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."
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.
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.
According to my psychologist, it's the same thing.
Yes, they are the same thing, but "Aspergers" has been dropped from the DSM, so "high-functioning autism" is now the technically correct term.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
Damore's memo was just misogynist bullshi
I actually found it rather presidential...
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."
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...
... 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.
Funny you should say that. Consider the possibility that there are, in fact, a lot of people - including some of the most useful members of society - who are hardly ever noticed and rarely get credit for anything, because they are naturally quiet and shy.
Meanwhile, the small minority of loud, self-advertising extroverts get away with persuading everyone that they are the only people who count. Everything in modern Western (especially US) culture glorifies the extrovert. Yet it seems likely that at least half of the population consists of those who are, to some degree at least, introverted.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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."
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!
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
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
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?
James Damore did not say what most people think he said. He did not say women are unsuited for tech jobs. He did not say women only have tech jobs due to affirmative action. That is all bullshit piled on by those mau-mauing him, in an effort to expel someone whose questioning made them uncomfortable.
Why it made them uncomfortable is the fascinating part of all this.
It makes them uncomfortable because it shatters the brittle shell of their enforced narrative, which can only be kept by keeping everyone from saying anything against it. It is very much a "the king is naked" situation. If James Damore is allowed to say men and women are different, the entire project of social justice shatters.
And yet everyone who doesn't live in academia or in a social justice echo chamber knows that men and women are different.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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 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."
Well, there's your problem. You're working on your problem using Excel.
#DeleteFacebook
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scientist, biologist, realist...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> 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.
Well, men and women are different, because they have, by having in some respects very different bodies (in ways hard to ignore) a different interface to the world. Anybody that denies that is already deep into fantasy and propaganda-land. And of course, those deep into a fantasy about how things must actually be start to howl and be aggressive when their failure to see reality is pointed out to them. The more solid the evidence, the more outraged and violent the response. This reaction can be regularly observed in small children, but it seems more and more people do not outgrow that phase.
The sad thing is that this anti-rational behavior also stands in the way of actually removing remaining injustices in how the genders are treated. Fortunately, "equal opportunity" is mostly implemented. Equally fortunately, "equal outcome" will likely never be reached, as that one would involve forcing many people to do things they actually do not want to do.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
He wrote forbidden words. Some people didn't like those forbidden words.
He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
-Thomas Paine
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
...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."