Wasn't me, but he's right; you're an idiot. Radio and TV call in shows both meet the criteria you defined, and when I pointed that out all you could respond with was an insult and some muttering about "distinction". Grow up and learn to admit when you're wrong
Currently, a doctor after studies, intership and a couple years of experience (so called "resident") earns $10800 yearly ($7800 after taxes). In the middle of Europe, in an EU country. No, I'm not confusing monthly vs annual wages -- these figures are per year.
Well there's your problem right there; all of your doctors are homeless and starving to death. No wonder there is such a shortage.
You can have lots of low cost products available, and yet no one can afford to purchase them because no one has the money to spare - employment is so low that no disposable cash drives the economy.
I guess that's why unemployment in the USA is at 4% while in France it's 9%. Because the French are WAY more obsessed with eliminating workers to maximise profits. The USA is a socialist paradise in comparison.
Because starting off with a rambling "you all live in an ideological echo chamber" is a fluffy kind of ad hominem attack.
So is "you all need sensitivity training because micro agressions and implicit bias and stuff". If " fluffy ad-hominem" is valid grounds for firing, why haven't they sacked the whole HR department?
Anyway, you're flat wrong about most of what you've written, and you clearly don't understand what the case is about since you still seem to think that it's just about him being fired. It is not. I suggest you go read the documents he filed with the court.
If Damore said, say, 100 things and the judge agrees that 99 are not offensive to reasonable people, Google's lawyers can still zero in on the one sloppy argument, shove it down his throat, and they win.
Not really. Two things:
1. They stated that they fired him specifically because of this document. Which means that, at the very least, they have to find one intentionally insulting thing which he said in that document. They can't go back 3 years and find some offensive comment he made at some after-work social event or something. And I see nothing in the document which even comes close.
2. This case is about more than just his firing; it's about DISCRIMINATION. He's not just alleging that they fired him without cause; he's alleging that they created a hostile work environment for specific groups. Google could find 500 examples of him saying offensive things and that still wouldn't necessarily save them if the court case exposes a pattern of discrimination and hostility at google.
If you read his court filling, the claims and attached screenshots certainly are damning. Google's response may add some nuance there, but I'm not holding my breath.
I linked to two on-camera, unedited interviews lasting over an hour each in this thread.
I just quickly skimmed through the video you linked to earlier in this very thread. At 8:23 Ruben prompts him with "and they asked for your feedback, is that correct?" after which Damore goes on to explain how Google is always asking for feedback as part of their corporate culture, and how they asked for feedback from attendees of these courses specifically.
Now, you're also the person who has been misrepresenting his actual document from the start, constantly claiming he said things which he didn't. Is this just more of that? Do you honestly think you can link to some videos, lie about what is or isn't in them, and just expect people to believe you?
Or is your attention span so short that you didn't even watch 9 minutes of that hour and a half long video?
I don't think the political freedom stuff will help him much - even if political views are protected, so is speech but that doesn't mean you can say what you like at work.
Except, of course, that the two are intrinsically linked. If I owned a company which encouraged employees to discuss things in company provided forums, and had a history of encouraging and lauding, say, comments critical of Islam, I couldn't then turn around and fire an employee who says something positive about Islam, even if it offends all the ditto heads who were happy to argue the opposite.
The case won't be about whether or not he could continue doing the job; the case will be about why they believed he COULDN'T keep doing the job. And if the answer to that is "because he provided honest and nuanced feedback which hurt some wimmins feewings", then google is going to be paying out the nose.
Let's see what he says when Google's lawyer asks him why he omitted a claim that is crucial to his case when asked about it on multiple prior occasions.
He has done at least a dozen interviews; in some of them he mentions it, in others he does not. He is also on record as saying that some of his interviews were recorded over the course of half an hour or more, and then cut down to the least flattering 5 minutes, so for all you know he could have mentioned it in every single interview and it just got eddited out.
Either way, it doesn't matter. Whether or not he mentioned it every time he was asked is a minor detail which will have no relevance in court proceedings. There are any number of reasons why he might not have mentioned it, none of which have any bearing on the question of whether or not it actually happened. Untill Google comes out and says "nobody ever asked him for his opinion" it's clear that you're just grasping at straws.
As far as I can tell, most people intend to be helpful. But there are a poisonous number who aren't, and society seem to protect and encourage them rather than actually discipline or fire them, or, in some documented cases, charge them with appropriate crimes.
This makes it difficult to trust "people", as opposed to trusting some particular person that you happen to know.
He is doing science because he thinks the government lies to us all.
Ah, yes. "Doing science". The way that Albert Fish was "practising medicine and the culinary arts" when he dissected and ate his victims.
Believing what experts tell you is the opposite of science.
No, it's a big part of science. Nobody can possibly verify every single thing which they've been taught. At some point you have to accept that the millions of other scientists are probably right about the stuff which is generally accepted.
Attempting to falsify the work of others is certainly a huge part of science, but we distribute that load; you, as an individual, will never be able to examine the many millions of papers written over the years, but they will all be looked at by many others. You either believe that those others are doing a decent job, or you don't. If you don't... you're not going to be doing much real science; you'll spend your whole career rehashing stuff we learned back in the 1800s.
So some guy buys an over-priced iPhone and you find that to be a situation that makes your friends and helpers shit themselves?
No, not at all. Why would you suggest something so stupid?
Next, I suggest police that understand a measured response to a situation. Also who don't kill people when they get bad information.
This is like saying "I suggest hiring programmers who don't write any bugs". The more of your comment I read, the more ridiculous you sound.
Remember, next time they get it wrong, you could be the person who ends up dead or gets his door smashed in in the middle of the night.
Wow, really, it could be me??? The thought never occurred to me. I totally thought that I was completely immune to any mistakes or accidents.
Now that you've made me think about it... would you say it could be me burning to death on a highway tomorrow because some jackass was following too closely???
From the press, I gather that the average human adult lies once every 10 minutes.
"The press" reached this conclusion by observing behaviour around their own offices. Unfortunately their approach was deeply flawed since they assumed that press-scum was representative of "the average human".
And instead of a friend and helper, you get an occupation force.
I have lots of friends and helpers; I don't ned taxpayer money to pay someone to do that. I'm sorry if you do. What I want taxpayer money to go towards is creating an armed force willing to go into situations that make my friends and helpers shit themselves. What would you suggest?
In fact, Damore's intentions could be innocent enough, and he still could be justly discharged if he chose his words poorly and a reasonable person interprets his words as a purposeful insult.
That's rather the point: no reasonable person can look at what he wrote and interpret it as a purposeful insult. That's why they have to constantly misquote and mischaracterise what he said; without that they can't even pretend that he was being offensive, let alone intentionally insulting.
We already know that you're a liar, so certainly my response won't stop you from continuing to speak nonsense, but no,"I decided to write it because I didn't like the course" and "they asked us for feedback" are not mutually contradictory statements. Only a cretin would think that they are. It's quite clear that both of those statements can simultaneously be true.
Not to mention that it is those pesky Librul enclaves that are actually producing most of the wealth in that state (something mirrored in pretty much every state with large metropolitan areas.)
Yes, The Capitol produces more wealth on it's own than all the other 12 districts put together. That's why Tye Capitol hosts The Games, while the other districts provide The Tributes.
What you seem to advocating for is governance by a minority.
Not sure where you got that from. What he seems to be advocating for is protection of the minority.
This separatist movement is typical of what happens when a large group uses it's size to actively suppress and control a smaller, geographically distinct group. When the smaller group eventually concludes that they have no chance of using the political process, they then attempt to separate from the group which is oppressing them. And if that too fails, then you get civil war.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically it uses less power than New York city?
It sounds so much more impressive when you compare it to a "country".
Wasn't me, but he's right; you're an idiot. Radio and TV call in shows both meet the criteria you defined, and when I pointed that out all you could respond with was an insult and some muttering about "distinction". Grow up and learn to admit when you're wrong
Currently, a doctor after studies, intership and a couple years of experience (so called "resident") earns $10800 yearly ($7800 after taxes). In the middle of Europe, in an EU country. No, I'm not confusing monthly vs annual wages -- these figures are per year.
Well there's your problem right there; all of your doctors are homeless and starving to death. No wonder there is such a shortage.
Then how do you explain adults (which I'll define here as "at least 25 years old") who are smokers?
They too were teens once?
Very few people start smoking at 25.
But you're reading and contributing to a social platform and gathering information from it, the way its editors and users shape it ... socially.
So an old radio or TV call-in show is social media because users and editors contribute to it and shape it?
That seems like a pretty dumb definition.
You can have lots of low cost products available, and yet no one can afford to purchase them because no one has the money to spare - employment is so low that no disposable cash drives the economy.
I guess that's why unemployment in the USA is at 4% while in France it's 9%. Because the French are WAY more obsessed with eliminating workers to maximise profits. The USA is a socialist paradise in comparison.
Because starting off with a rambling "you all live in an ideological echo chamber" is a fluffy kind of ad hominem attack.
So is "you all need sensitivity training because micro agressions and implicit bias and stuff". If " fluffy ad-hominem" is valid grounds for firing, why haven't they sacked the whole HR department?
Anyway, you're flat wrong about most of what you've written, and you clearly don't understand what the case is about since you still seem to think that it's just about him being fired. It is not. I suggest you go read the documents he filed with the court.
I stand corrected. Apparently it's possible to be far more of a conspiracy twat than I thought.
If Damore said, say, 100 things and the judge agrees that 99 are not offensive to reasonable people, Google's lawyers can still zero in on the one sloppy argument, shove it down his throat, and they win.
Not really. Two things:
1. They stated that they fired him specifically because of this document. Which means that, at the very least, they have to find one intentionally insulting thing which he said in that document. They can't go back 3 years and find some offensive comment he made at some after-work social event or something. And I see nothing in the document which even comes close.
2. This case is about more than just his firing; it's about DISCRIMINATION. He's not just alleging that they fired him without cause; he's alleging that they created a hostile work environment for specific groups. Google could find 500 examples of him saying offensive things and that still wouldn't necessarily save them if the court case exposes a pattern of discrimination and hostility at google.
If you read his court filling, the claims and attached screenshots certainly are damning. Google's response may add some nuance there, but I'm not holding my breath.
I linked to two on-camera, unedited interviews lasting over an hour each in this thread.
I just quickly skimmed through the video you linked to earlier in this very thread. At 8:23 Ruben prompts him with "and they asked for your feedback, is that correct?" after which Damore goes on to explain how Google is always asking for feedback as part of their corporate culture, and how they asked for feedback from attendees of these courses specifically.
Now, you're also the person who has been misrepresenting his actual document from the start, constantly claiming he said things which he didn't. Is this just more of that? Do you honestly think you can link to some videos, lie about what is or isn't in them, and just expect people to believe you?
Or is your attention span so short that you didn't even watch 9 minutes of that hour and a half long video?
I don't think the political freedom stuff will help him much - even if political views are protected, so is speech but that doesn't mean you can say what you like at work.
Except, of course, that the two are intrinsically linked. If I owned a company which encouraged employees to discuss things in company provided forums, and had a history of encouraging and lauding, say, comments critical of Islam, I couldn't then turn around and fire an employee who says something positive about Islam, even if it offends all the ditto heads who were happy to argue the opposite.
The case won't be about whether or not he could continue doing the job; the case will be about why they believed he COULDN'T keep doing the job. And if the answer to that is "because he provided honest and nuanced feedback which hurt some wimmins feewings", then google is going to be paying out the nose.
Let's see what he says when Google's lawyer asks him why he omitted a claim that is crucial to his case when asked about it on multiple prior occasions.
He has done at least a dozen interviews; in some of them he mentions it, in others he does not. He is also on record as saying that some of his interviews were recorded over the course of half an hour or more, and then cut down to the least flattering 5 minutes, so for all you know he could have mentioned it in every single interview and it just got eddited out.
Either way, it doesn't matter. Whether or not he mentioned it every time he was asked is a minor detail which will have no relevance in court proceedings. There are any number of reasons why he might not have mentioned it, none of which have any bearing on the question of whether or not it actually happened. Untill Google comes out and says "nobody ever asked him for his opinion" it's clear that you're just grasping at straws.
You seem to be having difficulties differentiating between generalities and specific situations. I suggest you work on that.
As far as I can tell, most people intend to be helpful. But there are a poisonous number who aren't, and society seem to protect and encourage them rather than actually discipline or fire them, or, in some documented cases, charge them with appropriate crimes.
This makes it difficult to trust "people", as opposed to trusting some particular person that you happen to know.
FTFY.
He is doing science because he thinks the government lies to us all.
Ah, yes. "Doing science". The way that Albert Fish was "practising medicine and the culinary arts" when he dissected and ate his victims.
Believing what experts tell you is the opposite of science.
No, it's a big part of science. Nobody can possibly verify every single thing which they've been taught. At some point you have to accept that the millions of other scientists are probably right about the stuff which is generally accepted.
Attempting to falsify the work of others is certainly a huge part of science, but we distribute that load; you, as an individual, will never be able to examine the many millions of papers written over the years, but they will all be looked at by many others. You either believe that those others are doing a decent job, or you don't. If you don't ... you're not going to be doing much real science; you'll spend your whole career rehashing stuff we learned back in the 1800s.
So some guy buys an over-priced iPhone and you find that to be a situation that makes your friends and helpers shit themselves?
No, not at all. Why would you suggest something so stupid?
Next, I suggest police that understand a measured response to a situation. Also who don't kill people when they get bad information.
This is like saying "I suggest hiring programmers who don't write any bugs". The more of your comment I read, the more ridiculous you sound.
Remember, next time they get it wrong, you could be the person who ends up dead or gets his door smashed in in the middle of the night.
Wow, really, it could be me??? The thought never occurred to me. I totally thought that I was completely immune to any mistakes or accidents.
Now that you've made me think about it ... would you say it could be me burning to death on a highway tomorrow because some jackass was following too closely???
Goddamn. I'm never driving again.
From the press, I gather that the average human adult lies once every 10 minutes.
"The press" reached this conclusion by observing behaviour around their own offices. Unfortunately their approach was deeply flawed since they assumed that press-scum was representative of "the average human".
And instead of a friend and helper, you get an occupation force.
I have lots of friends and helpers; I don't ned taxpayer money to pay someone to do that. I'm sorry if you do. What I want taxpayer money to go towards is creating an armed force willing to go into situations that make my friends and helpers shit themselves. What would you suggest?
Dawww, aren't you just precious!
No, honey, that's not where the crayon goes ...
OPEC is the cause of every war of the last 40 years.
I don't care how much of a conspiracy twat you are, even you must realise that the above statement isn't even remotely true
In fact, Damore's intentions could be innocent enough, and he still could be justly discharged if he chose his words poorly and a reasonable person interprets his words as a purposeful insult.
That's rather the point: no reasonable person can look at what he wrote and interpret it as a purposeful insult. That's why they have to constantly misquote and mischaracterise what he said; without that they can't even pretend that he was being offensive, let alone intentionally insulting.
However, his suggestions were based on wrong beliefs about women
I love it; you just accused him of wrongthink.
Clearly wrongthink justifies him being fired, but I'm shocked that you haven't yet advocated for having him reeducated.
We already know that you're a liar, so certainly my response won't stop you from continuing to speak nonsense, but no,"I decided to write it because I didn't like the course" and "they asked us for feedback" are not mutually contradictory statements. Only a cretin would think that they are. It's quite clear that both of those statements can simultaneously be true.
Not to mention that it is those pesky Librul enclaves that are actually producing most of the wealth in that state (something mirrored in pretty much every state with large metropolitan areas.)
Yes, The Capitol produces more wealth on it's own than all the other 12 districts put together. That's why Tye Capitol hosts The Games, while the other districts provide The Tributes.
What you seem to advocating for is governance by a minority.
Not sure where you got that from. What he seems to be advocating for is protection of the minority.
This separatist movement is typical of what happens when a large group uses it's size to actively suppress and control a smaller, geographically distinct group. When the smaller group eventually concludes that they have no chance of using the political process, they then attempt to separate from the group which is oppressing them. And if that too fails, then you get civil war.