Slashdot Mirror
James Damore Sues Google For Allegedly Discriminating Against Conservative White Men (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: The author of the controversial memo that upended Google in August is suing the company, alleging that white, male conservatives are systematically discriminated against by Google. James Damore was fired as an engineer after a manifesto questioning the benefits of diversity programs was widely passed around the company. In a new lawsuit, he and another fired engineer claim that "employees who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google's employment policies and its business, such as 'diversity' hiring policies, 'bias sensitivity,' or 'social justice,' were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights."
About damn time. Let's see if the courts are as willing as social media platforms to allow racism and discrimination as long as it's against the "right" people.
You're feeding the troll!
Awkward disruptive misfits are discriminated against at Google. And everywhere else.
Google was not only wrong to fire him, but Google's CEO Sundar Pichai should be fired for being inept. The man is fucking up Google in the worst possible ways.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I didn't know they were a protected class.
Shorter Damore: "I've given up on actually earning a living"
Was Damore forced to bake a cake, a gay wedding cake, or was he allowed to self-deport and make Mexico pay for it?
From the suit: "employees who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google's employment policies and its business, such as 'diversity' hiring policies, 'bias sensitivity,' or 'social justice,' were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights." So, Google has internal policies to, say, promote "diversity" and this a-hole doesn't like it, raises a big stink causing huge PR problems for Google just so he can claim his SJW cred and we're supposed to feel sorry for him? No. Any employees of mine who went around bad-mouthing my company would find themselves out of a job pretty god-damned quickly. And, NO - there is no law preventing an employer from firing someone for being an asshole.
It's such a relief to know that this same sort of delusional blathering is still being dished out by lefty shills. Because it's exactly what cost the Democrats nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who'd had enough of the completely fake histrionics. Even destroy-Trump-all-the-time networks like CNN have moved on past your deprecated talking points about phony felony collusion that isn't even a thing and never happened, and are now trying their hardest to talk up psychological reasons for removal from office, because that's all they've got. Please, though, carry on. Because if we want to watch the Dems fall on their faces in 2018 exactly like they did in 2016, it's voices like yours that are going to get it done. Thanks!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
At least that is the direction I would bet. :)
When you are out looking for work, I can guarantee at some point in the process your name will be typed into google. Every manager I have dealt with in the past decade does this, and will even admit to it, if you pour a couple of drinks into them before you ask.
This is not the kind of fame you want linked to your name, forever.
I happen to think that there are fewer women in tech jobs, because there are fewer women who want tech jobs, but I am not stupid enough to say it out loud.
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
I work with a generally older male crowd, and some of them are quite vocal about their views on gender. Some are borderline MRA/MGTOW types, having been taken to the cleaners in divorces, etc. None are old enough to be adults back in the 50s when barely any married woman worked outside the home, but certainly some are old enough to look upon that time with nostalgia. The major thing that separates these guys from Mr. Damore is that they don't use company resources to promote their views, and their views don't really affect the work of others. I have to listen to them, but in reality they're no different than your traditional conservative white male talk radio-quoting types. They still do their jobs and don't anger anyone enough to make them complain.
The thing that's different with Google is that I'm sure their legal counsel just told the executives to make the problem go away immediately. No company wants to deal with the expense of a lawsuit and the reputation hit of getting dragged into court because one of their employees is acting like a jerk. I know the company I work for would show me the door in 15 seconds if I personally caused any reputational damage, regardless of how internal the forum was, or how the information was leaked.
What I wonder is why the Aspergers/autism angle wasn't used instead. That's a legitimate protected class. I work with a lot of tech company employees, and outside of the SV startup brogrammer world, there are _a lot_ of non-neurotypical types working for vendors. Once you get below the product managers and feature designer types, the ones doing the super-low level stuff like writing kernel modules and device drivers aren't exactly extroverts. Going after Google for discriminating against disabled people is a lot less clickbait-y than "conservative white males."
Doesn't that mean you can be fired just for being a bag 'o dicks? Damore dicks da better?
Sounds like they need an union! at the very least you can talk about employment policies with out getting canned for it.
Uh, we had a Democratic President who was black for 8 years.
You know that stellar economy Putin's Puppet is claiming credit for?
Yeah, a black democrat named Barack Obama spent the last 8 years fixing the recession caused by another conservaitve white male affirmative action case, and kicking of the longest consistent expansion of jobs in the modern era.
since google didn't talk. If they did fire him over his manifesto then yeah, I think it was the wrong thing to do. It was also probably completely legal. There are little or no protections for workers on political grounds. Your politics are not a protected class. There were instances of people being fired for Obama bumper stickers after his election. Ironically Mr Damore's political party (not sure what else to call right wing conservatives) would generally support Google here. The argument goes that the free market should make the decision. If you don't like google's policies, buy from someone else (Bing, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, Alta Vista, etc, etc).
All that said, it's also possible he was fired for some other reason and the bad press he generated was just icing on the cake.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The concept of "safety" from ideas will now be tested in the legal system. Leaked internal postings showed that co-workers and management justified workplace exclusion and punishment based on the idea that private thoughts threatened the safety of others. Thankfully, Damore has brought the issue to test early enough, before the legal system has been infected by that thinking, that the concept will be thoroughly debunked in court and become legal precedent.
You didn't read the memo, did you?
1/10, that's the best I can give you.
Damore has the right to sue, but Google has the right to terminate those that are disruptive to their company (unless protected class now includes a-holes). The lawyers will be the winners.
Realistically, once the memo spread within Google, there was no way Damore would have been able to be a productive collaborative team member, since so many would refuse to work with him, and the company was forced to immediately respond to protect the greater good and control the damage.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employment-at-will-in-california.aspx
If he isn't in a union, he doesn't have much protection from being let go.
Yes, this sounds like a rich right wing donor funding this case to try and make a point to disrupt society, just like Gawker.
Obama won by being so far beyond his opponents in style and substance (and lack of scandal) that it was hardly an even fight.
In this country black men have to be better than their white counterparts to even stand a chance at success, but Obama showed just how good our minority population has made itself to overcome the systemic racism in our society.
Why does he need to worry about working again, after Google pays him $2 million to go away? Any time a firing is that hasty you know process mistakes were made that his lawyers can exploit.
I'd be more worried about your ability to get hired on at startups he helps fund in the future.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Any small business is run based on the personality of the boss. If you don't get along, you're gonna be let go.
Any moderately sized or larger company is going to have a 'corporate culture' document, if one finds themselves falling out of line with it, chances are pretty good they'll find themselves unemployed as well.
This is not that hard to understand is it?
Which part of the memo was sexist?
...as an engineer after a manifesto questioning the benefits of diversity programs....
His manifesto did not question the benefits of the diversity program. It questioned its fficacy -- in other words, he questioned if Google could achieve more diversity by structuring the program differently.
And that's a very big difference. I really hate the level of journalism being thrown at this topic, here and everywhere else.
Sure, discriminating against race, gender or politics is bad.
Discriminating against someone who's being an asshole is not. That's just normal human relations. I suspect that's what's going on here.
Someone's politics are irrelevant to your ability to do a job. Being extremely vocal about politics (i.e. being asshole-ish) is relevant, because then nobody wants to talk to you. There's a reason why politics is a taboo subject for small/office talk. Someone who doesn't recognize or abide by social norms is not suitable for a job pretty much anywhere.
I read it in its entirety. Im also more willing to recognize sexism than most people in tech it seems. Im not sure why everyone in these comments that disagrees with him is getting modded with "troll". Did slashdot turn into r/TD while I was away?
SJWs are nothing but liers and militant jackbooted leftists. They are so happy to take the government boot to your neck when it is something *they* agree with. lets see if they learned the danger of being statists when other "theys" take the government boot to *their* thoat. didnt think this out, did you?
Burn it down, James! For America to live, Google must die
Actually, thanks to the lawsuits against the heavily gerrymandered states of Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia,Pennsylvania and Georgia, the fact that the GOP lost votes is becoming more and more apparent.
Add in the lawsuits against disenfranchisement in Kansas, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and it gets even more obvious.
Plus Arizona's Republican legislature's attempt to subvert the will of the people by refusing to follow the state constitution.
That's why the Turnip in chief had to give up looking for voter fraud. The only confirmed criminal was Kris Kobach.
It's ok, we know that you're upset that more people in Wisconsin voted in 2004 than 2016. With facts like that, your lies about a landslide become more obvious.
Don't worry, you can still proclaim yourself a genius.
He wasn't fired for being white, he wasn't even fired for his political views, he was fired for spouting off at work and thus causing a lot of internal strife. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't say whatever you want at work.
There are a number of different lists but a pretty good example of why James Damore has a decent chance at legal victory is here.
If he Google were anywhere else but California he probably would not be able to win. But then again, if Google were any place other than California he would not have been fired...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No he isn't.
The most downtrodden minority in history. No political power. No wealth. Gotta fight to earn every bit of respect.
The man is fucking up Google in the worst possible ways.
What tangible metric can you show that Google has been hurt by this?
As far as I call, this is a lot of smoke, noise but no fire.
Has Chrome usage gone down because of people being outraged over this? Are companies looking to alternative to AdWords/Analytics? Are sales of Android phones dropping? What about Google Home devices? How has the stock been affected?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
He was on a PragerU video talking about how a baker ought to be able to not serve a customer based on their sexual orientation because of the baker's beliefs about gay people. If that's true, then Google ought to be able to fire him for his (extremely flawed, dubious) beliefs.
But was instantiated incorrectly.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
But I just proved everything he said was wrong, proving that he is in fact full of shit.
Here - pretend that I am a senile white person who obviously committed treason in front of the whole country.
Now do you see my point?
If you don't agree then you are fake news and I am a very stable genius.
A Conservative White Man is unhappy and seeking redress?
Google should just find a way to cut his (and only his) taxes. As long as a Conservative White Man gets a tax cut, it doesn't matter what else happens. He'll be happy, problem solved forever.
Citation: Everything about 2017.
This kind of shit was going on when Marissa Mayer was at Google. Check out "I'm Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee Number 59" by Douglas Edwards.
So racism makes black people better, why do they hate it so much?
Yeah, a black democrat named Barack Obama
Actually he was half black if need to be specific... There was a discussion on CSPAN3 or 2 of a book author talked about Obama and how he "walked in thin ice" about racism during his Presidency. Author said Obama was highly educated, married once and still is, two daughters doing well in school. Also well spoken, did appropriate sports like play golf, etc. If Obama was like Trump, he would have never been elected.
mfwright@batnet.com
Conservative is not. As one of those snowflakes I would like it to be, but those sort of worker protections have been shot down by (ironically) white, conservative men...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Please, do not settle for non-disclosure agrrement, not even if they offer you a billion dollars.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Let's mod this racist trash up to +5 and continue modding down accurate and insightful comments.
We are terrible and it's all white.
Who, contrary to what many would have us believe, are the real snowflakes.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Believe it or not there is a lot of sexism in the tech industry and Google is not obliged to protect sexist bros. On the other hand many of its executives seem to be enamored with sex trafficking because they see women like objects. That probably deserves more attention. (i.e. here http://www.newsweek.com/metoo-... )
--hongpong.com
There is a very small number of specific protected classes, philosophy, as long as you do not classify it as a religion, is not one of them, similarly politics is not as well. Unless you are directly firing someone because they voted wrong, and just generally firing them because they are aligned to the wrong party, it is legal.
This is the worse hypocrisy the government has ever institutionalized, but there it is. They need to either make it legal to discriminate agaist someone because of any reason you want to give or make it illegal to discriminate for any reason other the measurable job performance.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Go back to Russia, you aren't welcome here.
Obama showed just how good our minority population has made itself to overcome the systemic racism in our society
Uhm... Perhaps you should start be denouncing the criminals and gangbangers who are of your own race, like most other races do? And I mean you, personally, not black people in general. Your minority population still makes up the majority of perpetrators of violent crimes against other members of your minority population. Speak out against that and put an end to it, then you'll have made yourself (again, you personally) "good". I know many black people who recognize this fact and speak out against it; those are good people. You, on the other hand, stand under the umbrella of someone else's accomplishment and claim you've overcome racism? No, Obama overcame racism, black men and women who decry the violent and ignorant actions of lesser individuals have overcome racism, but what have you done to better yourself?
I know I'm gonna get flamed hard for this and likely be downmodded into oblivion but, you know what? I don't care. What I'm saying needs to be said. Here it is: RACE ONLY MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOU LET IT MATTER.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
According to the Santa Clara Superior Court's website, Damore's lead attorney is Harmeet Kaur Dhillon.
Dhillon's Wikipedia entry says she is the former vice chairman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California. An article from the San Francisco Daily Journal posted on Dhillon's website says she is a former American Civil Liberties board member.
On March 9, the Wall Street Jounal reported that she was being considered to run the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Department of Justice. She apparently interviewed with both Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump, but was not offered or did not accept the job.
DuckDuckGoing her leads to lots of articles about her politics and personal life, but nothing about how many cases she has won. I bet Google will be represented by attorneys who have spent more time litigating and less time politicking.
Lots of people face serious problems in America today that are linked specifically to their skin color, level of wealth, medical issues, sexual orientation, gender identity etc.
--hongpong.com
If you read, its not about discriminating against white men, its about discriminating against conservatives.
Please keep doing what you're doing, Ratzo. Fight the good fight.
It was not a "manifesto", let alone an anti-diversity one. That's what it was called in the media. Big difference.
Political views are not protected classes under employment law. He can certainly argue that it had to do with him being white or male, but that's going to be a steep hill to climb given a lot of the diversity reports issued by companies like Google show they're dominated primarily by white men. Assuming he is autistic, if he didn't tell anyone at Google he was autistic, that argument wouldn't really fly either.
I disagree with pretty much everything the guy said in his little manifesto, but I still think Google is in the wrong on this one. If he wanted to sue under the NLRA, claiming that he was targeted for discussing working conditions, he would have a much better chance of winning. Though my own experience with the NLRB is that 1) they have their own set of internal rules that only they can see, which are often very different from what is on their own website, and 2) if you appeal the initial rejection (which is almost a given), they won't even bother reading it; they'll just make like a college kid trying to write a book report the night before and read a few sentences off of a page, looking for some specific item they can reference, to give the impression they read it.
Regardless, Google is just going to do what large companies always do in situations like this and have their team of lawyers make it so expensive that he will be forced, for financial reasons, to take some pittance of a settlement (probably with NDA and non-disparagement strings attached) long before it ever gets to trial. Google effectively has unlimited funds to throw at this lawsuit, while this guy is presumably living on unemployment and savings, which will dry up pretty quickly if your'e paying $500/hr for a lawyer, plus other expenses. Even if the law firm took it pro bono or on contingency, there will come a point where it just doesn't make financial sense for them any longer.
OK maybe if your a conservative it might be relevant if your applying to a liberal think tank or the DNC. But otherwise why are we filtering out people based on any sort of political viewpoint? I hope this progresses against Google, because they certainly show a lot of discrimination in many forms.
It astounds me that American politics has devolved into confused name-calling and an almost complete inability to form coherent and rational arguments. Let's bring things back to reality; both major American political parties expound right wing, authoritarian viewpoints and philosophies. The only thing that differs is the degree.
Faced with that reality, it's bewildering that half of the US population supports the elephant party, while strongly believing that donkey party followers are complete loons (and vice-versa). That's simply not a sane conclusion. Just because someone votes a certain way doesn't automatically make them a blithering idiot, nor does it mean that they're not allowed to disagree with some of the policies put forward by the legislators they vote into office.
It's also pretty clear to anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language that President Trump is prone to frequent odd outbursts and declarations that are sometimes completely incoherent and provably false. That should be cause for significant concern, whether you're conservative or liberal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34u_3Z9_LUw
Yes it was sexist rather than racist, but that makes no difference legally, just a different form of unacceptable bigotry.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Damore's complaint will not be about whether he was discriminated against as a white person, a man, or a conservative, or whether the company had a right to let him go as an "at-will" worker.
"Rather, the provision governs what workers are allowed to talk about in the workplace about pay, conditions, promotions, and other practices. The law was crafted to protect the right of union organisers to discuss pay rates with their colleagues, and more recently to protect anyone asking questions at work about who gets paid what, and why."
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-may-win-nlra-legal-case-google-2017-8
"James Damore Sues Google For Allegedly Discriminating Against Being an Ass"
I hear various farms around the world use donkeys still. James Damore, the horrible person that he clearly is, would probably enjoy the working life of a donkey.
Says the man who uses uber....
Apparently so-called "conservatives" are just another sub-type of liberal.
Without talking to guy, I bet I can guess: is Damore a Republican? That would explain a lot. Many Republicans are pretending to be conservative these days. To some people, the words are treated like synonyms. This is in spite of the fact that most Republicans are left of Democrats (e.g. they favor deficit spending, making the federal government more powerful, etc).
I know nobody is going to believe this, but some people in the media have even been referring to president Trump as a conservative. (As if he has any political opinions at all, and even if he did have political opinions, the pretense is that they would be right-of-center.)
If trump had not been running against someone as unqualified and unliked as hillary he would not of been elected. As biden said obama was a "clean" guy and able to beat hillary with less qualification than trump.
Private companies often have political views such as "diversity", and if you badmouth or go against such a policy, you are going against company policy, and can be terminated. It's not illegal in the general sense to have politics-related policy in a private company.
Lets flip this. What if a big oil co. had the policy that climate change is a hoax or unproven, and any employee who states otherwise on company time is terminated.
Employees are not typically protected by free-speech laws at work. You may argue the laws should be changed, but as they are now, the co. mostly dictates what you can talk about at work.
As far as what it "should be", as a compromise I personally would like to see a limit on the penalty to say 2 weeks without pay for the first offense, and termination on the second. It's probably easier to pass such at the state level.
Table-ized A.I.
Damore is not a good person. He's an extremist who knows how to couch his arguments in a cloak of faux-rationality. Those of us on the left have been trying to warn those of you susceptible to his arguments that he's not actually being honest. Maybe we shouldn't care, but I really don't actually want anyone fooled by this nonsense.
And those of us on the old left are trying to warn you that you're susceptible to indoctrination into extremism when you paint moderate folks as extremists and endorse violence against them because you happen to disagree with their viewpoint.
Maybe we shouldn't care, but you guys are now legitimately advocating physical assault and violence against opinions, even mild and moderate opinions, simply because then don't toe the line with extreme identity politics.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
But Hillary was way more qualified than Trump, and judging by the 3,000,000 more votes she got was also more like able.
This is just that obvious White Male Affirmative Action that we are all pretending doesn't exist even when abject retard after abject retard is obviously dependent on this misogynistic and racist double standard.
It almost seems like you said Trump was more qualified than Obama even though Obama was a senator and Trump's only qualification was committing Treason against his country to aid the Russian government's attacks on our election. That's another example of the white male affirmative action double standard.
James might sue
Looking forward to this one.
As far as I can tell, no one on the left wants to physically hurt this guy. In fact, I can't even think of one liberal harmed someone in the name of racism or bigotry. People on the left typically want to see more equality.
Was it a leftist that went into a church to kill some black people? Was it a leftist that drove their car into a crowd in Charlottesville?
... your politics. If you're working in a majority liberal company, and want to piss everyone off by printing out and distributing a conservative manifesto, you're probably going to get in trouble for it. You're opinions aren't protected.
This sig intentionally left blank.
He caused google to get bad press.
No, he did not. The leaker did.
You always have responsibility for your thoughts and views.
I've not read Salon and the likes but you might need to read some more from serious people who do not share your views, because if you think the memo was written be some enlightened bro who knows enough about gender bias to say something intelligible then you are sadly mistaken. I'm sure his memo struck some chords in your heart, but it doesn't matter if most of it was bullshit.
Saying stupid shit gets you fired if the wrong person hears it, that sucks, I'm not sure I think it should be that way but it sadly is.
enough said.
We don't need to tackle every issue under the sun. Damore is an idiot. Stop There.
If you become very vocal against your corporate culture, you are living on borrowed time. Either you will call it quits, or they will sideline you, or you will be fired, or you will be considered rogue and dangerous.
You can differ with your corporate culture but keep it quiet. If you can't do that then leave. Have that much respect for yourself.
Damore calling this discrimination against Conservative, white males is just special pleading and whining. He's an idiot. Nothing more needs to be said.
Doesn't the fact that you are clearly racist, and clearly a republican refute your own claim?
I know you couch it in the terms of falsely aggrieved white folks who were discriminated against for being bigoted assclowns in the workplace.
But you are obviously racist and a republican, and are proving yourself wrong with your mere existence.
Skimming the complaint, it looks pretty ridiculous. He admits that Google never disciplined him or terminated him for expressing the views before; it was only when they started causing significant disruption that they took the easiest step to stop that disruption, which was firing him.
Donald Trump's unhinged tantrums on Twitter are game theory. Tit for tat.
He is merely feeding back to the American public exactly what they are putting out.
Like your post. It is unhinged, ridiculous on its face (and increasingly so after any level of consideration), and a testament to the absolute insanity that partisanship foments. To me it looks identical to the Twitter account of Donald Trump in tone and intellect.
In many ways this fits the description I have heard about "the government you deserve." When the electorate learns maturity, restraint, and civility we will get mature, restrained, and civil governance.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
In this reality the republicans who are clearly still racist in 2017 and continue mass incarceration as Jim Crow 2.0 are actually not racist.
The democrats who are the only party which still supports the civil rights act are the real racists.
"you guys are now legitimately advocating physical assault and violence against opinions"
Ok, I confess. I punched an opinion that made me mad.
In other words you are stupid enough to fall for Trump's child-like false equivalence trick.
Yeah they are both the same... derppp...
It's totally normal that an AC troll is more accurate and coherent than the 'President' of the USA.
Both sides are bad. Derrrppp.
Doesn't the fact that you are clearly racist, and clearly a republican refute your own claim?
I know you couch it in the terms of falsely aggrieved white folks who were discriminated against for being bigoted assclowns in the workplace.
But you are obviously racist and a republican, and are proving yourself wrong with your mere existence.
Screaming 'racist' at BREXITers helps Leave win a slender majority in the BREXIT referendum, even though Remain started out ahead.
Screaming 'racist' at Trump supporters helped Trump win the US presidency, even though Clinton started out ahead.
Please keep screaming racist at people, it seems like it's helping my side more than it helps yours.
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;
This lawsuit is going down in fabulous flames if it ever gets to federal court.
NO WAY the judges who gave us same-sex marriage are going to not discriminate against white conservative cisgendered males.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So I should what - pretend that you clowns are racist as if that will fix the problem?
Yeah that seems like a perfect response to your misinformation campaign designed to poorly obfuscate the Republican party's ongoing racism.
I should just pretend to not notice that you racist trash belong in the cess pool of History.
Russia's hacking and election tampering campaign affected both Brexit and Moscow Donald's elections.
Let's see if you traitors can win without Russia's help...
Isn't it illegal to discriminate based on gender or race, regardless of what the gender or race is?
Not always: it depends on what your laws say. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a clause that specifically outlaws racism and sexism but then allows if for "...any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.". So in Canada, you might be able to argue that it is fine to be racist and sexist against white men...but only if you are doing it to correct some perceived bias.
When you decided that business can force their religious beliefs on their employees, by denying coverage for birth control, then they should be surprised about this. I doubt this has anything to do with the white male part. But likely the conservative part didn't mesh with the beliefs of his employer.
YOU ASSHOLES.
Why don't you pieces of shit just say what you really mean:
Round up the Blacks and Mexicans and Brown People and other 'undesirables' and shoot them in the head. Then strip women of all these ridiculous, inconvenient 'rights', put collars on them, and treat them like the PROPERTY they are, as God intended!
I've got a better idea: we round YOU all up and shoot YOU in the head. Problem solved, and nothing of value is lost.
bully for California. Assuming Google doesn't have documentation for a proper reason to have fired the guy then yeah, light 'em up. Also, adding to my growing list of reasons I want to move to California.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Funny how this word rarely appears on other headlines...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
After this idiot gets crushed in court, can we finally stop getting front-page posts about everything he does?
You mean the Brexit vote that took down a Conservative prime minister, cut their majority, and which the current prime minister is desperate to slow walk lest it stir up the Troubles again?
Or perhaps the Great Landslde of Trump with a negative -3 million vote lead that he to disband his own commission before it proved he was totally lying about voter fraud?
I support your endorsement of a racist agenda. Make sure to wave a Dixie Flag. Put on a Templar tabard.
If you are a misogynistic closed-minded racist xenophobe in favor of discrimination, do you have legal standing for facing discrimination? Can you claim your discriminatory closed-minded xenophobic racism is something you're born with, not something you choose? Perhaps being xenophobe will become a protected status, and discrimination will be protected as freedom of expression? Is this what Damore is trying to accomplish? It's as dumb as him.
There is no such thing as "reverse racism", racism is racism, and judging people by the color of their skin is always wrong, even if your purpose is to help the person.
There are no such thing as good racism, as you're always reducing the person to his physical features.
It astounds me that American politics has devolved into confused name-calling and an almost complete inability to form coherent and rational arguments.
That's mostly how it appears on TV.
"On the ground" in the state and local governments, things are generally more sane.
It's also pretty clear to anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language that President Trump is prone to frequent odd outbursts and declarations that are sometimes completely incoherent and provably false. That should be cause for significant concern, whether you're conservative or liberal.
Our political system doesn't really have all that many checks or balances in it. It has primarily worked on social norms. Continuous, blatant lying used to violate those norms, and so would cause some repercussions.
However, the Republican party currently sees an advantage in torching all those norms, and gerrymandering and legislative structure gives them about a 10-15% popular vote buffer to retain power. So there's no one with sufficient power who is willing to step in.
What will get "interesting" is when that 10-15% buffer is not large enough, and the Democratic party seizes absolute power with no social norms remaining. Because the climb over that buffer is not being done by the right-wing of the party, but the left. The right-wing of the party will want to restore the norms. The left wing of the party will find that unacceptable. And thus things start to get really interesting.
The majority of the Dem base isnt mature: burned businesses, violent tactics, tons of videos exhibiting the lack of knowledge to basic current politics such as who their representatives are etc.
Last time I checked, "douchebag" was not a protected class in the USA. That being said, we should stop enumerating protected classes and just say that legally _nobody_ can be treated differently for differences that don't make a rational difference. He wasn't fired because Google discriminates against backwards white males, he was fired for making stupid bigoted comments that offended many of his coworkers and embarrassed the company as a whole. Rule #1 should be "Don't embarrass the company!", and if you violate that rule, you should expect to be looking for work elsewhere, regardless of whether or not it is explicitly stated in the employee manual.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Corporations are REQUIRED to prevent a hostile workplace disadvantaging women and minorities
Damore created said workplace with his troll
Therefore: Google was legally mandated to fire him
Perfect defense
As biden said obama was a "clean" guy and able to beat hillary with less qualification than trump.
On which planet was Obama less qualified than Trump?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes it was sexist rather than racist, but that makes no difference legally, just a different form of unacceptable bigotry.
He did have a quip regarding races as well. He said hiring standards were lowered.
Now that you have labelled a good majority of everyone as a white supremacist, what is the next step? I will gladly "fuck off" but your social justice friends won't shut up, they come into my industry and cause good companies to go under, they go into the schools and suddenly everyone is transgender and suicidal, they have even ruined comic books. When do you start rounding up your enemies and put them into camps?
We live in a world where an Instagram post about 21 things Whites should stop ruining is allowed to remain posted for a month (so far), but a satirical response entitled 21 things Blacks should stop ruining was taken down within 2 hours. To be fair, I didn't read either list; I just saw excepts (Whites ruined the USA because 60% of White voters voted for Trump, for example).
My company has an internal forum. Someone posted an article about 400+ years of White Privilege and how it's kept down the Black man. I responded that me being a White heterosexual male has not negatively impacted any minority and that I refused to apologize for my race, ethnicity, or gender. I am not responsible for the actions of others. Of course this got a formal write-up because "someone" got offended. I also had to retake Equality Training and warned further offensive posts could result in my termination. What do you do when a class that represents 30% of the workers makes up 65% of leadership?
There are no good fights, only satisfying ones.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He wrote a manifesto which claimed that women were biologically less suitable to work at Google. But let's just gloss over the fact that it's a bit ironic that he's claiming discrimination because he was fired for making extremely discriminatory claims.
And let's not forget his social media posts saying how fun the KKK is with it's cool names and if you only let the KKK have cool names, everyone will want to join the KKK.
Everything that Damore wrote was inoffensive and in line with the current social science. However, science stands in opposition to the manufactured panic that is used to justify lawsuits to loot companies, the appointments of diversity officers to loot companies, and suppressing conservatives who won't join the bandwagon.
Damore is not even conservative. They tried to shame him by releasing a photograph of his subbing at the Folsom Street Fair. Conservatives do not go near that.
Donald Trump's unhinged tantrums on Twitter are game theory. Tit for tat.
He is merely feeding back to the American public exactly what they are putting out.
I totally agree. However, if you think Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton did anything different you are deceiving yourself the difference is really that Trump is a poor liar compared to those two. The reason he was elected is because the American public is tired of a the 'elite' creating a legal and political system that is a complete vacuum of logic. Consider the two of the hot button issues of they day , gay rights and abortion rights. Then aside from the term 'legal right' try and define the term 'right' without any reference to a deity or religion. The simple fact is the 'trump effect' is exactly what you get if you don't have any belief in a morality that demands social responsibility, self control, personal integrity. All of those things however are non-sense without context unless you have a workable , rational , moral framework from which to define them and agnosticism and atheism and for that matter liberal Protestantism, which naturally leads to the former , are not capable of creating the necessary philosophical and mental framework that supports the existence of a populous and culture that embraces values of personal integrity and policies based on hard data and logic. Still, those moral frameworks are exactly the ones enshrined in the democratic platform and regular pushed by all American large media outlets , which themselves show no inclination for either integrity of information or truth, but rather filter information to create a political illusion consistent with the ratings that fuel them..
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Why on earth do you think Google would pay an employee to go away?
They wouldn't, Damore is not an employee anymore, he was fired - which is a world of difference.
Why is it you think that discovery will go worse for Google than for Damore?
Because they fired him in a matter of hours. No way does Google want discovery around the kinds of emails that made that happen. Google has been around for a very long time now, the upper echelons of companies that large and rich get mighty strange and hold many dark secrets.
The real question is if Damore will even accept a settlement, he may be in it for the juicy details that can be revealed about the inner workings of Google.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When your female dissent leads to unemployment that’s Damore!
When your sexist dispute leads to a big lawsuit that’s Damore!
If Obama was like Trump, he would have never been elected.
Trump is undeniable proof that white mediocrity runs this country.
> RACE ONLY MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOU LET IT MATTER.
Jim Crow
Jim Crow 2.0
Red-lining
Red-lining 2.0
Sundown Towns
Tuskegee Experiment
School Segregation
School Segregation 2.0
The War on Drugs specifically targeted blacks
Driving While Black
Walking While Black
Debtor's Prison 2.0
"both major American political parties expound right wing, authoritarian viewpoints and philosophies"
This is the kind of lunatic ranting that the super-far left goes through, poisoning the well and splitting the vote for some hopeless third party candidate, which keeps the right Republican candidates in power. This while one party lobbies for social services, civil rights, gay rights, health care, immigration reform, etc., and the other stridently resists it at all turns.
He was asked his opinion in a confidential forum and when it wasn't the right opinion he was outed. That isn't acting like a jerk. There is no opinion you can have that is so bad that you are acting like a jerk, until you, you know, act on it. Confiding your opinion to HR when asked for it, is just being honest. It has been said that we cannot afford to be tolerant of intolerance, but the logical conclusion of that attitude is total annihilation. He has opinions some consider backwards. Let it go. He has the right to be wrong and still do his seemingly mediocre job unmolested.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
see here.. Ben Shapiro is quite possibly the least credible source you could have sited. You can probably email the professor sited (or buy/read his books) if you want more sources.
And it happened between today and the _1860s_, not the 1960s. If you only go back 70 years yeah, you won't find evidence, because you didn't go back far enough. But that was the point, wasn't it?
Also, nice straw man. Whether the Ds & Rs switched sides has nothing to do with the reality of the Southern Strategy. The evidence for which comes from Republican strategists who came clean out of guilt. And that's before we start talking about stuff like how our (heavily supported by Republicans) Drug War is basically a round about way to enforce racial segregation or how all those civil war statues the party's so busy defending were put up in the eras of Jim Crow laws.
Seriously, you can't be this naive. You have to know this stuff. You're either being willfully ignorant to preserve a world view that makes you feel good about yourself or your hoping to join 'ole Benny S. in the popular pass time of making money off the working class by selling them political viewpoints that solve nothing but do separate the working class (there's that Southern Strategy rearin' it's ugly head again).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's only gerrymandering when the republicans do it. When the dems do, it's not gerrymandering.
there's two types of Dem. There's the Corporate Dem, who is just like a Republican in that they serve the ruling class to the detriment of the working class, only they don't hate Gays. Several of these are currently supporting Jeff Session's bid to crack down on State laws legalizing marijuana.
Then there's the Democratic Socialists. The Bernie Bros. I don't see these guys getting anywhere. Nobody wants to pay for something else's medical care. Nobody want to pay for their schools. Sure, you can argue that such things benefit everyone (e.g. we could pay our national debt off in 10 years with the money single payer healthcare would save, look it up). But it still doesn't _feel_ right. Especially with a good chunk of the country bigoted against _somebody_. We're balkanized. We're not Americans. We're White Americans. Black Americans. Gay Americans. Christian Americans. But we're not Americans.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you have no idea what your talking about.
he deserves it
His post DOES state in some detail his thoughts on the differences between Men and women AND ways to make it MORE inclusive for women by playing to their strengths rather than asking them to act like men. Men and women ARE different, and Viva la difference!
> Continuous, blatant lying used to violate those norms, and so would cause some repercussions. However, the Republican party currently sees an advantage in torching all those norms, and gerrymandering and legislative structure gives them about a 10-15% popular vote buffer to retain power. So there's no one with sufficient power who is willing to step in.
Both parties have done plenty of this. Partisans on both sides love to excuse their side's lies. The more partisan someone is, the less aware they are of their own side's lies. Both parties are really good at deflection.
As a white male I can only say - cry me a fucking river...
Don't be such an idiot next time.
Loading...
regardless of how scientifically correct or incorrect it was
So it means you're concerned that some of it IS correct? I have no idea what is correct and what not, I just know that throughout the history of mankind, truth had a tendency to prevail over ideological dogma, be it chrsitianity or islam. Do you think that your dogma (and yes, the idea that some truths are better left unknown is by definition a dogma) is stronger than these two?
Note: I am not condoning racism in anyway. I am saying that I believe that trying to hide scientific facts forever never works. Maybe it is better to change our society so that if we one day end up discovering that some group has lower IQ, they won't have to suffer for it.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
It will cost google less to settle this than to go through the aggravation of trying to defend its politically incorrect political correctness stance.
Be interesting to see if these white male plaintiffs can roll back civil process to before it was made harder to avoid Muslim discrimination lawsuits.
Hey, I know this might be a bit weird, but could you play along with me?
Could I ask you for a couple of quotes out of the memo where he's being sexist?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I personally think he went completely overboard in a couple areas. But the media has demonized him so bad that I'm not sure if you're taking about something he said or something somebody said he said.
It astounds me that American politics has devolved into confused name-calling and an almost complete inability to form coherent and rational arguments.
If this astounds you, I have to ask: How many Americans have you met? Do you think the percentage of idiots is smaller among those who do not travel internationally?
Adolph, is that you?
He won congress because his competitors were disqualified. While in Congress he sponsored a few bills that were looking for people.
Outside of government what has he produced?
He was selected to speak at the Democrat convention because he was fresh, "clean" face. That speech propelled him to the Presidency.
He is a great speaker, people just cannot list anything else.
...but until recently (and still, in most places...), "Corporate Culture" tended to be conservative, rather than progressive/liberal.
I have known plenty of engineers in SV who worked at companies like IBM, HP, National Semi, Intel, etc. who faced the exact opposite dilemma: express their political opinions at work, or talk about what a great time they had at the Grateful Dead concert over the weekend, and their career opportunities would be diminished...and they were college-educated white males, too...
Trump is unqualified and corrupt...Hillary was qualified and very unliked.
Yeah, sounds like a Trumptard made up meme from facebook.
I agree. It turns out that every person acts in the interests of their tribe. Some of those are racial/ethnic, some religious, some sexual, and some based in class, region, or caste. But we are not united. America is a giant shopping mall with mall cops and a welfare system. It has fallen apart.
I have enjoyed Billy Roper's writings on balkanization in America.
Alternative Right.
We all want to be with people like us. That means living near, hiring, being hired by, buying from, selling to, dating, marrying, breeding with, befriending, having them as our law enforcement officers and judges, seeing them daily, and having shared cultural standards and mores with them.
Robert Putnam (author of Bowling Alone) had some convincing research on the failure of diversity which explains our balkanized and atomized state:
Alternative Right.
The National Review is being selective and self serving there.
The GOP apologized for race baiting in 2005. The "Southern Strategy" was and still is very real.
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/07/15/gop_ignored_black_vote_chairman_says/
James was clearly fired because somebody didn't like him, unfortunately, Google is so high on their own collective aroma that they didn't bother doing what nearly every other company in the world does when it's time to get rid of someone that you don't like. So for Google, I've created a simple cheat sheet on how to fire anyone and get away with it:
* Write him for each and every single violation of policy even if the policy exists only in your mind. A good example of this is when a middle-manager somewhere is butthurt because [problem employee] didn't kiss his ass passionately enough.
* After enough written "warnings", HR will allow you to put the poor bastard on probation for 6 whole months - during which time, any violation of the manager's will can be grounds for termination.
* If anything should happen to go wrong in even the slightest manner, e.g. an argument of any kind, you can just say "James [insert action here] without permission from [insert imaginary authority figure here]".
* If you're especially paranoid and worry about potential legal retaliation, you can even add scary adjectives, such as "negligently" and "carelessly", even if the employee's action was backed up by several pages of empirical evidence - which doesn't matter because you'll delete everything once he's gone.
Your "problem" is now solved.
My Dad asked me why Google is always changing things after some feature in Google Scholar changed - he complained that there wasn't really an alternative and they'd made it harder to use. I explained to him that progressives don't really care about what we'd think of as progress, only constant change, and that anyone who would argue against product changes was likely chased out of the company for thinking the wrong way.
Fuck you, Google.
He wasn't black he just had a nice tan
He won congress because his competitors were disqualified. While in Congress he sponsored a few bills that were looking for people.
So what you're saying is he's been a member of congress, which puts him ahead of Trump.
Outside of government what has he produced?
Less debt than Trump. Another win for Obama.
He is a great speaker, people just cannot list anything else.
He's a constitutional scholar, while Trump barely even knows what the constitution is. That's another major qualification over his orangeness.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In any work environment, you, the employee are essentially whoring yourself out for money. You do as your employer instructs, and that is all you get to do. You don't get the luxury of hijacking someone else's company as your own personal mouthpiece and stump to vent to the world all the stupid shit you think. Like this asshat is doing. Good luck with that, wasting other people's time and money for attention. This guy just needs a good ass kicking. That might set him straight.
Everyone who upvotes one of these shitty posts defending this shitty engineer and his shitty attempts to rewrite other peoples' reasoning should be forced to write basic if statements to prove they belong here.
Cos some y'all need to look at the logic you're using and maybe find new careers.
Why do you hate white people though, and use those terms to describe them...? It doesn't seem fair to single them out as being the least globally numerous like that, even if they obviously do tend to commit the most obvious crimes, damage the environment and bulldoze other cultures...
I mean, they're people too, right?
You werent fired because you are a white conservative male. It was because you're a sexist asshole.
What if instead he had said, "Stop acting like we're all the same. Jews have things to contribute, so adapt the workplace to their needs instead of molding it for a virtual template of a generic humanoid that does not exist"?
Is that still okay?
Your righteous indignation has nothing to do with free speech--it's that you happen to agree with his opinions. Things like: "women should do pair programming because they're naturally more social".
Your meltdown is fucking hilarious.
I can't wait until 2020.
The actual definition of conservatism is "a dedication to traditional values and opposition to change or innovation". Sometimes change is bad, sometimes innovation is a dead end. Conservatives are the balance that tames the chaos of unrestrained creativity. It is a boring job but someone has to do it.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
He has had hundreds of public job offers... You fucking imbecile.
This "lunatic ranting" is the typical view from the rest of the world the left is actually left (and no, that's not far-left).
Maybe you should look into what the world outside of the USA is like.
because of that grotesque schnoz.
YOU are the racist misogynist. Go play in traffic.
they will roll out the HR termination paperwork documenting how he was abusing other employees because they weren't white
Ha. All he did was state his opinion that Google's policies and culture were discriminatory. For that, HE was abused by the social "justice" idiots that rule the roost at Google, like this asshole:
From: Alex Hidalgo <ahidalgo@google.com>
Subject: You are a terrible person
Date: Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:38 PM
To: James Damore <damore@google.com>
Feel free to pass this along to HR. Keep them in the loop for all I care. May as well do it early.
You're a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.
-Alex
https://www.scribd.com/documen...
Vote Democrat (or Republican) for more corruption NOW!
He didn't voice his opinion publicly. He voiced his opinion in a private company blog after Google asked him for his opinion. Then someone leaked it.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Obama and how he "walked in thin ice" about racism during his Presidency
Puh-lease. He started out early by wading into a local police issue. After some backlash and a "beer summit" that was supposed to be a "teachable moment" that went nowhere, did Obama learn his lesson? No, he continued to offer hot takes on race issues, ultimately throwing the police under the bus time and time again, until we were left with murdered cops across the nation and race relations WORSE than they had been in a long time, 8 years after a black President.
If Obama was like Trump, he would have never been elected.
Obama helped set the stage for Trump. A President who refused to say "radical Islam", too willing to put his country second, and too embedded into a "progressive" political landscape run amok.
Everyone, people of all races condemn criminals all the time. You are just too racist to see it
Oh? So I didn't say this?
I know many black people who recognize this fact and speak out against it; those are good people.
Yes, I did actually say it. And I meant it. You, on the other hand, saw what you thought was a racist diatribe (it was aimed at an individual, not a race) and fired off an ignorant-as-fuck inflammatory response. Good for you.
and are falsely accusing minorities of not condemning criminals even when they do just like everyone else.
No, I was accusing an individual of being ignorant. Now I'm accusing two.
When are you going to condemn Donald Trump who continues to commit treason in public and obvious ways?
I wait with baited breath for Trump's trial.
Never, like all the white republican traitors who stand by this known Russian stooge?
Perhaps read my post in its entirety before replying next time?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yes, all of that happened and all of that was horrible. Those are all examples of people making race matter. The issue arises when you encounter someone who at least attempts to make race a non-issue but you, yourself, keep bringing up race, thereby making it matter. It doesn't matter that Obama is black (after all he's only half black), it matters that he was the best candidate, and the AC to whom I was replying was displaying extreme ignorance and racial bias by making it about his race rather than his credentials. Yes, the credentials were brought up, but the focus was put on how he was a black man who only won because he was so much better than his opponents... well, of course he won because he was better and I'm glad for that; his race had no part in that, though.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Evidence requires... evidence.
I know you are but what am I, is not evidence, no matter what your genProf told you.
You sir, are dishonest. I am an atheist and my moral code is strong and established by my choices. The reason I am an atheist is that you and your religious compatriots follow the moral codes of "gods" that do not have any morals themselves.
You naked a public statement that implies I am mentally incompetent, that I and others like me "are not capable of creating the necessary philosophical and mental framework that supports the existence of a populous and culture that embraces values of personal integrity and policies based on hard data and logic."
You fail your own moral standards.
The bible is logical? I do not think so.
I'm afraid you missed that age of enlightenment.
Why are millions of non-whites desperate to move into white countries every year, and not the other way round? Why aren't millions of white people moving to Africa, India and China every year, if we want to be a white minority in a non-white country, which is what ALL white countries are being turned into right now, via mass immigration?
Is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p0...
Try the catechism, those are our beliefs more or less, but I mean just because we believe in different system of moral governance, it is not in conflict with your own interpretation. What is in conflict are the medieval belief systems perpetuAted throughout much of the 3rd world. Much to their own detriment. Those people won't engage with you in a civil forum. It is not their belief, stop attacking the easy targets. We don't believe in a sky God anymore then you do. If thats your interpretation of Christianity, it is grossly misguided. Probably because the American system was a protestant movement that denied the modernisation of the Catholic Church.
i mean, i hope the nsa are more benevolent than hilldawg, otherwise he is DEAD MEAT lol
Lesson learnt: Don't employ conservatives.
If Obama was like Trump, he would have never been elected.
A lot of people were saying "If Trump is like Trump, he will never be elected." Up until the moment when he got elected.
Not hide facts, just ignore some facts for any practical uses in our society. I'm not concerned if some if it is correct, it's just that it shouldn't matter outside of an academic context. If you let science replace civility, you're on your way to constructing a utilitarian dystopia.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Monster.com enables recruiters to check a box to "include diversity candidates" to include resumes from their "Diversity and Inclusion network" in search results. They appear to have built a monetized product around this. Can somebody please explain to me how the existence of this checkbox is not discriminatory? https://hiring.monster.com/jcm...
Wow did you ever guess wrong. I've never used a ride-sharing service in my life. I try not to feed the "gig economy" and I'm doing a perfect job so far.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Luckily, I have a post already made for this:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You are an idiot if you think the right wingers don't engage in stupid shit as well.
I'm proud I support Trump and will vote for him as long as he's an option.
You can go kill yourself.
Don't they. Oh, oh, poor widdle me, I aint a minority, but I'm not in charge, it MUST be "the woman" keeping me down, because I'm definitely not at fault!!!! Waaaah!.
The issue arises when you encounter someone who at least attempts to make race a non-issue but you, yourself, keep bringing up race, thereby making it matter.
Oh, so you are one of those people. Who think their 'neutrality' negates everything that the rest of the world does. Who knew solipsism was the cure for racial injustice? What a fool Dr King was.
This! Republican party has the problem that they are targeting a declining customer segment.
James Duhmore..
What a waste of time and money in the court system. A judge will laugh this out of the court. His employment was "at will" in CA. Google can fire anyone, at any time, for any reason. This is purely for a gimmick for exposure. Add to that, that it will appear that he has attached himself to the current conservative movement in Washington DC and a California court is going to treat this like gum at the bottom of a shoe. And don't forget about the current "Time's Up" movement, his ass will be in a sling because that manifesto coupled with the wage comparisons that will surface between Demore and his female peers. He is going to look ridiculous. All a lawyer will have say is" Hey, you're were making 30% more than your female peers for doing the same job, and you were still unhappy. You poor little baby, what else can we do for you since you're so mistreated and misunderstood?"
...President Trump is prone to frequent odd outbursts and declarations that are sometimes completely incoherent and provably false. That should be cause for significant concern, whether you're conservative or liberal.
Conservative, liberal, American, Japanese, Korean, Australian...
It's also pretty clear to anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language that President Trump is prone to frequent odd outbursts and declarations that are sometimes completely incoherent and provably false. That should be cause for significant concern, whether you're conservative or liberal.
I oppose Trump but I wonder if some of the things he says aren't just trickery to keep people talking about his chosen topic. Every time he misstates a number or fact, that becomes another piece of news. In fact, it often becomes the News of the Day. It brings attention to the topic, and the news organizations dogpile on either supporting or proving it incorrect.
His detractors aren't going to change their opinion of Trump over the misstatement, his supporters likely won't, and Trump's chosen issue becomes the issue of the day, blocking out many other current events. It is a highly effective distraction technique. There were plenty of such distractions when the tax bill was going through congress, and any time negative news about Trump is circulating.
On the other hand, he might be completely crazy and any positive effects of that are simply coincidental.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
FYI, unless you've been eating worms... you wait with bated (from abate) breath.
But the term "reverse racism" is certainly a useful classification of racist behaviour.
If the 'majority' of the Dems acted like this, you wouldn't be seeing burnt businesses, you'd be seeing civil war. Just like the 'majority' of republicans aren't violent and confrontative.
You really need to understand that it's only a minute fringe element that acts this way, regardless of political affiliation, and those acts are absolutely not anything you can smear a large proportion of the entire population with.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, but consider this as well:
Shortsighted and ignorant groupthink prevailed....politicization due to ideological self-identification is the most detrimental force in America. It turns otherwise rational individuals into helpless tools of their own enslavement. What is worse, they scream and cry as they drag everyone down with them. If you're going to destroy yourself and everyone else around you, would you at least shut the fuck up as you do it?
I know that you were directing this at the liberal/progressives, but this should apply to EVERYONE. But that isn't how it works, or has worked. If you're Christian, you are RIGHT and that means you get to trample on other people in the name of your god. [hint: it applies to other religions too, in the same way].
I am sure that all the racists/right-wing/anti-left nutjobs are frothing at the mouth saying "SEE! SEE!" and spreading this around trying to strengthen their position on things. I really find it amusing that people who bitch and moan so much about "snowflakes" are the first ones to get their panties up in a bunch when something isn't what they like.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -MLK
You guys would tear him apart these days for the things that he said, if you ever even bothered to read them!
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Anyone who uses the R word, might as well be using the N word. You reveal yourself for the unprincipled person you are, conveniently avoiding 'bad' words yet ignorantly, casually, dropping others equally or more offensive.
After you apologize, stop doing that.
Stop. It.
Careful now, once an AC's cognitive dissonance hits 88 pangs per hour, you're going to see some serious shit...
Trump is a poor liar compared to those two. The reason he was elected is because the American public is tired of a the 'elite' creating a legal and political system that is a complete vacuum of logic.
I'm not convinced that Americans were stupid enough to think Trump was not part of the "elite" or that he possesses any logic. I think they're just fickle and change their minds.
All of those things however are non-sense ... and agnosticism and atheism and for that matter liberal Protestantism, which naturally leads to the former , are not capable of creating the necessary philosophical and mental framework that supports the existence of a populous and culture that embraces values of personal integrity and policies based on hard data and logic. Still, those moral frameworks are exactly the ones enshrined in the democratic platform and regular pushed by all American large media outlets , which themselves show no inclination for either integrity of information or truth, but rather filter information to create a political illusion consistent with the ratings that fuel them..
Whoa, WTF are you smoking, man? Please stop with your manifesto before you go all crazy and violent.
More proof that anti-straight white conservative discrimination is widespread. Every time I go to a restaurant I always get seated in a whites-only area. When I go to a store, the security people follow me around like I already stoled something! Unlike the blacks, I have to tell my kids to be careful around police so they dont get shot. I have trouble getting a loan or a mortgage and have ZERO representation in goverment! We live in a USA today where the only people who can hold down a job or be in goverment are those with the right dark color of skin!
When will straight white conservatives be given a fair shot?
NEVER!
The endless evidence free whining out of people has palled. It is time to go to court and let the chips fall where they may.
X claims discrimination against Y? Take them to court. Any comment or accusation along these lines that doesn't wind up in court should be ignored.
And if you lost your court case, you were wrong. Your whine fest was about nothing. No one cares. Grow up.
If you win your court case, you were right. Your complaints were righteous and held up in a court of law. We should care. And it is the adult thing to address this behavior and control it going forward to avoid further litigation.
Endless complaints about discrimination going all over the place. Take it to court or be righteously ignored.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
both major American political parties expound right wing, authoritarian viewpoints and philosophies.
I suppose it would look that way to someone raised and bred in a culture of left-wing authoritarian viewpoints and philosophies such as what can be readily found in most European nations these days. Cradle-to-grave government nannying and regulation have become a staple of the EU. Government expanding government for the sake of government, all at the cost of the people while telling them they're getting a better deal out of it.
History flash: real right-wing authoritarianism looks like Germany/Italy in the late 1930's. Unless you're prepared to make the preposterous argument current USA political stances are equal to those, your comment has nothing to do with reality.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
And since skin color accounts for 0.0003% of our genome, discrimination on that basis seems positively ridiculous. Discrimination in all its forms seems like it is the last bastion of a group of people who won't take responsibility for themselves. Blame someone else, it's easier.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Both parties have done plenty of this
There were two adjectives, "continuous" and "blatant".
There have been previous instances of occasional blatant lies. But those were not part of a continuous stream ("I did not have sex with that woman", "What missiles sold to Iran?", etc)
What's new is lying all the time, and doing so in a way where the lies are completely obvious.
1- Most of Google is white and male. So its a little tough to prove that google discriminates against them.
2- Political belief is not a protected class. AKA Google can discriminate all it wants on the basis of being conservative.
So proud you posted as an AC? hmm
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Thanks, I'd never actually seen it in written form nor learned the etymology of the term. Now, I've done both.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The problem is in exact numbers.
How "minute" a fringe are we talking about? 0.1%? 1%? 5%? I'd lean towards the latter; the fringe is vocal and influential. In a city of three hundred thousand, say 1/3 identifies as democrats; a riot of more than a thousand participants erupts, that's easily over 1%, They are dangerous people and the numbers are such that local police force can get overwhelmed... the threshold where random destruction of property turns into a civil war is really closer than the "just a fringe" apologists are willing to admit.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
No, my neutrality negates nothing, but your lack of neutrality perpetuates the past. Do you not see that? Seriously, stop making everything about race and you'll see life in an entirely different way; when you encounter someone who does make thing about race, deal with them accordingly. Judge them by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin; that's their mistake, you needn't make it as well. Two wrongs and all that.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So you're saying that only you can have morals because your imaginary friend told you what they are? I think I have morals because of basic empathy for other people, not because of my fear of punishment or greed for rewards from a make-believe creation.
Who ordered that?
There is no such thing as "reverse racism", racism is racism, and judging people by the color of their skin is always wrong, even if your purpose is to help the person.
Except you've given the definition of "discrimination", so now we have to question if you don't understand what the word "racism" means.
Racism, as we see it in the United States, is a systematic discrimination that categorizes people into different hierarchical classes based on race. So-called "reverse racism" would have to be the upset of that social system, which would require a great deal to be suddenly changed to occur and seems very unlikely to have ever happened here.
Besides, gerrymandering has no affect on national elections. You win states by popular vote.
Jesus Christ. The irony of him calling Demore a terrible human.
It astounds me that American politics has devolved into confused name-calling and an almost complete inability to form coherent and rational arguments.
That's mostly how it appears on TV.
I think he was referring to right here on Slashdot, as this is exactly how any politically charged, public discussion devolves. Sound and reasonable arguments do get modded up, but sadly so do comments that are mostly just feel-good flag waving for one side or the other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is long game gerrymandering. They did it 200 years ago!
> This while one party lobbies for social services, civil rights, gay rights, health care, immigration reform, etc., and the other stridently resists it at all turns.
So your side is virtuous and the other side is evil and the only reason you can't be more virtuous.
This is exactly the sort of unhinged nonsense that turns off the moderate liberals and independents.
Also, not everyone that's liberal is also a socialist. So lumping that kind of crap in with the liberty issues is kind of a non starter for some of us.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You sound like some sort of communist. Or worse, a European. Probably Surrender Monkey. But your English is pretty good and nobody outside America speaks English that well. Shit. I don't know.
Seriously, though, the real problem in America isn't the level of the political debates. It's how the votes are counted and the offices awarded. Gerrymandering and the electoral college do a lot of damage to the Republic. The whole system is set up to help the states be equal in their say in the Federal government, but the states are nowhere near equal in terms of their populations. Instead of protecting the minority populations of the small states from the tyranny of the majority, we've given small states the ability to have an outsized say in matters of national importance, which leads to the more old-fashioned tyranny, that of small privileged groups of people over the larger majority. We either need to see people like Trump as obvious evidence of the harm of having more than a bare minimum of national government or we need to get rid of a legacy political system that was originally designed to keep just two competing teams trading off the top spots at the federal level.
Each time the pendulum swings, it swings further because the federal government is more and more centralized in its functions, larger, more embedded in local matters across the nation. Witness the current AG's push to bring back the Drug War on marijuana just as the populous state legalized the stuff for recreational use! Talk about big government taking away states' rights. But he wouldn't even be the AG if it weren't for the gerrymandering enshrined in the electoral college.
We don't have a large sample size, but the USA managed to go for over 100 years where the popular vote and the electoral college always matched in terms of who won the presidency. But now we've had two of them in 16 years. And this last one the margin was almost 3 million votes! That's crazy, right there. When a candidate loses by 2.2% of the votes, there is no way the Electoral College should be going against such a clear popular result. I mean, I sure wish my local city politics worked that way, where we could just draw a line around some lightly populated area and call it a representation district even though it's got a fraction of the population the rest of the city and give it an equal say relative to other neighborhoods with higher population densities. No one would stand for this at the city or state level, so why do we allow it at the federal level?
I do not have a signature
Wow, modded down to flamebait as I was modding up.
I wouldn't make any claim as to whether Damore is a good person or not, or an extremist or not. However, "Knows how to couch his arguments in a cloak of faux-rationality" is a very good description of his memo. It is intellectually dishonest. It makes unwarranted assumptions. Citations alone do not make for "well-researched" writing.
What does "Half black" mean?
In the US, if you look black, you are black. A cop pulling him over isn't going to ask for his 23andMe results before cuffing him or shooting him at a rate 9x that of white men pulled over. Nor is a lender who lends at 23% less to blacks. Or insurers who charge 30% to 300% more on average to blacks. Or any other institutions that have racism built-in.
* sources: Weapons of Math Destruction
The Norms is what allows a President to act like a tyrant and enact laws with a wave of their pen.
The problem with Washington is that it acts like it is an Empire and everyone not in Washington are colonials. Ask the Aussies, Indians, Irish or anyone else how it feels to be a colonial in a foreign empire. This is how the rest of America feels towards Washington.
In the end, Trump will have done more to restore American Democracy to its rightful path than any president since Washington.
F the Norms.
The only probable lie that I hear from the left is the size of his inauguration crowd and really, who gives a rat's patootie.
The majority do not act that way, but the majority do tacitly support it by agreeing with the same claims and goals. That's really the bigger problem.
Where does race factor in to what Damore said in his memo? What evidence do you have that he "was abusing other employees because they weren't white"?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
So Obama has never tried to produce anything, about the only you would not produce a non-government debt.
Actually he refers to himself as a constitutional scholar, the school refers to him as "senior lecturer".
Then you have your own racist comments.
When a candidate loses by 2.2% of the votes, there is no way the Electoral College should be going against such a clear popular result.
Do you want a civil war? Because that's how you get a civil war.
The Balkans in the 90s exploded exactly because individual states felt that their voice was being ignored by the central government. They decided to cecide, and war and ethnic cleansing followed. If you decide that you can rule the US by the fiat of the most populous states, violence will be the most likely result.
I see people say this, but when they say "the rest of the world" they typically just mean Europe (and sometimes Australia). If you look more in Africa and Asia, the US looks a lot closer to center and Europe seems farther left.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I get where you are pointing, however the only standard that need be applied in these circumstances, the only moral compass necessary, is the Constitution.
Dedication to the epistemological orientation pointed to in that document creates a civic creature that knows their own worth, power, and position in the hierarchy. An example of the proper application of which would have been, in the same sex marriage debate, the assertion that the power of marriage choice is a power not attributed to the federal government, nor the states, but inherent to the People. In the proper application of the system, the approval of a government official, system, or law is not necessary for two member of the same sex to have their marriage recognized by the state. It would only be the word of the two that they are married, such is the power inherent in the People.
Instead we have the ones with the power begging and scraping before the servants asking to receive from them what they already possess.
The problems inherent in making fallible servants into the masters of society is exactly what the Constitution was written to combat. That the People have turned the document on its head and now seek to have their own inalienable rights given to them by the power of the government is indicative of what is really wrong with our Country.
Hint: It's not the people in government. They are always going to be like that, they always have been. It's the People and their understanding of their place in this system.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Take everybody who strong believes in their parties, R&D, intern them, while teaching them ACTUAL US history, then when we get done, decide if they should be returned to society, or to the chambers with them!
The burden of proof for alleged discrimination is to stand up and say "I allege discrimination". Discrimination alleged. QED. You have it in writing, on the court transcript.
If Damore is clever enough to work at Google, he's probably clever enough to figure this out, so I predict 100% chance of success in this legal endeavour.
How to Make It So
Unfortunately for Damore, the judge probably will probably award damages on the scale of one piping-hot mocha cappuccino (to be delivered upright, in a protective cup, with a spill-proof lid) and then assign the entirety of Google's legal costs to the plaintiff (Damore begins to faint), up to—but not exceeding—two hours of a discount public defendant, one H1-B dry-cleaning bill (it's just a second day job to pay the bills for an underfunded moonlight startup), and two cross-town Ubers (Damore perks up again like he just received a Mia Wallace special spiked with Adderall).
Google, with a driven corporate culture of work to completion, immediately delivers the requisite coffee to Damore, who expresses no surprise. (The inventor of Google Glass cut his teeth packing a fully articulated pop-up espresso machine into a svelte, feminine attache case—on his seventh of fifteen interviews.)
Judge raps gavel.
Damore approaches bench, profusely thanks his lordship, and pretends to forget his fancy coffee on the judge's bench.
Judge: Well, well, look what the bailiff brought me ...
Judge glowers dramatically at Google's counsel (all twelve), Morse-coding "should I drink this?" with his bushy eyebrows.
One of the sharper members of Google's half-and-half gender-balanced legal dream team (who happens to be a man) recognizes the Morse code gesture (it's a man thing), and Morses back with a precisely calibrated locker-room shrug "go ahead, it's just coffee, we're not quite that petty, you old toad".
That was extremely respectful, all things considered. The legal costs award will barely pay for his morning aftershave, which he seems to consume at twice his previous rate now that Google hires twice as many women, not that it improves his win rate, on either score, not one little bit.
has been hanging out with ethnically and culturally mixed people since I was in diapers, I would disagree with you good sir.
Personally I get along better with any average black person than I do with the average while person, despite being white myself. And you know part of the reason why? Because most white people are closeminded assholes. While I have found many people of other races intellectually lazy, fewer, especially those who came to the US willingly, intending on cultural integration, are as closeminded on a variety of subjects as the average white person is. That is not to say on specific topics they are not, usually on how important obeying authority versus avoiding authority is (usually due to how corrupt law enforcement or government was accepted to be in their former country.) Some follow all the rules to the letter, others tend to bend/break the rules because the shakedown of fines/bribes is just a part of life.
it's bewildering that half of the US population supports the elephant party, while strongly believing that donkey party followers are complete loons (and vice-versa)
I rarely check Facebook, but when I do, it's to have a sick pit in my stomach and feelings of pity at people having literal mental breakdowns because Clinton got Trumped. Vitriolic, nonsensical shitposting that has no grounding in reality - these people literally froth at the mouth 24/7, and they cannot even give an actual answer as to why.
And you're right - it goes both ways. The same sort of hysteria existed when ol' Barry was shitting up the White House. (I'm still waiting for Obama to personally break into my house and steal all of my guns.) And do we even need to bring up the Bush-era lunacy? (I sure do hope those FEMA camps being set up by seizing-dictatorial-powers-and-stopping-elections-under-martial-law King George have air conditioning.)
But this is the Internet. It isn't real life - even if Facebook and their ilk would like it to be. Step outside, and you'll find the majority of people really do not give a fuck either way. Half the country this, half the country that? Half the goddamned country stayed home last November.
Sure, it seems like the entire country is up in arms - countless stories one way or another, but people: our population has been steadily growing. More people. More incensed idiots.
Same small minority percentage.
he was autistic enough to take "we welcome all feedback" at face value
the only time I gave my previous employer honest feedback was during my exit interview, after I quit.
I'm told even this is unadvisable in case I ever needed to crawl back to them.
...I wonder if some of the things he says aren't just trickery to keep people talking about his chosen topic. Every time he misstates a number or fact, that becomes another piece of news. In fact, it often becomes the News of the Day. It brings attention to the topic, and the news organizations dogpile on either supporting or proving it incorrect.
I don't think you need to wonder. His techniques work. F'rinstance, he had a long-term plan to be president, including switching political parties when he was cock-blocked, and reached his goal.
the threshold where random destruction of property turns into a civil war
They're two completely different things; one doesn't turn into the other. Now go away.
The Bible talks about morals and the spiritual experience of relationship to the divine as two very different and separate things. If someone says that morals only come from deity, and then recommends the Christian god as the source, just know that this individual does not understand the book they are talking about. They are fundamentally uninformed, ignorant, or deeply misinformed about the Bible and Christianity and should not be relied on as an authoritative source.
Additionally, your consideration of the spiritual life is just as misinformed as the person who says that morals only come from deity. The fundamental concept of Christianity is that at the moment of belief there is no longer any punishment, and all rewards are imputed to the believer at that instant as well. All the work is done by the divine, not by man. What this arrangement provides is not morality, but an experience of life that is beyond obsessive preoccupation with self condemnation, doubt, and negative self reference.
By contrast, one can be incredibly moral and base that morality on the constant observation of what is wrong, both inside themselves and in the observed actions of others. This leads to the holier-than-thou syndrome that so puts others off. It is evident in everything from virtue signaling to self righteousness in religious people. In addition, morality can be closely related to empathy, understanding, and initiative. This is where you see true charity, anonymous giving, compassion, etc. Neither of these are the spiritual life.
In contrast, the spiritual life removes the problem of human fallibility as a reference point and replaces it with the knowledge that there is only one frame of reference from which all human experience and endeavors can be judged perfectly, and the consciousness that occupies that frame of reference has declared you free, accepts you fully as you are, loves you completely, and will provide for you in every moment of life. Free from condemnation, free from the debts created by your imperfection, from your lack of sight, and your human fallibility, accepted in spite of your constant self recrimination, by a being of infinite purity and sight, and provided for, supported, and loved in every moment of life. This experience of life means that the individual comes from a place of gratitude, recognition, and understanding of the divine, breathing in infinite blessing from the divine, and breathing out unadulterated reflection of that blessing toward mankind. The results may look the same, however it is the experience of life for the spiritual practitioner that is fundamentally different.
Sure, it's a lens. Does it mean anything, in a cosmic sense? No one knows until death. In the meantime, its a blast to live in that place, if you can get there.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
My moral code says you should be boiled in oil after your children (if any) are fed to feral hog before your eyes. Can you make a case that your moral code is superior to mine?
Because you say so? Usually civil wars start with civil unrest, public protests escalating in violence.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Here. This is not about white men having it horrible in the country or Sillicon Valley in general. It's about specific comments and actions by specific people. Just like in the case of a lady who got awarded a million for spilling McD coffee on herself, there is more here than meets the eye. It's up to court to sort it out and hopefully deliver a just resolution rather than for us to speculate to appearances.
Beautiful
> Your minority population still makes up the majority of perpetrators of violent crimes against other members of your minority population.
People are generally the victim of crime committed by people that live near them, whatever ethnicity they are. If people of certain ethnicity are concentrated, then they will be victims of people of their own ethnicity. One of the groups most likely to commit a crime against you, though, are members of your own family.
> And by supporting that racist, misogynistic piece of crap they are contributing to a culture in this country that is racist and misogynistic.
Or maybe they just researched the white gloves crimes of Clinton, or got most blatantly, rudely cheated out of the chance to vote Sanders and they voted *the other candidate*?
Lots of Trump voters voted Trump only because they were sick and tired of empowering the Clintion mafia, and of being brainwashed that this is about genders, minorities, racial issues - while it was all about MONEY.
And the defenders of Clinton still keep on playing the whole gender/race red herring card. No, it's about the Clinton dynasty losing the crown to some upstart with his own business connections, disrupting the flow of money to Clintons and their secret supporters.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
White males aged 18-40 are the only/b non-protected class that exists. Every other class of people has special protection in one form or another.
Outside of government what has he produced?
Less debt than Trump. Another win for Obama.
So Obama has never tried to produce anything, about the only you would not produce a non-government debt.
You failed at that sentence, son. I presume that you mean that the only thing I can say for him is that he would not produce a non-government debt. But since Trump is behaving generally like he did before he became president, it seems reasonable to assume the same about Obama.
Trump would be a failure if not for bailouts.
He's a constitutional scholar, while Trump barely even knows what the constitution is.
Actually he refers to himself as a constitutional scholar, the school refers to him as "senior lecturer".
We know him to be a constitutional scholar from his school record. If the school refers to him as a senior lecturer, then that's actually a greater qualification than a mere field of study. Thanks for supporting my argument.
That's another major qualification over his orangeness.
Then you have your own racist comments.
Spray-on tan is not a race.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You guys would tear him apart these days for the things that he said, if you ever even bothered to read them!
Shut the fuck up. You know exactly one out-of-context quote from Dr King and think it makes him a reactionary conservative.
Here, take your own damn advice and either (a) never ever try to claim Dr King for your racist agenda ever fucking again, or (b) learn something new about the world and become a better person.
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."
— A Testament of Hope (anthology)
"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.”
— “The Three Evils of Society,” 1967
Whenever the issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.
— Why We Can’t Wait, 1964
“Why is equality so assiduously avoided? Why does white America delude itself, and how does it rationalize the evil it retains?
The majority of white Americans consider themselves sincerely committed to justice for the Negro. They believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth toward a middle-class Utopia embodying racial harmony. But unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity.”
— Where Do We Go From Here, 1967
Something positive must be done... In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation being signed by Abraham Lincoln. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful. It was something like keeping a person in prison for a number of years and suddenly discovering that that person is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. And you just go up to him and say, "Now you are free," but you don't give him any bus fare to get to town. . . .
....
It's all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.
— Sunday morning sermon at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.
Anatole France once said: 'The law in its majestic equality forbids all men to sleep under benches — the rich as well as the poor...France's sardonic jest expresses a bitter truth. Despite new laws, little has changed...The Negro is still the poorest American — walled in by color and poverty. The law pronounces him equal — abstractly — but his conditions of life are still far from equal."
— "Negroes Are Not Moving Too Fast", 1964 (p. 176-177).
"We must come to see that the roots of racism are very deep in our country, and there must be something positive and massive in order to get rid of all the effects of racism and the tragedies of racial injustice."
— "Remaining Awake," 1968 (p 271).
"Although the terms desegregation and integration are used interchangeably, there is a great deal of difference between the two...Desegregation simply removes legal and social prohibitions. Integration is creative...more profound and far reaching than desegregation...
"Integration...is the welcome participation of Negroes into the total range of human activities...Desegregation is not enough; integration alone is consonant with our national purpose."
— "Ethical Demands for Integration", 1963, (p.118).
No, my neutrality negates nothing, but your lack of neutrality perpetuates the past
It isn't the past, it is today. If you had bothered to click any of the links labeled 2.0 you would see some examples of how it happens today. Hell, I even provided you a link to a republican senator telling fox news how he is regularly pulled over for driving while black. A fucking united states senator still gets that shit and you claim it's in the past? The problems are of today and your ignorance does not change that. You are like a color-blind man demanding that everybody else admit the sky is red.
Damore isn't actually trying to win this. He'd have to be an idiot to think he could; he has to know that Google consulted with their fleet of lawyers before firing him, and that they only fired him because they could come up with a legally sound justification, and even if he couldn't figure that out whatever lawyer he picked up would have made it very clear to him. The actual purpose of this lawsuit is something that anti-gay crusaders have been into for a while and that other stripes of conservatives have been picking up on over the last couple of years or so: using the process of filing a complaint for doxxing. As part of making the complaint, Damore published into a publicly available legal record 86 pages of screenshots of things people working at Google said that he didn't like and, surprise surprise, did not attempt to redact any names or conceal any identities. Some of those people have already begun to receive threats and harassment from conservatives. That was the real point of this. Damore and his lawyer know nothing will come of the suit, but now the people who dared to upset his delicate sensibilities can be punished.
Yeah, a black democrat named Barack Obama
Actually he was half black if need to be specific... There was a discussion on CSPAN3 or 2 of a book author talked about Obama and how he "walked in thin ice" about racism during his Presidency. Author said Obama was highly educated, married once and still is, two daughters doing well in school. Also well spoken, did appropriate sports like play golf, etc. If Obama was like Trump, he would have never been elected.
At the same time, if Trump were like Obama, he would never have been elected.
It's almost like you think we've made absolutely zero progress in the past 50 years...
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I never said it doesn't still happen today, I was pointing out that it is perpetuated (that is, made to still happen) by people like you who insist on bringing up race at every opportunity.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Sorry, my previous post was missing a "where", but apparently that didn't cause problems.
By "the rest of the world", I really meant the rest of the /developed/ world, or at least rising powers (Brasil, India, China, South Africa...). Otherwise democracy doesn't really work.
Europe alone is a very diverse set of 50-odd countries (much more diverse than the USA, as would be expected by a region with 15 times the history), and of course there are other developed countries in the world beyond North America and Europe.
Maybe my knowledge of Brazilian and Indian politics is outdated, but I was under the impression they weren't far off of the US, at least in terms of major parties. Eastern Europe has a pretty wide range, but Western Europe is mostly some range of left.
What metrics are you using to say that Europe is more diverse than America?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
It's almost like you think we've made absolutely zero progress in the past 50 years...
Everything Dr King said about economic inequality is just as true today as it was before he was assassinated. Median black family wealth is less than 10% of the median white family wealth. 20% of black families have less than zero net worth. Most of the rest have their wealth tied up in a depreciating asset - the car they need in order to drive to work. All of that is because practically none of the reforms Dr King called for were implemented, but plenty of racist policies were, like the war on drugs.
The most charitable interpretation of your posts is that they are the function of abject ignorance. Educate your damn self before going around smugly lecturing people who do actually know WTF they are talking about.
Yes, the "he who smelt it dealt it" defense of systemic racism.
Engaging with you is like playing a game of reactionary colorblindness bingo.
I believe in the meaning of words. I'm sorry for you who believe in supporting corporate speak who do not mean what they say i.e. you support outright lying.
You're sure full of hostility and assumptions. I'm not white and I'm certainly not conservative, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the one with a racist agenda here.
I don't see where any of your quotes says that King's end goal isn't the removal of race as a factor for judging a person's worth. The world you seem to be set on building is one where race is ever more important for that. Catching up and building an equal foundation is not the same thing as inverting power structures and perpetuating hatred and division.
Thanks for more poignant quotes though. King is much more eloquent and far far less hateful than you. Reading him almost gets rid of the nasty taste in my mouth that reading your words left.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
> And by supporting that racist, misogynistic piece of crap they are contributing to a culture in this country that is racist and misogynistic.
Or maybe they just researched the white gloves crimes of Clinton, or got most blatantly, rudely cheated out of the chance to vote Sanders and they voted *the other candidate*?
Aaaaand this is why I vote third party; D & R are a lose-lose proposition, proven time and again.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You idiot. Reverse racism is tolerance. Believing in your concept of reverse racism, is racist in itself.
Allowing businesses to buy influence in politics might have seemed beneficial for business, but can backfire too, as politics seep into business. A company's and it's worker's political orientations have become important. I would care less what my ISP votes, but I guess for you Americans, it's defines trustworthiness and quality. You've all made a point of putting money first, hail to corporate freedom, including politics. It's like the Soviet Union in the '30ies, but the capitalist version. Good luck with that. The polarization and extreme views, even here on slashdot, are amazing, stifling and actually quite stupid. You might better focus on reinstating division of powers, whatever your political affiliation, to mutual benefit. But i guess screaming at each other is much more fun, like having hotdogs for breakfast on a daily basis. You might regret that some day.
Your philosophy is deficient. There are lots of workable and rational moral frameworks that don't involve religion. Plenty of atheists, agnostics, and liberal Protestants are highly moral people. Morality isn't limited to only the people whose religion you approve of.
Anyone can say anything they like about rights that aren't legal rights. Clearly, governments in general (including the US government) do not believe that life and liberty are inalienable rights, since they alienate them.
For the libertarians among you, "gay rights" and "abortion rights" are fundamentally the right to keep the government out of what people want to do. We had laws forbidding same-sex couples from being married like everyone else.
You mention a morality of "social responsibility, self-control, personal integrity" and don't seem to notice that Trump's party is making a mockery of those things by the legislation they pass and the actions they take.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's pretty hard to cast the party that argues for a smaller less powerful federal government as the authoritarians, you idiot.
He wanted to win the white house so badly he colluded with russia and then the next day the press is saying he didn't even want to win. That's how utterly corrupt our media is.
You haven't realized that he dangles squirrels from a string, makes CNN report on a white truck for days, while he actually gets stuff done. The entire press is blinded by their hatred, while Trump has the economy going gangbusters.
Fucking SJW. Mod him down boys...
The fundamental concept of Christianity is that Christ is the son of a god. Everything else is optional. Your post is expounding a flavour of bullshit.
I don't see where any of your quotes says that King's end goal isn't the removal of race as a factor for judging a person's worth.
Wow, you just moved the goalposts by about 20 fields.
You pulled the bullshit that pro-racists always do - cite the one line from Dr King to justify colorblindness today not in the future.
Dr King was absolutely clear that the way we get to that future is to make explicit compensation for current inequities. Not by sitting on our hands, doing nothing and pretending to be neutral in the face of system injustice. The day we have a society where Dr King's dream has been achieved is the day we stop talking about racial justice. Until then, stop trying to defend the wrong side of history.
King is much more eloquent and far far less hateful than you. Reading him almost gets rid of the nasty taste in my mouth that reading your words left.
Awww, were yew feewings hurt? Here you are abusing Dr King's legacy to argue against everything Dr King actually stood for in defense of the subjugation of generations of millions of people merely for the color of their skin and I am the asshole? Smell yourself.
It seems like the Bible makes it quite clear that God is the one who establishes morality. It is written on our hearts and being that we've been created in God's images those same attributes are imparted on us. Roman 2:14-15 talks about how it's on our consciousness even if the Mosaic Law was not provided. As a Christian I'm confused as to why I'm ignorant about the Bible if I believe that morality was establish by God.
Even if one doesn't believe in the Bible, someones morality comes from somewhere. If it's a social construct than it's hard to take a moral high road when someones social expectations are to different than yours. CS Lewis had a good quote that I like "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Without have God as a standard there could be not objective moral right and wrong.
If the 'majority' of the Dems acted like this...
You'd see a majority of dead Dems and that's a fact.
I get where you are pointing, however the only standard that need be applied in these circumstances, the only moral compass necessary, is the Constitution.
Well, at least one of the guys who helped write the US Constitution would appear by his own words to disagree strongly with that opinion:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
No offense, but I think I'll go with Adams on this one.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
He's as black exactly the same amount as George Zimmerman is white.
Heeeeey, you're actually quoting the memo. That's super. A lot of these sort of discussions go off into the weed where they fight a strawman. This is great.
[Women on average have more] Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics
Do you think this makes women less equal to men? Is this being sexist? Different, sure, but I don't see this as shooting down women in any way.
Damore used that as an explanation for why there aren't as many women coding. Not that they shouldn't be, but that they don't want to be. He cited psychological journals. (Personally, I think E-S theory sounds like bullshit, people's feelings are just a different sort of system)
[Women on average have more] Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
I would actually say this is a net positive towards working in a team and developing software. Nobody likes to work with assholes. Why are you claiming that this makes women less equal to men?
Damore used this one to explain why women have lower salaries, ie, they're not assholes enough to demand a higher wage. Not that they are worth less. Not that they should earn less. But rather WHY they earn less. He doesn't cite anything for this one, and I'd question it, but the "failing to demand a larger wage" thing comes up a lot in these discussions.
[Women on average have more] Neuroticism
Yeah this one seemed a bit brutal. But apparently he's got psychological science journals to back him up on this one. Feel free to go edit wikipiedia's citations.
1) Is it sexist to point out what is legitimately true? Blind people aren't as good at driving. Black people are better at resisting sunburn. That's true. Is it some sort of bigotry to say that? Would blind people take offense? If you're trying to say that it is, then you are opposing the truth of the world and are anti-science. If it's true, but taboo and don't want him to talk about it, that's a pretty bad place to try and make an argument from and history is not typically kind. Now, a perfectly valid counter-point, which I've yet to see anyone make, is asking WHY are women more neurotic? Nobody argues that Africa isn't poorer than Europe. But there are historical reasons for that. Colonialism fucked them over pretty hard. Here's where Damore and that lot should back off and admit acknowledge that it might not be biological but cultural. But Google's not going fix that.
2) I completely understand that it's taken as a negative thing. It doesn't sound good at all. But he's not pointing it out as a means to say women are less equal. These bullet points are trying to explain the wage gap. Why there are less women coding. He then goes on to suggest we promote women in tech by making it less stressful! He is suggesting we accommodate women and promote their inclusion. How to make the job more appealing to women. Just.... Why does everyone ignore this part? Why is everyone up in arms and so desperate to demonize him? People have spun so many false statements about how, when, and why he wrote this thing and who he sent it to and they've tried to characterize him as the shittiest sort of asshat Trump supporter.
He was fired for promoting stereotypes, but he was pretty damn explicit that sociological trends do not infer anything on individuals. Like wtf, does no one at google know the definition of stereotypes? If the truth no longer matters, if the definitions of words is subjective and whatever's convenient.... then it's getting late, my drink is empty, and I'm not so sure I want to be in this party any more.
You know what? Go get fucked. I honestly have no clue what race you are but you're a piece of shit either way.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Are you fucking kidding me...
The irony. Anyone working in tech should make note of that name and black list this person based on their behaviour.
Yes.
Christ is supposed to have said he was the son of god. Given that, any christian who believes in christ believes in god. I don't.
He doesn't need to say that women are generally inferior to men to be sexist. Let's remember that this was not an academic journal, but a discussion on changes to hiring policy at Google. He was recommending changes to hiring policy based on these statements, which at best, is scientific sexism. No matter how many times he says that they're just trends which don't apply to individuals, the context can't be forgotten. Which brings us to the next point.
Scientific bigotry is wrong whether or not there's rigorous science backing it up. It's an ethical problem, not a scientific one. If, for the sake of argument, there was good solid science backing every single one of James Damore's arguments, it would be exactly none less sexist. If they were all scientifically wrong, it would be none more sexist. The ethically right thing to do is to ignore average preferences, strengths or weaknesses based on a person's immutable traits, and give everyone a fair shot.
Let's say for the sake of argument that it were scientifically proven that black people, on average, are better at running. Solid fact, it's not bigoted to simply state it. But if you use that information for any practical purpose, such as making hiring decisions in a job that involves a lot of running, it would be scientific racism. If you say "It's not a problem that most people working here at company X in running-heavy profession Y are black, black people are on average better at running after all, so there's probably no need to try to improve workplace diversity," that's scientific racism. It would make every non-black employee at company X out to be less fit for their jobs, based on trends which don't apply to individuals, that person might add...but were just advocated for use on individuals. If the non-black people at company X think there's an institutional bias toward hiring black people, it trivializes their concerns. Do you see why this is wrong?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I will go with Adams on this one, as well, with one exception. When he says religious he is dead wrong.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
This is his only way to make money now.
I will go with Adams on this one, as well, with one exception. When he says religious he is dead wrong.
How could he possibly be "wrong" when the Constitution was written with the assumption of Judeo-Christian morals restraining and molding general behaviors of those it governs?
You can disagree that the Constitution should have been drafted differently as to not make those assumptions in it's design, but the design that was created is plainly stated as making those assumptions. There is no room outside of obtuse Post-Modern Solipsism 'logic' to dispute that fact.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Aaaaand this is why I vote third party; D & R are a lose-lose proposition, proven time and again.
So in order to avoid a "lose-lose" situation, you make absolutely SURE you'll lose by throwing away your vote and making sure that one of the people you don't like wins? NO candidate or party is perfect or even close to it. But you can do your best to, for example, make sure that someone like Clinton doesn't get to do what she promised, and use the Supreme Court like a surrogate legislature. But no, you'd rather throw your vote away. That's a shame.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Reading the attached documents in very interesting. To be honest I thought he was taking this a bit too far when I first read the headline, but then I read the screenshots of internal discussions and it was pretty blatant discrimination.
tl;dr some SJW types are writing "evil white males" etc on internal message board, someone takes them to task about their racism very politely, and _he_ is the one sent to see HR.
Personally I'm pretty libertarian and don't really care what racist shit SJW loons have to spew, but when it is in the workplace it starts to become somewhat different. When someone complains and _they_ are the one sent to HR then that's the point at which it's crossing the line in my view.
Lets consider an alternative: KKK loons are talking about "ebil n**gers causing crime and shit" on internal messageboard, a black member of staff quite politely says that the behaviour is rather unpleasant and maybe they could please stop it, and then the black member of staff get sent to HR for harassing the racist staff members. I think in that case there would be no debate about the company being in the wrong, and yet here we are...
Aaaaand this is why I vote third party; D & R are a lose-lose proposition, proven time and again.
So in order to avoid a "lose-lose" situation, you make absolutely SURE you'll lose by throwing away your vote and making sure that one of the people you don't like wins?
No, I vote my conscience, which is pretty much always aligned with a third party. You can't blame me for the situation caused by D and R, because I don't vote for D or R.
BTW, less than half of the electorate votes for D or R in a Presidential election - about 10% vote third party like me, and another 45% don't vote at all; so if you want to accuse someone of being part of the problem, blame the non-voters, or the 48% who continually vote to keep the same assholes in power.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
We're not talking about the people who don't vote. We're talking about you. And your conscience tells you to throw your vote away and let other people make a decision you don't like. Are you really such a puritanical absolutist that you can't even muster the courage to look at the two candidates - one of which IS going to win - and decide which is on balance the better choice in the long term? You can't trouble yourself to think through the ramifications of one type of nominations to courts vs. another? You can't think through the general disposition to wards more, or less regulation? Vote your conscience by steering what IS going to happen in a more useful (or less destructive, whatever) way. Instead of patting yourself on the back for proudly throwing your vote away and leaving the decision up to other people you dislike so much.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"[...]agnosticism and atheism and for that matter liberal Protestantism, which naturally leads to the former , are not capable of creating the necessary philosophical and mental framework that supports the existence of a populous and culture that embraces values of personal integrity and policies based on hard data and logic"
You have asserted this, but have not provided any valid argument as to why it is the case.
You have claimed that a non-thiestic philosophy is not compatible with a society valuing personal integrity or analytical skills. Why is this? Can you provide examples?
(by examples, I refer to ones where the non-theism is the cause, not the correlate, the behaviour in question)
Re: "If Trump is like Trump, he will never be elected."
People do not define a quality using a new example, then use the definition to set the example. That would be like me saying: "Croissants are an example of donuts, therefore all donuts are now called croissants." It's self-serving and allows multiple points for logic challenges.
Furthermore, I literally do not remember anyone saying that. And I was paying attention. They might have said, "Trump will never be elected", that sounds right. However "If Trump is like Trump", that doesn't sound right. Not on any level.
Also not sounding right? "If Obama was like Trump". People are not lego blocks, they should not be compared as whole units. You can say "If Obama spoke like Trump speaks..." because now you are only comparing specific characteristics.
There's simply too much in here for me to parse:
- trashing CNN while failing to address Fox;
- phony felony collusion, when the investigation is ongoing and there are multiple guilty pleas on record;
- fake histrionics, while forgetting the fake "voter fraud", fake "Clinton Foundation" outrage, fake orange hair, fake reassurances of getting "much better healthcare for much cheaper", fake pledges to achieve Middle East peace "easily", fake promises to deal sternly with the Saudis (until they let DT fondle their glowing balls), well this list could go on forever;
- etc.
Mostly I wish to address "... if we want to watch the Dems fall on their faces in 2018 exactly like they did in 2016..." How much would you like to wager on that? Big Giant Orange Head is the most unpopular first-term President in the last century (roughly, I'm not going to look it up). And the Repubs keep nominating sketchy candidates like Roy Moore. So bad that a Republican couldn't get elected in Alabama, that has to be a first! Normally a Republican candidate could get elected in Alabama even if he was the dead guy from Weekend At Bernie's.
I'll wager a day's pay that the GOP loses it's House majority in 2018. Just to keep it interesting.
Sorry for going on and on, please bear with me. I really do want to hear a response to this one.
Let's remember that this was not an academic journal, but a discussion on changes to hiring policy at Google.
Wouldn't that be better? If he's writing at the academic journal level, that would be better than feedback to a diversity class.
And remember, it's a discussion on hiring policy insofaras he's suggesting we stop discriminating against men. Presumably when hiring, sure. This is already illegal. But there are lots of ways to discriminate and he never specifies. One of my BIGGEST qualms with how this whole thing is being handled is that people have attacked him so viciously over what they THINK he said. Which is why "have you read the memo" is the standard refrain.
No matter how many times he says that they're just trends which don't apply to individuals, the context can't be forgotten.
uh... ok. That kinda sounds like you're completely dismissing his statements... just because. But, even with context, it DOES mean he's explicitly not stereotyping. You know, by definition. Which is the stated reason he was fired. Not going to comment on that?
The ethically right thing to do is to ignore average preferences, strengths or weaknesses based on a person's immutable traits, and give everyone a fair shot.
In hiring? Yes, give every individual a fair shot. Something along the lines of acknowledging that sociological trends have a ton of overlap and you can't infer anything about the individual based on the stereotype. I agree. James Damore agrees. He stated as such in the memo. "you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." You can't just ignore that.
But if the context isn't "should we hire this person". Is it sexist to point out what is legitimately true? Let's say specifically in the context of how a company runs their diversity training class, or who gets made fun of in the office, or who is shamed into silence.
Let's say for the sake of argument that it were scientifically proven that black people, on average, are better at running. Solid fact, it's not bigoted to simply state it. But if you use that information for any practical purpose, such as making hiring decisions in a job that involves a lot of running, it would be scientific racism. If you say "It's not a problem that most people working here at company X in running-heavy profession Y are black, black people are on average better at running after all, so there's probably no need to try to improve workplace diversity," that's scientific racism. It would make every non-black employee at company X out to be less fit for their jobs, based on trends which don't apply to individuals, that person might add...but were just advocated for use on individuals. If the non-black people at company X think there's an institutional bias toward hiring black people, it trivializes their concerns. Do you see why this is wrong?
I see the concern. They're concerned that the hiring practice is stereotyping them as not as good at their job. That would suck. And racism and sexism are very much still around today. That sucks. It's unfair. These people are just as good as anybody else.
But in this scenario, the reason they're concerned is kinda bullshit. In a scenario where 1 out of 10 non-speedyLongLegs people is as good at the job as those of the speedyLongLegs tribe, and lo and behold the ratio is about 1:10. But they want a diversity program to FIX that!? There's nothing to fix. That's ideal. In a pure meritocracy that's exactly how the nonLeggyRace gap would play out. And if they got such a program.... You're suggesting one is allowed to question it? In this scenario, it is perfectly valid to have little diversity because there are actual real legitimate differences in abilty. In this scenario, forcing diversity would be unfair, unjust,
I think the funniest part is that Alex Hidalgo is a white conservative male "discriminating" against another white conservative male. The poor righties can't even use their own skin color as a shield anymore when they're attacked from within!
We have hired every female and minority candidate who I've interviewed over eleven years.
Could you provide the name of your company, so I can short the stock?
lucm, indeed.
There is no proof it is spray-on so yes you are a racist.
At the school they call anyone who taught three courses a senior lecturer. The classes he taught were on rights, race and gender he did teach a class on equal protection areas of constitutional law; if that is the only qualification to be an acclaimed scholar on a subject I need to go change my resume. He was offered the option of getting on a tenured track but dropped it when he found out he would have to do original research. Like I said he is a good speaker.
Have you looked at his grades? If so why would you bring them up, they are rather poor.
Wouldn't that be better? If he's writing at the academic journal level, that would be better than feedback to a diversity class.
Again, the scientific rigor of his statements is ethically irrelevant.
In hiring? Yes, give every individual a fair shot. Something along the lines of acknowledging that sociological trends have a ton of overlap and you can't infer anything about the individual based on the stereotype. I agree. James Damore agrees. He stated as such in the memo. "you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." You can't just ignore that.
But if the context isn't "should we hire this person". Is it sexist to point out what is legitimately true? Let's say specifically in the context of how a company runs their diversity training class, or who gets made fun of in the office, or who is shamed into silence.
It's sexist to use for any practical purpose, which would cover all of those.
But in this scenario, the reason they're concerned is kinda bullshit. In a scenario where 1 out of 10 non-speedyLongLegs people is as good at the job as those of the speedyLongLegs tribe, and lo and behold the ratio is about 1:10. But they want a diversity program to FIX that!? There's nothing to fix. That's ideal. In a pure meritocracy that's exactly how the nonLeggyRace gap would play out. And if they got such a program.... You're suggesting one is allowed to question it? In this scenario, it is perfectly valid to have little diversity because there are actual real legitimate differences in abilty. In this scenario, forcing diversity would be unfair, unjust, inefficient, as it would shut out BETTER employees from the job.
No, I don't see how it's wrong.
This magnitude of difference doesn't exist IRL so it's not a good example, but I'm more concerned that your ideal scenario is a pseudo-utilitarian dystopia powered by scientific bigotry. It wouldn't maximize productivity with these inept ideas of what makes a workforce productive, so it's not a true utilitarian dystopia, but that's a secondary concern. There are so many questionable assumptions and oversimplifications going into the idea that a company's demographic makeup should closely reflect the average aptitudes of the different ethnicities and genders it may hire. You have to ignore all kinds of social and cultural effects to attempt to justify this "spherical cow" mathematical model of aptitude. I would think it's more unfair, unjust and inefficient to construct and enforce these fictions based on tiny differences in population averages than to just give everyone a fair shot, and expect your company demographics to be similar to the local demographics if there is no bias in hiring or training affecting the process. A person choosing to self-select out of a career for cultural reasons can be considered a form of training bias.
A true utilitarian dystopia would actually be quite likely to artifically construct a diverse workforce in most professions, striving for an extremely diverse mixture regardless of local demographics. In real life, it has been scientifically shown that more diverse groups produce more creative ideas. Companies today want this, including Google, and are trying to sneak toward it. Obviously it's not ethically ideal but it's worlds better in practice than shrugging off, or attempting to rationalize with scientific bigotry, a workforce that's far more white and male than the local population.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's sexist to use for any practical purpose, which would cover all of those.
You're admitting that facts aren't allowed when discussing diversity programs...
This magnitude of difference doesn't exist IRL so it's not a good example
Hey man, that was your example. What about male surrogate mothers? Or the blind driving?
I'm more concerned that your ideal scenario is a pseudo-utilitarian dystopia powered by scientific bigotry
Duuuuude... It's a meritocracy. You really sure you want to come out against that?
Bigotry is intolerance of those with different opinions.... if it's scientific, it's no longer opinion, rather it's fact. (At least, you know, as good as science gets) Now, I'm a live-and-let-live kinda guy. People can believe whatever sort of magical sky-wizard they want, but when it starts to impact me and starts dictating policy at work... their fantasies are not valid justifications for fucking me over. The facts not mattering anymore is the sort of shit Trump is slinging around.
You have to ignore all kinds of social and cultural effects to attempt to justify this "spherical cow" mathematical model of aptitude.
I get that. The problem is that it's really hard to measure merit. Like IQ tests, there's a lot of bias creeps in based on who writes the questions. Language and and word choice come into play. In your example though, you stated it was a known fact that speedyLongLeg people WERE simply better. Or dudes' ability to bear children. If the differences are slight but the disparity is large (as with women in tech), then something is up. (And gee maybe we should propose some solutions like Damore did, but nobody ever gives him credit for that) But if there's a definite advantage of X over Y, there should definitely be a disparity of people choosing more X than Y, cultural and social effects be damned.
But all that is MOOT. Because women are NOT inferior. That's the basic fundamental principle of feminism. They're real people now and can vote and everything. ok.... let me slap some sugar coating on this... Imagine someone the exact opposite of Neurotic. Doesn't care about anything. They'd make TERRIBLE test engineers. You need to worry a little to make good test. Women are different, you're a god-damned fool if you try to ignore that. Slitting the throat of anyone trying to talk about it (or even talking about talking about it) and generating outrage doesn't help the situation.
A person choosing to self-select out of a career for cultural reasons can be considered a form of training bias.
Sure, but what do you want to do? Force them into the SQL pit? And regardless, Damore was explaining WHY there's a gap. And I didn't say anything about self-selecting yourself out of the pool. Presumably people want to do what they're good at in a meritocracy, as it would reward them.
A true utilitarian dystopia would actually be quite likely to artifically construct a diverse workforce in most professions, striving for an extremely diverse mixture regardless of local demographics. In real life, it has been scientifically shown that more diverse groups produce more creative ideas.
. . . If it helps the group, then there's utility there . . . There's nothing artificial about that. If it's a dystopia, then sure, it's all robo-nazi-tyrants. But that's literally just your presumption pulled from nowhere and as biased as robo-hitler) And you know what? That's finally a good argument. If being different has utility in and of itself that means a place with 99 women would hire a man over a woman just to mix it up a little. Because while the individual woman might do a better job than the man, he helps the group on the whole more than she would. Which is the sort of thing Damore is arguing against. (if you presume he's talking about hiring pr
It's sexist to use for any practical purpose, which would cover all of those.
You're admitting that facts aren't allowed when discussing diversity programs...
Not all facts, but facts about racial differences, yes.
Duuuuude... It's a meritocracy. You really sure you want to come out against that?
Duuuude, it's really not. Well you might call it a racial meritocracy, but that's a very specific kind of meritocracy that's hardly meritocratic overall. If you try selecting a team based on what people of a certain race are very sightly better at on average, you'd be very very lucky to get the best team.
Bigotry is intolerance of those with different opinions....
LOLWUT? By this definition, being intolerant of nazis, NAMBLA members, you name it, is bigoted. And being as racist and sexist as all hell is not.
if it's scientific, it's no longer opinion, rather it's fact. (At least, you know, as good as science gets) Now, I'm a live-and-let-live kinda guy. People can believe whatever sort of magical sky-wizard they want, but when it starts to impact me and starts dictating policy at work... their fantasies are not valid justifications for fucking me over. The facts not mattering anymore is the sort of shit Trump is slinging around.
Now you're straight-up lauding scientific bigotry because it's beneficial to you in workplace policies, and painting a rejection of scientific bigotry as anti-scientific. Fairness is not a fantasy and attempting to rationalize suspicious workplace demographics with scientific arguments about racial or gender differences is not factual. It's actually rather pseudoscientific, which I'll get to later.
I get that. The problem is that it's really hard to measure merit. Like IQ tests, there's a lot of bias creeps in based on who writes the questions.
Measures of merit are vastly more accurate and less biased than making guesses based on ethnicity or gender.
But if there's a definite advantage of X over Y, there should definitely be a disparity of people choosing more X than Y, cultural and social effects be damned.
Here's the kicker: There are no big advantages of X over Y in the real world. Just barely significant average differences that are massively overshadowed by cultural and social effects. This is why it's pseudoscientific to use ethnic or gender differences to make hiring decisions - it's a minor factor. It's like trying to work out which fish swims fastest by the texture of its scales. You can do all kinds of good science on that, but it's such a tiny factor in the grander scheme of things that it doesn't matter and you'll never get good results using that criteria.
. . . If it helps the group, then there's utility there . . . There's nothing artificial about that. If it's a dystopia, then sure, it's all robo-nazi-tyrants. But that's literally just your presumption pulled from nowhere and as biased as robo-hitler) And you know what? That's finally a good argument. If being different has utility in and of itself that means a place with 99 women would hire a man over a woman just to mix it up a little. Because while the individual woman might do a better job than the man, he helps the group on the whole more than she would. Which is the sort of thing Damore is arguing against. (if you presume he's talking about hiring practices). BUT, and this is important, once you hire that guy you can't just brow-beat him and shame him into silence for having different views. Diversity breeds creativity right? Well Damore lamented how conservatives were being shut out. We don't want an ideological echo chamber. Title drop.
I meant ethnically and gender-diverse. i don't know if there's any advantage to ideological diversity. The "conservatives" that were being shut out at Google aren't just moderate Republicans, as Damore's lawsuit would
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Not all facts, but facts about racial differences, yes.
Racial? ok... how about facts about the difference between men and women? You know, since that's the topic.
How about the genetic, regional, cultural, and historical? Sociological? It's hard to have a diversity class if you can't talk about the fact that there's low diversity, that's a sociological fact.
And I've had those debates with the asshats that try and point out Africa is poorer that Europe. But that doesn't help their assertion that black people are infeior because it's explained by the history of colonialism really screwing them over. Same thing right? Facts used by the bigots towards a bigoted end. I've asked what James Damore's sexist end was and all I've heard back was that he said women are neurotic. What did Damore propose that was sexist?
racial meritocracy, ...If you try selecting a team based on what people of a certain race are very sightly better at on average,
Wut? Where the hell did this creep in? ok. no. Do not start beating up some strawman that isn't even in this discussion. I am not suggesting nor have ever suggested that we hire people based on their race.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I suggested we should hire based on merit. And in a scenario where there is definite, clear, and obvious trend in merit (like let's say women vs men when it comes to being surrogate mothers), the demographic composition of the industry will reflect that.
You're the one that claimed that sounded like "pseudo-utilitarian dystopia powered by scientific bigotry", which is really just you shit-talking. ok, it's kind of an argument I guess. This happens. But what I was describing was hiring based on MERIT. And this is what Damore ran into. No one is attacking him based on what he said, but a SHITSTORM grew out of what people THINK he was arguing for.
Bigotry is intolerance of those with different opinions....
LOLWUT? By this definition,
Um... yeah? "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices :" I mean, that's only Merriam webster. Lemme seee.... There's Wikipedia: "Bigot is a term used to describe someone intolerant of the opinions of others."
But... ok. What did you think the definition of "bigot" was?
By this definition, being intolerant of nazis, NAMBLA members, you name it, is bigoted.
Oh yeah, that happens a lot. Tolerate intolerance. A lot of people have a hard time with this one.
But you can still be against all these scumbags not just because you have different opinions but because of the provable factual negative effects they have on society. NAMBLA fucks up kids. That's bad. Prove otherwise and I'll reconsider opposing NAMBLA, but that ain't going to happen. And for the love of god, YES even the NAZI's get to have political views. And share them in public. As Evelyn Hall paraphrased Voltaire, "I do not agree with that you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". If someone can't tolerate NAZIs having the same right to free speech as they do, that makes them a bigot.
And being as racist and sexist as all hell is not.
Noooo... I didn't follow that jump at all. Being sexist and racist is still being bigoted.
If someone has the opinion that men are pigs, and aren't open to any arguments otherwise, they're bigoted and sexist.
But if there's a definite advantage of X over Y, there should definitely be a disparity of people choosing more X than Y, cultural and social effects be damned.
Here's the kicker: There are no big advantages of X over Y in the real world.
Well. X and Y a
I'm fighting against anything proposed by the memo because it's wrong to try to rationalize an overwhelmingly male workplace demographic with scientific sexism (which doesn't require a statement that women are inferior to men). It's pretty straightforward, you're the one trying to bend sweet lady logic into a pretzel in an attempt to make his ideas seem reasonable.
Also intolerance should absolutely not be tolerated. Tolerance is opposition to discrimination based on immutable traits, not just putting up with things, so "tolerating" intolerance would be self-defeating and pointless.
It's odd that you would oppose NAMBLA but not nazis. One wants to fuck kids, the other wants to commit genocide and establish a white ethnostate. Why do you find the latter goals more agreeable?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I DO oppose NAZIs! WTF is wrong with you leaping to conclusions!? Holy SHIT I support freedom of speech so I must be a NAZI? That's nuts.
Damore pointed out one reason for the gender gap that you took offence to, and he then proposed how deal with it to fix it the gap. Apparently you're against that too since you're opposed to everything. You have likewise obstinately insisted that he's sexist.
If you're unwilling to tolerate anyone with ideas that don't line up with yours, and will oppose anything put forth by them by default simply because you disagree with a single (factually true) statement... I've got some bad news for you. Per the definition, you're a bigot.
Ha, I can't believe you threw out this:
you're the one trying to bend sweet lady logic into a pretzel
Immediately followed by this curve ball:
Tolerance is opposition to discrimination based on immutable traits, not just putting up with things, so "tolerating" intolerance would be self-defeating and pointless.
Siiiigh, but you probably don't even see the hypocrisy. But no kiddo, if you're only willing to tolerate people who agree with you, then you're a bigot. If you try to silence, shame, or get them fired, then you're also pretty fascist. Not a full-on fascist until you support brown-shirts exacting physical violence and intimidation, but you're on your way. You're quick to demonize anyone that speaks out against you.
I at least can admit I'm a little bigoted. I just can't stand wilful ignorance. You're insistent that Damore is sexist. When confronted with the fact that the statements you don't like are factually true, you suggest taboos and censorship, and do mental gymnastics in some sort of defence that facts don't matter.
Thank you for sticking with this one and responding. You are the 3rd real conversation I've had with someone that opposes Damore's memo. Sadly it's 3 for 3 that those in opposition are all fighting a strawman put forth by the media. They got on the war-path that he's satan incarnate and will hear no reason. You at least put forth a valid idea that utility to a company goes beyond individual merit and.... party composition is a thing. Which is a valid argument for why we should have diversity programs and not hire on individual merit alone. BUT AGAIN, not that I have any hope that it'll stick this time, Damore nor I are against diversity. But there's really no more use in talking to you. I can cure ignorance, I enjoy it. But you can't make the horse drink. Wilful ignorance is just too damn resilient and I'm done.
I used to be a strong feminist. But fuck this noise.
Anyone who talks about "Judeo-Christian morals" should be given a stack of history books and then flogged every hour until they've read them all.
Anyone who talks about "Judeo-Christian morals" should be given a stack of history books and then flogged every hour until they've read them all.
I've read stacks of history books, that's why I know and understand that the West and the US in particular base most of their values around Judeo-Christian morals and values.
You should try reading one sometime.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I've read stacks of history books, that's why I know and understand that the West and the US in particular base most of their values around Judeo-Christian morals and values.
Absolutely. That's why it's illegal in the US to eat pork or shellfish, or to wear mixed fabrics. It's also why we hate money changers and beat the crap out of evangelists who sell goods. Plus we regularly kill witches, beat slaves, and, when a pregnant woman's child is killed we let it go with a payment to her husband.
It also explains why no Christian nation has ever gone to war, or had the death penalty; because the bible says thou shalt not kill.
Judeo-christian morality is absolutely awesome, and I'm so happy we all follow it!!!! The history books all agree.