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.
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.
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.
Every person who is discriminated against should have their rights equally protected. Free speech applies to whites, too. You know?
Race: Protected class.
Sex: Protected class.
Political views: In some instances that can be a protected class as well.
You made the usual mistake of thinking "race and sex discrimination is OK as long as the victim is a white guy". That's not how the law is supposed to work.
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.
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.
Protected classes. Race and gender are protected classes everywhere in the US, and political affiliation (and activities) are a protected class in California.
I remember people claiming that DaMore was a liberal or democrat, but I guess that's clarified now.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Race and Gender are indeed both protected classes. Political affiliations can also be depending on the jurisdiction.
This is surprising to you ?
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
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?
Protected class is the characteristic, not the value.
So race and gender are protected classes. Even if your race is white and your gender is male.
When he loses this case, perhaps he'll start to understand just how little protection there is for protected classes........Though based on his manifesto I doubt he's learning anything from this.
...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.
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?
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 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
I remember people claiming that DaMore was a liberal or democrat, but I guess that's clarified now.
He probably is. His memo was pretty liberal leaning after all and there is a very large difference from classic Liberals (pro free speech, pro meritocracy) and Progressives (anti-speech that hurts feelings, pro-affirmative action and quotas).
However, he was portrayed as conservative by media and probably perceived as such by his employer. As you know, classic liberals these days are being labeled conservatives simply for holding the belief that gender disparity in some occupations could be entirely the result of freewill and biological differences that may promote different interests that lead to different career paths.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
But was instantiated incorrectly.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
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.
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.
I remember people claiming that DaMore was a liberal or democrat, but I guess that's clarified now.
Damore self-identifies as a liberal, but says that he was fired because his ideas were perceived as conservative, because they disagree with the majority position inside Google (which isn't just liberal, but a very specific kind of "progressive" liberalism).
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.
If you read, its not about discriminating against white men, its about discriminating against conservatives.
Protected classes. Race and gender are protected classes everywhere in the US, and political affiliation (and activities) are a protected class in California. I remember people claiming that DaMore was a liberal or democrat, but I guess that's clarified now.
Is "conservative" considered a political affiliation though? Registering as a Republican would be political affiliation (and firing someone for affiliating with a legitimate political party is and should be illegal), but simply having conservative beliefs would a be a stretch for "political affiliation" unless the wording of California's laws is pretty specific. Calling his statement a "political activity" might be less of a stretch, but then that would negate much of the purported reasoning for the statement to begin with (didn't he claim he wasn't trying to be political?)
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It was not a "manifesto", let alone an anti-diversity one. That's what it was called in the media. Big difference.
Maybe they shouldn't have fostered a highly toxic work environment full of sexist / racist "SJW"s. Then speaking out against it wouldn't make all of of your coworkers hostile
One of my first supervisors was super religious and it never even occurred to me until almost 9 years later when he resigned and had some private conversations with me. At the office he did his job and didn't evangelize his personal beliefs even as important as they were to him. Entirely possible that 95% of the office was in agreement with him but he still had the discipline to keep that separation.
Do your own thing after you clock out. Till then; keep the peace.
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
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.
Turns out they are in California.
Says the man who uses uber....
Yes, there is. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and equal enforcement of all laws, and subsequent court rulings have applied those protections to include state laws and local ordinances as well as federal laws. Private companies do not have such restrictions on what they can or cannot allows their employees to say while on the clock but there are laws on the books against discrimination in hiring and firing decisions and we generally expect our businesses to hew to the spirit of freedom espoused by our laws rather than acting in a way that is antithetical to them.
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.
Is "conservative" considered a political affiliation though?
I don't know, we have to look at the exact wording of the law to be sure (and to be extra sure, any relevant cases). The California law seems rather broad though, since it includes political activities. I would guess that "political affiliation" means more than just "political party" since if the law intended that, it would have said that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Unfortunately, in today's America, "Liberal" is a synonym for "Democrat" and "Conservative" is a synonym for "Republican." There are lots of others, too.
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 race and gender aren't the issues here, the suit itself does not claim that white people or men or white men are being discriminated against... that would be nearly impossible since there are many many white men still working at google who have not been fired. It claims that expressing their views was the common threat that resulted in their termination.
While that might be protected depending on the views and the local employment laws they still have to prove that this was the reason they were let go and that the company didn't have a legitimate reason for their firing.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
This is Slashdot, it's what we do.
Table-ized A.I.
... 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.
Only when it comes to the government, not to private companies.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Sure it should, but since the 1st amendment applies to the government and not to a private company whats ya point, even if you could somehow prove he was fired for being white.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
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.
Political views are protected in California, but even by the complaint it doesn't sound like he was fired for his views.
Protected classes. Race and gender are protected classes everywhere in the US, and political affiliation (and activities) are a protected class in California.
I remember people claiming that DaMore was a liberal or democrat, but I guess that's clarified now.
He might have been. But then he got fired, became vilified by Progressive activists, and spent 4 months being courted by Conservative activists. I'm sure the plan now is to martyr him, get him on some cable news panels, and stick him on the Conservative speaking circuit.
I have no idea what his personal leanings are, nor how amendable he is to the plan as described, but this lawsuit certainly fits the script.
I stole this Sig
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
There are no good fights, only satisfying ones.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
Depends on the sort of liberal under discussion. Many of them are right-wingers looking to rationalize the blatant contradictions between what they way they want and the politicians they support.
It's a joy, really, to have this recapitulation of the "Slashdot Reading Comprehension Test", where we find out exactly which Slashdot posters can actually read an argument and understand its major points. Or whether they even bother to read it at all.
Case in point would be this fellow Locke2005, who has no idea what Damore said, what the timeline was of how this document got out of Google (or how it did so), or even why Damore wrote it in the first place.
But he does call Damore a "douchebag", which I guess he thinks passes for deep thought and a knowledgeable viewpoint regarding these issues.
What I got from this exchange is that all militant jackbooted liars are leftists.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
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".
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.
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.
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.
If only I could still mod you up, but alas, I commented.
This sig intentionally left blank.
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.
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?
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.
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...
I saw an interview with him where he described himself as a "classical liberal".
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
This! Republican party has the problem that they are targeting a declining customer segment.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)
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,
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.