been puffing themselves up lately. It isn't growth of their movement though just the last desperate actions before the tidal wave of common sense that is rising.
It wouldn't have been long ago that my original post would have been moderated to oblivion here, by the very sort of people you describe.
Well, generally you have Islam attempting to take over the world, kill all who don't adhere, enslave who they want, etc...
Eventually, turning the other cheek has to take a hiatus, and you have some push-back known as the Holy Wars.
Thanks for asking.
SJWs
*incel meter pegs*
Awesome. Completely disingenuous because literally everyone does the above, especially those who talk about gender inequality in the workplace. Unlike them, though, I acknowledge what I said was truthiness not truth and needed better support.
So, are you arguing that it's something I personally don't know or that it's an unknown as a whole? Because if it's the latter, then we have absolutely no reason to speak about gender inequality at Google at all because we have no evidence of gender inequality nor a basis to really have a productive discussion about "fixing it". We would have reason to collect statistics about it, though. If it's the former, please enlighten me with the statistics that you have to actually refute my generalization to at least some degree. The only generalization I can give statistically that, admittedly, doesn't directly correlate to Google is that while "both men and women feel that bureaucracy and hierarchy are impeding employees from achieving what they are there to accomplish", when women notice what they consider to be unnecessary obstacles to their work, they tend to end up leaving for another career. Ie, that tends to reforce my claim about 'there are more insanely overly competitive men who will do just about anything to "win" in business'. But, you know, whatever.
Compared to something like a nuclear explosion its difference from absolute zero is a rounding error.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
First, I said he might not laugh in my post, and second it is immaterial.
OK, so you'd go up to a guy you don't know and make a crack about pussy knowing full well he may well not appreciate the joke?
Honestly, I think you've painted yourself into a corner and are simply refusing to back down. I don't believe you that you make pussy gags to large strangers.
Are you really a fucking idiot,
I'm not the one trying to analyse a flippant one liner to death. She used one line, I'm sure she's aware that one line doesn't cover all human interactions ever.
It seems you are so poorly versed in human interactions that you don't realise that. Therefore, I recommend that you steer clear of the pussy gags unless you feel like a trip to HR.
By the way, guys can call in HR's services too.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So, you agree that he was silenced, then?
Having the press cover many of his utterances on twitter is the most dumbass definition of "slienced" I thik I've ever heard.
Christ you are sensitive. If something actually bad happens to you you'd probably keel ver from a heart attack if this is the way you carry on.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Just not a safe space for people who don't think like you are supposed to!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
"Coming forward" years after the fact may constitute a case in the alternative legal system that SJWs are building for themselves, but the real world legal system is perfectly capable of prosecuting molesters if you tell your family about molestation by your teacher, minister, or counselor at the time it happens. If you are an adult, you can call the cops themselves when a rape kit will identify the perpetrator according to the real rules of evidence that have been ironed out by years of experience and judicial review.
That would be if the rape kit is ever actually sent to the lab. There are police districts that have decades of old rape kits that are sitting on shelves having never been tested.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
FFS you're all falling all over each other to make a martyr out of this fool.
Fact of the matter is that he was full of shit.
Now that he's throwing fellow people with autism under the bus as a cop-out is really crass.
What an awful person...
It's good to see that you don't understand the memo.
You really aren't very bright are You? This is a hypothetical situation in which I know him well enough that he is wearing stilettos and asking my opinion. I'd like to say this has been fun, but it hasn't. You just need to accept that you are slow on the uptake and move on at this point.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
We've graduated from 1984 and moved right into Black Mirror Season 3, Episode 1 territory or The Orville Season 1, Episode 9 territory.
Hehe well that certaily gave me a chuckle.
Well done for trying to over analyse a quippy one liner. You can feel very proud that you logiced your way in to proving how you were not inappropriate. I'm sure HR will be impressed!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Dude, stop stocking me.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Stupid phone ...stalking. But also, don't keep me on a shelf and try to sell me. That would also be inappropriate.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Really? Because the whole press coverage of him has been a pretty non-stop gross distortion of what he actually wrote to outright lying about what he wrote. At this point, the covering "of his utterances on twitter" are meant merely to further discredit him. That's as far as you can physically go in a society with freedom of speech. And again, the point isn't per se that James Damore was "silenced" as much as the message has been made clear: "go against the narrative of gender inequality and lose your job". If you don't recognize that this is enough for people to self-censor themselves.
Or are you really of the mindset that short of being physically mutilated or killed, people can't be silenced?
Christ was silenced. Oh, right, no, not by your definition. His word has spread far and wide. Welp, I guess crucifixions are okay then.
He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
-Thomas Paine
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
George R.R. Martin
upon disclosing our secrets and handshakes and symbols to non-masons, your tongue will be torn out, you will then be rolled up into a carpet and thrown off a bridge, after which you will be drawn and quartered by sea horses, at which point the underwater sea dogs with killer seabees in their mouths will escort your remains to the lizard people from the center of the hollow earth, and you will be shot out of a lizard person cannon by gnomes, outwards and upwards through the hole in the earth in antarctica, whereby the annunaki "chosen ones" will roll up your galactic-weary traitorous remains into a reasonably-sized cigar [*] that moon elvis can enjoy after snacking on moon cheese.
ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
[*] if necessary, your remains will be made into 2 or more cigars, however many are needed to eliminate all your remains
-- handbook of freemasonry/rosicrucianism/mormonism/etc. chapter 3, handshakes and pledges for new initiates
redrum's the word. etidorhpa was here.
Dude, stop stocking me.
Looks like we have a new definition:
Stalking. v. Responding to someone when they've replied to you.
Right-o. You know HR aren't a bunch of idiots. If you get reported, you can't just hurl random verbs at your accuser and hope they stick.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
your tongue will be torn out, you will then be rolled up into a carpet and thrown off a bridge, after which you will be drawn and quartered by sea horses, at which point the underwater sea dogs with killer seabees in their mouths will escort your remains to the lizard people from the center of the hollow earth, and you will be shot out of a lizard person cannon by gnomes, outwards and upwards through the hole in the earth in antarctica, whereby the annunaki "chosen ones" will roll up your galactic-weary traitorous remains into a reasonably-sized cigar [*] that moon elvis can enjoy after snacking on moon cheese.
That's my fetish!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The problem is that it leaves a known abuser in a position to commit more abuse.
That's why I really dislike the Catholic Church's old approach to child molestation. Yes, the figures for priests committing sexual abuse on minors were frightening. Then I went out and looked in other places, and it's all frightening. We really need to do something about this.
However, the Church not only covered up what the priest did, but would often shift the priest to a position with lots of contact with children. "Whatsoever you do to the least of these...." Right.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can make me feel I deserve it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's not whether we can create a utopia, it's how we can move towards one. There's a lot of disagreement on what a utopia would be, and far more on how to get there.
I first realized this when I realized that a Marxist friend was as patriotic as I was. Both of us wanted what was best for the country. We had very different ideas of what that was, and extremely different ideas of how to get there, but the desire for a better country was there.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The funny thing is that it's the belief that men and women think differently that should bring understanding of transgender people. If they were the same, it wouldn't matter whether your body came with a penis and testicles or boobs and vagina. If they're different, then there's the chance that they'll get mixed up sometime, and we'd have a woman's mind in a male body or a men's mind in a female body.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The irony is that treating people the same regardless of gender is exactly what some places do. They demand what the typical masculine mind will give and the typical feminine mind will have trouble with. You can get what you asked for and still not be happy. I'd rather see appropriate treatment of individuals than one-size-fits-all treatment.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The relevant question here isn't whether he was correct, but whether he tried. It read to me like he got a lot of things wrong, but was making a slightly inept attempt at writing a good essay. For purposes of the furor around this, how true his essay was is irrelevant.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't care about the heat death of the Universe. I'm not going to be around for it anyway. Heck, I won't be around for the Sun's increasing brightness boiling off all the water on Earth, so I'm not going to sweat that either.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Reminds me of Halsey's order to his fighter pilots during the Japanese surrender. The Japanese are not our enemies. If a Japanese plane looks threatening, shoot it down in a friendly sort of way.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What's wrong with eating baby pandas every Sunday? I can see that if one ate baby pandas every day that might contribute to shortage of baby pandas. But only once a week -- Not so much.
I wonder how he prepares them. I like to saute some bamboo shoots in oil and and quickly fry baby panda fillets in the same oil for a quick Sunday meal but I've not tried other preparations (my Joy of Cooking doesn't have any recipes for Baby Panda for some reason -- perhaps I need to get a newer edition).
New elemental forces emerged when the universe cooled down. New forces will continue to emerge because the universe is still in the process of cooling down. For example: is BEC magnetar possible? https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3986
According to your own feminist standards a drunk person can't consent to sex.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
No, no it isn't. Any more than me saying you're allegedly a child molesting cannibal is different than just calling you one. It's a weasel word.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You don't know what inadvertently means, do you?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Found another moron in ignorant denial.
That's why when I attend funerals, I make a speech suggesting that there is no evidence of an afterlife, and that the deceased's death was objectively meaningless. Don't even ask what I say at weddings.
Not equivalent. When you are invited to speak at a funeral, do they ask you to discuss your opinions on the afterlife or do they ask you to say something about the deceased?
Mr. Damore was asked to talk about what he wrote about; therefore, the two situations are not equivalent and you have no point to be made by using your alternate situation.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen