If he wanted a conversation then why didn't he have one? He didn't actually address any of the arguments put forward countering his rather stale, well-worn ideas. I think that's what really undid him - he either ignored or was unaware that his views are hardly new and that there has already been a great deal of discussion and research into them.
If someone starts bringing up skull measurements again people then there are only two possible conclusions: they are naive and too lazy to look at all the discussion of it already, or they are racists pretending to be rationals. There is a tiny, tiny chance that they came up with some new insight into the matter, but unless they put it in a paper and submit it for peer review rather than posting on Reddit or circulating a memo at work, I think we can rule that out.
It's not true. Even the sources he cites say it's not true.
Women on average have more sources of stress in the workplace. Women tend to be more open about the stress they are experiencing, rather than keeping it inside and not admitting to it like some men tend to. It's true that as a result of the high base line level of stress there is less headroom, so to speak, but that's different from what he said.
Are you really saying that economic factors are not motivating people in the US, a country with minimal welfare, high healthcare costs (especially for women) and where education is extremely expensive?
Those guys measuring skulls to explain why black people are poor and in jail would say the same thing. In reality you would have to be naive to not know that such arguments are favoured by some rather unsavoury people and thoroughly debunked already.
If he had done research beyond just trying to find stuff supporting his established view, he would have anticipated the criticisms and addressed them. Instead he appeals to biological imperative.
Not "less willing to deal with stress", just simply a lower tolerance for stress. He then doubles down by suggesting reducing stress as a way to counter this weakness.
You seem to think that if someone read it there is only one possible conclusion they could reach. That's frankly silly.
Some people don't think his interpretation of the science is correct. Some people point out that some of the sources don't say what he thinks they say, and ones data that contradicts him. And by far the most common differing opinion is that he is entirely missing the point.
If he really wants an honest debate he would address those points, as would others on Slashdot who immediately claim that anyone putting forward a different view to the echo chamber hasn't read it or is lying or is too stupid to understand it.
That's just survivor bias. Lots of liberals suffered for stating their views, it's just that in the end society got more liberal and we look back on them as heroes.
Biological essentialism is not left wing. It's what the left has been fighting against since there was a left, the idea that a person is defined by and the sum of their biology. People of colour's rights, worker's rights, women's rights, disabled rights, transgender rights, all opposed to biological essentialism.
The problem is that some people find criticism of their views to be shameful. If we stop saying anything that might cause someone shame or embarrassment then free political debate is impossible, which would be highly detrimental to our democracy.
You are absolutely right about people being excluded though. Just look at how anyone who criticises this guy gets modded down here. People need to stop hitting the "dislike" button so freely and learn to post counter-arguments instead of just trying to silence differing views.
He's right though. I can see this coming to the UK already, as an upgrade for the existing number plate recognition camera system that covers the entire country. We already have additional face scanning cameras that photograph and record the biometric data of ever driver who enters or leaves the greater London area.
The last lot were billed as "denying criminals use of the roads", which of course was bollocks and never happened. The face scanning cameras were quietly signed off my the mayor of London without any real consultation or public debate. Unfortunately people here have far too much trust in the police.
Kaylon Johnson, an African American campaign worker for Obama, was physically assaulted for wearing an Obama T-shirt in Louisiana following the 2008 election. The three white male attackers shouted "Fuck Obama!" and "N*gger president!" as they broke Johnsonâ(TM)s nose and fractured his eye-socket, requiring surgery.
More frequently, Obamaâ(TM)s presidency was marked by effigies of our first black president hanging from nooses across the country, for example in Kentucky, Washington State, and Maine, or being burned around the world. What Trump supporters fail to remember is that following Obamaâ(TM)s election, property was destroyed across the country, for example in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Carolina, and a predominately black church was torched in Massachusetts.
(links to coverage of these events are in the article)
He wrote that women are less able to deal with stress, and thus there are fewer of them in stressful jobs. That's clearly saying that women are less capable of handling stress. He even proposes reducing stress as a way to mitigate this reduced capability.
I made this very point in a previous discussion but it was modded down. Nice to know that the censorship is not 100% effective yet.
On the subject of women being more agreeable, could it be because women are punished for not being agreeable more than men? That's a fairly well established phenomenon, backed up with studies and copious evidence.
The alt-right are a self-identifying group who split away from the mainstream right which they felt had become too centrist. They reject most things mainstream, especially the media and current laws on equality and welfare. They want a big reset, a big change in the way society thinks, aka the Red Pill.
The alt-right centres around sites like Breitbart and InfoWars. People like Steve Bannon are considered to be at the forefront of the movement. Sub-groups include the Tea Party and various nationalists.
It's true that men are undervalued by society and have many genuine issues. The problem with the Red Pill and the people who interviews in it is that they don't have the solutions. They have ideologies that the film doesn't challenge, instead just letting them make their case with minimal criticism or counter points.
What really comes over strongly in the film is that most of these people blame feminism. But feminism is the solution to these problems. It's the place where people have spent over a century looking at these issues, understanding them, and finding workable solutions that have been tried and proven. Rather than being resentful or jealous of the freedoms and rights that women have, they should be looking for the same kind of liberation from traditional male roles.
I posted an extensive list of criticisms and rebuttals to his specific arguments and sources. It was modded down as being a "troll". That's why you aren't seeing the considered responses, they are being censored and suppressed to enforce an echo chamber.
Guy gets fired for posting the memo. Masses of online vitriol directed at people criticising him. The memo, the response to the memo and the questions to be asked at this meeting all get leaked.
It seems fairly legitimate to say that speaking up on this issue is somewhat risky.
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming that interest is a free choice.
If he wanted a conversation then why didn't he have one? He didn't actually address any of the arguments put forward countering his rather stale, well-worn ideas. I think that's what really undid him - he either ignored or was unaware that his views are hardly new and that there has already been a great deal of discussion and research into them.
If someone starts bringing up skull measurements again people then there are only two possible conclusions: they are naive and too lazy to look at all the discussion of it already, or they are racists pretending to be rationals. There is a tiny, tiny chance that they came up with some new insight into the matter, but unless they put it in a paper and submit it for peer review rather than posting on Reddit or circulating a memo at work, I think we can rule that out.
It's not true. Even the sources he cites say it's not true.
Women on average have more sources of stress in the workplace. Women tend to be more open about the stress they are experiencing, rather than keeping it inside and not admitting to it like some men tend to. It's true that as a result of the high base line level of stress there is less headroom, so to speak, but that's different from what he said.
It would be really helpful if we could move past these two straw men.
1. No one is suggesting that men and women are the same or that all differences are social.
2. No one is suggesting that 50% if employees should be black.
Are you really saying that economic factors are not motivating people in the US, a country with minimal welfare, high healthcare costs (especially for women) and where education is extremely expensive?
He's arguing against a straw man. A straw man that is favoured by people opposing diversity for political reasons.
I don't know if he is politically motivated or just naive, but that's basically the reason he was fired.
Those guys measuring skulls to explain why black people are poor and in jail would say the same thing. In reality you would have to be naive to not know that such arguments are favoured by some rather unsavoury people and thoroughly debunked already.
If he had done research beyond just trying to find stuff supporting his established view, he would have anticipated the criticisms and addressed them. Instead he appeals to biological imperative.
Small correction: it's not invariant. In some cultures it's near parity or even reversed, e.g. China, Iceland, New Zealand or Iran.
From the memo:
"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)"
Not "less willing to deal with stress", just simply a lower tolerance for stress. He then doubles down by suggesting reducing stress as a way to counter this weakness.
You seem to think that if someone read it there is only one possible conclusion they could reach. That's frankly silly.
Some people don't think his interpretation of the science is correct. Some people point out that some of the sources don't say what he thinks they say, and ones data that contradicts him. And by far the most common differing opinion is that he is entirely missing the point.
If he really wants an honest debate he would address those points, as would others on Slashdot who immediately claim that anyone putting forward a different view to the echo chamber hasn't read it or is lying or is too stupid to understand it.
That's just survivor bias. Lots of liberals suffered for stating their views, it's just that in the end society got more liberal and we look back on them as heroes.
Do you have a link for the executives yelling "racist, misogynist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, fascist, nazi, pig, murderer, rapist, f&*king a&#hole"?
The responses I have read from the Google execs have all seemed reasonable, calm, carefully worded and devoid of such language.
Let me quote the memo to you:
"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)"
Not "less willing to deal with stress", just simply a lower tolerance for stress. The sources he cites don't even support that claim either.
Are you saying it's literally impossible to discuss these things in a reasonable manner? That's a depressing thought.
The leaked questions seemed reasonable at least.
Damore is strongly left-wing
Biological essentialism is not left wing. It's what the left has been fighting against since there was a left, the idea that a person is defined by and the sum of their biology. People of colour's rights, worker's rights, women's rights, disabled rights, transgender rights, all opposed to biological essentialism.
The problem is that some people find criticism of their views to be shameful. If we stop saying anything that might cause someone shame or embarrassment then free political debate is impossible, which would be highly detrimental to our democracy.
You are absolutely right about people being excluded though. Just look at how anyone who criticises this guy gets modded down here. People need to stop hitting the "dislike" button so freely and learn to post counter-arguments instead of just trying to silence differing views.
He's right though. I can see this coming to the UK already, as an upgrade for the existing number plate recognition camera system that covers the entire country. We already have additional face scanning cameras that photograph and record the biometric data of ever driver who enters or leaves the greater London area.
The last lot were billed as "denying criminals use of the roads", which of course was bollocks and never happened. The face scanning cameras were quietly signed off my the mayor of London without any real consultation or public debate. Unfortunately people here have far too much trust in the police.
Really, have you already forgotten the violence and racism that emerged when Obama was elected?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
Kaylon Johnson, an African American campaign worker for Obama, was physically assaulted for wearing an Obama T-shirt in Louisiana following the 2008 election. The three white male attackers shouted "Fuck Obama!" and "N*gger president!" as they broke Johnsonâ(TM)s nose and fractured his eye-socket, requiring surgery.
More frequently, Obamaâ(TM)s presidency was marked by effigies of our first black president hanging from nooses across the country, for example in Kentucky, Washington State, and Maine, or being burned around the world. What Trump supporters fail to remember is that following Obamaâ(TM)s election, property was destroyed across the country, for example in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Carolina, and a predominately black church was torched in Massachusetts.
(links to coverage of these events are in the article)
Wikipedia has an interesting list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
November 6 - Donald Trump called for protests, based on the mistaken belief that Obama had lost the popular vote when re-elected.
I guess Trump supported protests against himself when he lost the popular vote too.
He wrote that women are less able to deal with stress, and thus there are fewer of them in stressful jobs. That's clearly saying that women are less capable of handling stress. He even proposes reducing stress as a way to mitigate this reduced capability.
I made this very point in a previous discussion but it was modded down. Nice to know that the censorship is not 100% effective yet.
On the subject of women being more agreeable, could it be because women are punished for not being agreeable more than men? That's a fairly well established phenomenon, backed up with studies and copious evidence.
The alt-right are a self-identifying group who split away from the mainstream right which they felt had become too centrist. They reject most things mainstream, especially the media and current laws on equality and welfare. They want a big reset, a big change in the way society thinks, aka the Red Pill.
The alt-right centres around sites like Breitbart and InfoWars. People like Steve Bannon are considered to be at the forefront of the movement. Sub-groups include the Tea Party and various nationalists.
Wikipeida has a quite detailed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's true that men are undervalued by society and have many genuine issues. The problem with the Red Pill and the people who interviews in it is that they don't have the solutions. They have ideologies that the film doesn't challenge, instead just letting them make their case with minimal criticism or counter points.
What really comes over strongly in the film is that most of these people blame feminism. But feminism is the solution to these problems. It's the place where people have spent over a century looking at these issues, understanding them, and finding workable solutions that have been tried and proven. Rather than being resentful or jealous of the freedoms and rights that women have, they should be looking for the same kind of liberation from traditional male roles.
I posted an extensive list of criticisms and rebuttals to his specific arguments and sources. It was modded down as being a "troll". That's why you aren't seeing the considered responses, they are being censored and suppressed to enforce an echo chamber.
along with their names have been leaked and published on several websites
That's inaccurate. Some of the questions were published, but not the names of the people asking them or any other identifying information.
Unless you have a link demonstrating otherwise...
Guy gets fired for posting the memo. Masses of online vitriol directed at people criticising him. The memo, the response to the memo and the questions to be asked at this meeting all get leaked.
It seems fairly legitimate to say that speaking up on this issue is somewhat risky.