James Damore Suing Google for "Reverse Discrimination"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

StatusNil:

undeadsuitor:

Was that a person who works at Google?

So I was led to believe by the person who provided the quote. Also note the proprietary tone of "is Search wrong" vs. "is Google wrong?", and whether "we" should link to such heresy. The linking discussed being the results of the search.

So you don't know. You're going around posting a picture with the name blacked out, that's been screen capped and pasted so many times it has 6 whole pixels, that for supposedly being a Google employee has only 18 replies, as if it was a smoking gun for widescale corruption.

Dude, I know for a fact you've complained about people posting less shaky sources. Why does the requirement for proper sourcing go out the window when it's you doing it?

generals3:

I agree with the first 13 words but afterwards I have to disagree. Again, having a successful career is more dependent on convincing others you have the skills rather than having them (although having them does help, but you have plenty of skilled men and women who are undervalued due to their lack of assertiveness and networking). And also a "skill" you omit is the willingness to go through the extra mile.

Which is bad argumentation, because the discrepancy hasn't found mtual replication elsewhere. There was a toxic culture of being passed over for leadership and gender pay gaps at Google, that's why the Department of labor was investigating them in the first place. Also, not seeing a whole lot actual evidence for this little biting subjective jabs.

I mean I'd like to see what 'going the extra mile' actually looks like in research or how it could explain the discrepancies here.

Let me give you a personal example.

By far the hardest job I ever had was in the military. Now you meet a whole lot of closeted LGBTQ people in the military. It's estimated that out trans people in particular are over two times more likely to have a background of military service in the U.S. than their cisgender counterparts, a clear statistical correlation between being trans and a higher likelihood of a background of military service... and frankly this doesn't accommodate for the trans men and women who might still be in the service albeit in the closet ... or left the service and still remain closeted ... because it was only until 2016 that trans people could be eligible to continue to serve once coming out.

So there's a good indicator you'll be seeing even more LGBTQ in the military in the future, since getting rid of many openly discriminatory hiring and firing practices despite of passing performance and capacity tests of doing the work.

Now a lot of statistics like this are from the U.S. given the size of their military, its proactiveness of engagements, etc ... but I know from experience in Australia that there did seem to be a higher number of closeted LGBTQ people back 15 years ago than in the general civilian populace by capita ... and I wouldn't be surprised if that the same wasn't also displayed here, a significant correlation between out trans people and a background of military service.

The qualities and skills required of a successful soldier, a good soldier, follow fairly uniform guidelines and prerequisite attributes, albeit in varying quantities. Mental fortitude, discipline, capacity for dissociation with the objective necessities of following orders and doing one's job. Frankly it's hard to make the argument that trans men and women are suddenly so uniquely gifted to display those cognitive and physical capabilities and necessities of doing the job as if by some dint of womb conditions and genetics that do inform a higher likelihood of being LGBTQ.

But then again, no one would make that argument for a reason... and no one should.

Particularly when you have a whole host of sociological factors at play that best explain the phenomena. Like, say, someone bartering for their parent's affection after a childhood of disapproval for instance... or because it's stable work in a country where outside of federal work you can just be fired for simply being LGBTQ ... or because of childhood bullying and wishing to achieve the skills that increase one's ideas and capacity to protect oneself ... or because you've been put down as 'soft' your entire life solely because of an aspect of one's gender or sexual identity and want to prove oneself or achieve what others could not to prove one's resolve ...

Numerous psychosocial explanations that might drive one to achieve in military service where others who have faced less stigmatization or maligning might simply drop out because they have better options at hand. You don't ignore answers because they don't fit a narrative, because sure as shit I do not see a correlation between womb conditions and genetics predicting higher likelihood of trans identification informing how that makes good soldiers.

But then again, it has just as much validity as Damore's argument if I couch it purely in terms of assuming essentialism as opposed to taking onboard competing theory. Maybe the military should just stop trying to recruit straight, cisgender people already in order to meet 'diversity quotas'.

I'm not going to say that there is no correlation, there might very well be one that is discovered or shines a new light on the subject matter ... but the consensus cannot be that because other psychosocial reasons exist and explain the situation better and gives the subject matter the due diligence and consideration a scientific inquiry deserves and must be founded upon.

I'm also willing to bet, regardless of your political slant, that people would argue that higher general LGBTQ representation in the military over straight, cisgender representation by capita is not because of biological essentialism, but rather because there are obvious environmental forces at play here.

Even you say that a lot of the research is inconclusive, largely when it comes down to pinpointing and quantifying the effect certain variables have on the existing gaps. This doesn't actually disprove Damore's points beyond reasonable doubt and as such I think his opinion has the "right" to exist and be part of their internal discussions. Just like i'm fairly certain plenty of other google employees shared opinions based on shoddy arguments and research (or none at all) without being fired for them.

Sorry, I've run through all these talking points elsewhere and why Damore's use of outdated theory and misappropriating what things like behavioural genetics actually show isn't doing his argument any good. A run down why scientists have been warning people about basing arguments on essentialism when the evidence isn't actually there, nor does it actually prove his claims, nor are they relevant to the sample size ... and seem highly variable when you start taking examples from other places in the worldand other industries.

Typically when you make broadstroke offhand comments like this you don't ignore empirical evidence that says otherwise. After all you can cherry pick studies, but if that is at odds with general consensus due to a whole raft of other studies and conclusions you have a problem to begin with.

The phenomena is far better explained with other theorem ... not going to want to repeat myself.

Particularly when that body of research he does use also recognizes that other forces are at play than the ones he's firing off about. After all, that's the nature of consensus. In fact the bedrock studies of behavioural genetics wouldn't make the arguments he's making.

And yes ... it is beyond reasonable doubt. For the simple fact that the stuff he uses wouldn't back up what we saw at Google, nor could you use it to explain women in other industries. Nor would it even go so far as to pretend that he was right. Once again, I think it was stupid to fire him solely for this. But I also accept the reality. This guy during a Department of Labor investigation decided to stoke the flames, on purpose at that particular time.

And moreover in my experience people who pull stunts like this, tend to have a whole host of other behavioural problems. So I'm going to wait until the case is resolved and details of it are released if that bears fruit.

The stunt he pulled isn't what any sane person does if they want to keep their job. But why would he want to work in some place saying he should act like a professional when he can get paid to do other shit like make offhand, unscientific comments about women and whatever popular target of the day and get paid and promoted by Breitbart for that?

I would be fired from any job I have ever had if I did the same thing. Of that alone I can say is beyond reasonable doubt. The difference is I would accept the responsibility. Funnily enough a trait of being a leader and taking the initiative ... not whining and pretending how I was oppressed when quite clearly that isn't the case.

After all, I doubt Breitbart would be giving me any promoted coverage if I lost my job.

As I said before in one of my posts. I've been in situations like this personally. And with a pretty enough paintjob while ignoring the facts, you could make it seem like wrongful dismissal or me being a meany-beenie fo-feanie. Right until the incident reports and the behaviour compaints get pulled out of the filing cabinet starts painting another picture about my justifications for their termination...

generals3:
And what if those policies are actually enforced? As I said I find some of the examples of sexist policies oddly specific to be made up or unfounded accusations. Surely an employee wouldn't be stupid enough to make up sexist class registration requirements in a memo meant for internal use where everyone knows that to be true or not. It is however more difficult to prove recruitment standards are sexist or not unless you have written or audio recordings of (senior) management giving sexist guidelines to HR. And how do you suggest one addresses discriminatory practices "sensitively"? Because he has done no worse than 99% of feminists and progressives when they target discrimination against women, where the implication is also that men are put into positions they do not deserve.

I have no objections to someone querying discriminatory hiring policies: I'm not defending what Google does or does not do in recruitment policy. I am saying that one needs to be tactful in the way one wishes to express criticism of policy.

And you are the one who uses the word "inferiority".

So what? It's the implication of his memo. Just because he doesn't use that precise word doesn't mean that isn't what he ends up implying.

He merely mentioned that based on some research women are more likely to exhibit certain traits and men others. That doesn't make someone inferior or superior. And considering he always discussed things in terms of "trends", if someone feels targeted its up to them.

If you raise suspicions about people, they are more likely to feel under suspicion. Obviously.

His argument has never been that all women exhibit a certain behavioral pattern but that there are trends which result in the current trends in employment. And in a company doesn't every employee feel like they have something to prove?

Technically, no they don't always feel they have something to prove, although potentially they are going to be either poor employees, or comfortable employees who feel they have already proved themselves.

Secondly and more importantly, I think someone merely needs to prove they do a good job, which they may do by various means according to their own personal style. If we start throwing around potentially harmful group stereotypes, we risk inducing people to feel they have to disprove the stereotype, which can mean doing different things as they should be doing to do a good job.

good for him. The SQWs need another martyr that can sound half-intelligent to them by dragging up out-of-date ideas stapled with half-baked evidence at best. That pedestal has a very crumbly foundation though. Crumbly philosophies on crumbly foundations does not a bode well unfortunately. But whatevs, first I have to actually care for such heroic plight, fighting for the weakest and most vulnerable in society

undeadsuitor:

So you don't know. You're going around posting a picture with the name blacked out, that's been screen capped and pasted so many times it has 6 whole pixels, that for supposedly being a Google employee has only 18 replies, as if it was a smoking gun for widescale corruption.

Dude, I know for a fact you've complained about people posting less shaky sources. Why does the requirement for proper sourcing go out the window when it's you doing it?

That picture, I believe, was taken from Damore's complaint. In fairness, I don't think there's a source provided on said document, but seeing as it has been submitted before actual legal authorities, I'm willing to take its authors at their word on their ability to produce one if necessary.

Ogoid:

undeadsuitor:

So you don't know. You're going around posting a picture with the name blacked out, that's been screen capped and pasted so many times it has 6 whole pixels, that for supposedly being a Google employee has only 18 replies, as if it was a smoking gun for widescale corruption.

Dude, I know for a fact you've complained about people posting less shaky sources. Why does the requirement for proper sourcing go out the window when it's you doing it?

That picture, I believe, was taken from Damore's complaint. In fairness, I don't think there's a source provided on said document, but seeing as it has been submitted before actual legal authorities, I'm willing to take its authors at their word on their ability to produce one if necessary.

Again, you've busted balls on others for better sources. Why are you lowering your standards for yourself?

undeadsuitor:

Again, you've busted balls on others for better sources. Why are you lowering your standards for yourself?

I'm... not?

As I said, that image comes from Damore's complaint. If his lawyer has seen fit to present it before proper judicial authorities, I'm simply willing to credit her with knowing her job better than I do.

Agema:
It has a whole section on Google's allegedly discriminatory policies. If you argue that Google runs discriminatory policies to hire/promote women (and other minorities) to posts, then you are de facto arguing people got jobs they did not deserve. There are ways that criticising potentially discriminatory policies can be addressed sensitively. Appended to a long and iffy scientific claim of women's biological inferiority, it has very little hope of sensitivity.

Well, even if you run it to that extreme, what's the other option? That we can never question recruitment policies because it will put people in that position?

Because by that argument, any drive for equality is suggesting that your white males only got their job because they are white males. Which clearly should be no excuse to stop dealing with the underlying issues.

One way or another, every woman who works with Damore is in the position of wondering whether he thinks she's a neurotic, substandard engineer / manager who got the position through special favours. And potentially not just Damore, but other Google workers who might read it and be inspired to start judging their co-workers according to the memo's stereotypes.
It means those women might constantly feel they have something to prove. Or maybe they read the memo and just think he's an arsehole and hate him. Whatever - it is the stuff of uncomfortable workplace relations and environments.

Leaving aside that neuroticism has a different meaning in the psychological usage than the every day usage, everyone judges everyone anyway. These underlying suspicions were clearly there to start with. Therefore airing them and addressing them is in everyones best interests.

Of course you do, because you don't see how the memo was problematic. Fair enough, you don't get it - we're all in that position sometimes and we can't all be rocket scientists or brain surgeons, and we don't have to be ashamed of the fact.

It's not that. One is an arguably offensive comment on an internal board. The other is essentially doxing. One at least has the pretence of engaging in debate. The other is out and out vindictive.

A company-wide memo basically calling several of them substandard appointees would not be the way to do it.

Yes. I did say repeatedly I think he is a pompous idiot.

Catnip1024:
Leaving aside that neuroticism has a different meaning in the psychological usage than the every day usage, everyone judges everyone anyway. These underlying suspicions were clearly there to start with. Therefore airing them and addressing them is in everyones best interests.

Why?

What you're arguing is that it's okay to ask every female employee of a major company to personally prove themselves to one individual male employee who may be their junior before he will accept them as professional equals.

But somehow, when we invert this and treat that individual like the problem they are, that's discrimination. Now we have a responsibility to give him his little pat on the head and glass of chocolate milk for being a big special boy with an opinion rather than a clearly disruptive element impairing an otherwise functional corporate hierarchy.

It's like declaring publicly that you masturbate to pictures of your coworker's kids which they share on facebook. Just because you were doing it before without telling them doesn't mean it's a good thing to say, or that you deserve to keep your job after disclosing it.

If you're a problem, then you're a problem, and if this is how men as a group empirically conduct themselves in the workplace and how they expect to be treated, then why should we refrain from applying the same sociobiological nonsense and accepting that this is a valid form of discrimination.

Catnip1024:
Leaving aside that neuroticism has a different meaning in the psychological usage than the every day usage.

Just like psychotic has a different clinical meaning then its' everyday usage. However, both psychosis and neuroticism are negatively associated both in layman usage and in clinical usage, because in clinical usage they describe symptoms or personality traits that come with great personal suffering and often problems with living a functional life.

So let's not pretend as if neuroticism is some unbiased, clinical term that just accurately reflects a set of personality traits while being divorced from the reality that those personality traits are often associated (especially in psychiatric care) with people over reacting to stimuli when compared to the normal population. Like most psychiatric terms, it comes with a massive value load that can't be ignored and should be used carefully by laymen who aren't mental health professionals, which Damore wasn't the last time I checked.

evilthecat:
What you're arguing is that it's okay to ask every female employee of a major company to personally prove themselves to one individual male employee who may be their junior before he will accept them as professional equals.

Nobody is saying anything like that. The suggestion is that as the industry is currently set up, women are less pre-disposed to enter it, and less pre-disposed to stick around. That is so far off demanding that the ones that do stick around prove themselves that I genuinely can't tell if you are taking the piss or not.

Back to an earlier point - does the implementation of things like the Rooney Rule mean that every white employee has to justify their position? No. Because that's not how anything works.

Gethsemani:
Just like psychotic has a different clinical meaning then its' everyday usage. However, both psychosis and neuroticism are negatively associated both in layman usage and in clinical usage, because in clinical usage they describe symptoms or personality traits that come with great personal suffering and often problems with living a functional life.

So let's not pretend as if neuroticism is some unbiased, clinical term that just accurately reflects a set of personality traits while being divorced from the reality that those personality traits are often associated (especially in psychiatric care) with people over reacting to stimuli when compared to the normal population. Like most psychiatric terms, it comes with a massive value load that can't be ignored and should be used carefully by laymen who aren't mental health professionals, which Damore wasn't the last time I checked.

And I have pointed out that he is a pompous twat. But he is a pompous twat who at least pointed to actual statistics, even if he misinterpreted them.

Personally, if someone asked me, neuroticism is a scale. Sure, being high on it is bad. But being low on it isn't great either. You need guilt, anxiety and the rest as a feedback mechanism to prevent people turning into complete bell-ends. And stress can be a great motivator.

As for how it relates to the IT world? I don't really care. Not my problem, not my field, I'm not gonna weigh into that one.

Catnip1024:
And I have pointed out that he is a pompous twat. But he is a pompous twat who at least pointed to actual statistics, even if he misinterpreted them.

Is misrepresenting something to suit your own agenda really something we should see as positive behavior? Appeal to Emotion is a logical fallacy, but so is Texas Sharpshooter, Composition/Division and a bunch of other fallacies that are all about misrepresentation or misinterpretation of presented facts.

Catnip1024:
As for how it relates to the IT world? I don't really care. Not my problem, not my field, I'm not gonna weigh into that one.

Does it relate to the IT-field? I mean, I work with mental health so it is sort of pertinent to me, but the question is whether a slightly higher mean on the neuroticism scale on average among women in self-reporting studies actually translates into an actual, appreciable difference in the real world, or if that average higher mean has any bearing on women who want to enter the IT-field.

You can push the question away, you've no pressure to answer. Damore had that pressure however and he dropped the ball by using overly broad generalizations to suggest that women should be treated worse (or at least have to work harder) to make up for what he believed was their natural inferiority at software engineering.

Gethsemani:
Is misrepresenting something to suit your own agenda really something we should see as positive behavior? Appeal to Emotion is a logical fallacy, but so is Texas Sharpshooter, Composition/Division and a bunch of other fallacies that are all about misrepresentation or misinterpretation of presented facts.

At least he provided evidence to back up his argument. It suggest he thought more about it than "how dare they focus on recruiting women". It deserved more of an honest response than a mob lynching, imo. I don't think it was malevolent selection of statistics - I think it was a guy who felt more intelligent than he actually was, stumbling way out of his depth. I mean, overly egotistical self-believers is kind of the person Google goes for.

Does it relate to the IT-field? I mean, I work with mental health so it is sort of pertinent to me, but the question is whether a slightly higher mean on the neuroticism scale on average among women in self-reporting studies actually translates into an actual, appreciable difference in the real world, or if that average higher mean has any bearing on women who want to enter the IT-field.

You can push the question away, you've no pressure to answer. Damore had that pressure however and he dropped the ball by using overly broad generalizations to suggest that women should be treated worse (or at least have to work harder) to make up for what he believed was their natural inferiority at software engineering.

This is the thing. He has some form of experience in the IT field, so did the people perfectly placed to call bullshit in house. As to whether it makes someone suitable for that sort of work? I don't know. The argument he attempts to put forward (I think) is that long periods of solo working and whatever else don't appeal to women for X reason.

His argument was weak, as he took studies from particular areas and applied them in other areas, didn't really have any in house evidence to work with, and generally did a shoddy job.

But, it is irresponsible to completely cover up the suggested argument because of it. I mean, maybe changing working practices would help encourage more women to enter the IT field. Surely it can't hurt to at least look into it? It's not like Google and co haven't attempted to completely redesign the workplace in the past or anything.

Back to my original post (iirc) - I don't care about this guy, per say. I don't care about Google. Nobody in this saga really deserves any sympathy. But I would be quite interested to see what looking into potential changes to working arrangements might bring about.

(As a slight aside - it's not inherently demeaning to say that the system is not set up optimally for one group, either. It's like saying that putting the coffee on the high shelf makes short people biologically disadvantaged. It is a disadvantage, but one that can be solved by dealing with the system itself. And systematic solutions are generally better than platform heels.)

Catnip1024:

Back to my original post (iirc) - I don't care about this guy, per say. I don't care about Google. Nobody in this saga really deserves any sympathy. But I would be quite interested to see what looking into potential changes to working arrangements might bring about.

I wouldn't hold too much hope for a change if I were you. Judges are better at discerning when rhetorical BS doesn't match the whole picture than what you think.

CaitSeith:
I wouldn't hold too much hope for a change if I were you. Judges are better at discerning when rhetorical BS doesn't match the whole picture than what you think.

It's not the place of a judge to say anything beyond "you aren't allowed to do that". I wasn't referring to judges. I was referring to actually organisational change.

Catnip1024:

CaitSeith:
I wouldn't hold too much hope for a change if I were you. Judges are better at discerning when rhetorical BS doesn't match the whole picture than what you think.

It's not the place of a judge to say anything beyond "you aren't allowed to do that". I wasn't referring to judges. I was referring to actually organisational change.

What exactly do you expect will incentivize a change?

Catnip1024:
Well, even if you run it to that extreme, what's the other option? That we can never question recruitment policies because it will put people in that position?

Perhaps you should just read my posts properly, and you would already have the answer to that.

Leaving aside that neuroticism has a different meaning in the psychological usage than the every day usage, everyone judges everyone anyway.

Oh please. That's like arguing just because murders occur, it'll be okay to knife a random passer-by in the carotid.

It's not that. One is an arguably offensive comment on an internal board. The other is essentially doxing. One at least has the pretence of engaging in debate. The other is out and out vindictive.

1) Consequences matter as well as intentions. 2) I could not give a damn about a "whose misconduct was worse" competition here, particularly to excuse one of the acts of misconduct.

Yes. I did say repeatedly I think he is a pompous idiot.

Unfortunately, saying so doesn't insulate you from all the other bad arguments you're coming up with.

CaitSeith:
What exactly do you expect will incentivize a change?

Well, if there are workplace environmental reasons preventing women from working to their maximum efficiency, one would expect the drive towards greater productivity / increased performance would incentivise said change.

I say if. But the if is worth investigating when you are a company employing millions of people.

Agema:
Unfortunately, saying so doesn't insulate you from all the other bad arguments you're coming up with.

But ultimately, all of your arguments are intended to make the problem go away and to avoid thinking about the issue. Condemn the nasty man, let's ignore what he said because of the way he said it.

I mean, the particular court case I don't believe anyone really cares about. The actual interesting discussion would be whether changing working methodologies might potentially help address recruitment issues. And I can't quite understand why everyone is so keen to slam the door shut on such a discussion because they don't like the person who raised it.

Catnip1024:

Agema:
Unfortunately, saying so doesn't insulate you from all the other bad arguments you're coming up with.

But ultimately, all of your arguments are intended to make the problem go away and to avoid thinking about the issue. Condemn the nasty man, let's ignore what he said because of the way he said it.

I mean, the particular court case I don't believe anyone really cares about. The actual interesting discussion would be whether changing working methodologies might potentially help address recruitment issues. And I can't quite understand why everyone is so keen to slam the door shut on such a discussion because they don't like the person who raised it.

Why should anyone believe a man who is blatantly sexist is right that a company is sexist?

Edit: Thinking about it, you are saying "The ends justify the means" here, but that seems contrary to lots of other points you regularly make, or am I mistaken?

Catnip1024:
At least he provided evidence to back up his argument. It suggest he thought more about it than "how dare they focus on recruiting women". It deserved more of an honest response than a mob lynching, imo. I don't think it was malevolent selection of statistics - I think it was a guy who felt more intelligent than he actually was, stumbling way out of his depth. I mean, overly egotistical self-believers is kind of the person Google goes for.

I can agree on something here-- I don't believe there was malice, here. There was poor research and a (huge) lack of awareness, possibly combined with a personal hangup, but I don't believe the intention was to insult or to degrade anyone.

Unfortunately, the impact was otherwise. We also have to consider how much worse the impact would be if there was not a strong response from the employer-- it would send a pretty poor message: that the organisation doesn't really have everybody's back. That kind of thing can be ruinous to morale.

Catnip1024:
But ultimately, all of your arguments are intended to make the problem go away and to avoid thinking about the issue. Condemn the nasty man, let's ignore what he said because of the way he said it.

That's only because what he said isn't very robust, and isn't terribly worth taking seriously. It's not supported by the evidence-- even the evidence he presents.

Now, proper researchers are often doing analyses into workplace practises and how best to get people into certain fields. Bring that research in, by all means. As far as I understand it, there's a wealth of evidence that a shorter working week can do wonders for productivity.

Catnip1024:
But ultimately, all of your arguments are intended to make the problem go away and to avoid thinking about the issue. Condemn the nasty man, let's ignore what he said because of the way he said it.

Which issue would that be?

The issue of discriminatory hiring, where I said it was okay to bring up as long as it was done sensitively?

The issue of firing Damore, which I said was perhaps unfortunate and could in other circumstances maybe been avoided?

The issue of how men and women differ where I argue introducing stereotypes on the back of dubious science unnecessarily muddies the ability of individuals to excel in their own way?

So which issue exactly am I avoiding here? Let me know, please, because I'm damned if I know.

Apropos of nothing in particular, here's Trump-voting, women-and-minorities-hating, Russian sockpuppet bot mega-Nazi, etc. etc., Tim Pool, on James Damore and the media coverage of the same.

Clearly - clearly - every single word out of the man's mouth is simply a mere pointlessly elaborate ruse to cover up for his being a self-evidently horrid human being. It's really the only logical conclusion.

I mean, what's the alternative? Supposedly professional journalists being goddamn functional illiterates at best, lying partisan shitbags at worst?

Xsjadoblayde:
good for him. The SQWs need another martyr that can sound half-intelligent to them by dragging up out-of-date ideas stapled with half-baked evidence at best. That pedestal has a very crumbly foundation though. Crumbly philosophies on crumbly foundations does not a bode well unfortunately. But whatevs, first I have to actually care for such heroic plight, fighting for the weakest and most vulnerable in society

Personally, maybe we should go SQW on this. 1940s programming were dominated by women. The only reason why they were kicked out was due to computer companies being able to pay employees more. In the 60s, it would have been ridiculous for women to be paid well. SQW focus on the 40s and 50s as the pinnacle of humanity, let's give them this one and kick all the men out

Something something free market, something something at will employment, something something just not suited to working with others, something something invisible hand, something something life choices.

This case will either end up one of three ways:

-There isn't some vast amount of information regarding his workplace behaviour that Google has somehow (and against its own interest) managed to keep secret, making it an open and shut case in his favour.

-There is some vast amount of information regarding his workplace behaviour that Google has somehow (and against its own interest) managed to keep secret, making it an open and shut case in their favour.

-There's just enough information regarding his workplace behaviour that Google has somehow (and against its own interest) managed to keep secret, making it the judge's discression as to who will win.

Realistically speaking, the first has by far the highest chance of being the case just by virtue of most people and entities acting either in their interest or perceived interest being the norm, and Google has no reason to want to actively take the PR hit they did with the firing that made them look like the bad guys in a year where their PR hit all time lows.

On an unrelated note though, it is funny to see people trying to take the fact that wasting one's time and money on gender studies will net them a job that pays less then someone who studies in STEM and try and flip use that as an equivalent to an accusation of having been fired for political reasons. There's kind of a reason why the former is only illegal in dictatorships while the latter is an issue in countries worth living in.

Saelune:
Why should anyone believe a man who is blatantly sexist is right that a company is sexist?

Because, even if you dismiss everything he says as pure sexism, one does not mutually exclude the other?

Edit: Thinking about it, you are saying "The ends justify the means" here, but that seems contrary to lots of other points you regularly make, or am I mistaken?

The issue is out in the open, we are where we are. It's not the means that we would have chosen, but there is the opportunity to do something now, or we can just ignore it completely.

Silvanus:
Now, proper researchers are often doing analyses into workplace practises and how best to get people into certain fields. Bring that research in, by all means. As far as I understand it, there's a wealth of evidence that a shorter working week can do wonders for productivity.

Researchers tend to be a little disjointed from actual industry. It's the very nature of academia. You can't leave all progress up to research - suggestions should be taken seriously regardless of the source. I mean, this is the reason so many companies have improvement suggestion systems.

Agema:
The issue of how men and women differ where I argue introducing stereotypes on the back of dubious science unnecessarily muddies the ability of individuals to excel in their own way?

So which issue exactly am I avoiding here? Let me know, please, because I'm damned if I know.

Well, this is the one. You can brush statistics away as stereotypes, but they are at least actual statistics. If changing working arrangements to optimise performance is a possibility, it is worth looking into.

I mean, 40 years ago working in an office was sat at your desk for 8 hours a day, and compare that to your trendy IT companies today. Who knows what they think the best way to work will be in another 40 years? (Trick question, it's robots - robots will be our overlords)

Ogoid:
Apropos of nothing in particular, here's Trump-voting, women-and-minorities-hating, Russian sockpuppet bot mega-Nazi, etc. etc., Tim Pool, on James Damore and the media coverage of the same.

Clearly - clearly - every single word out of the man's mouth is simply a mere pointlessly elaborate ruse to cover up for his being a self-evidently horrid human being. It's really the only logical conclusion.

I mean, what's the alternative? Supposedly professional journalists being goddamn functional illiterates at best, lying partisan shitbags at worst?

Congratulations! You found another altright idiot on youtube to spout back your preconceived biases at you. Cookie time?

Random asshole on internet makes a video full of shoddy research, confirmation bias, and arguments that sound "powerful" but in actuality can't hold up so much as a feather. This isn't a new phenomenon mate.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Why should anyone believe a man who is blatantly sexist is right that a company is sexist?

Because, even if you dismiss everything he says as pure sexism, one does not mutually exclude the other?

Edit: Thinking about it, you are saying "The ends justify the means" here, but that seems contrary to lots of other points you regularly make, or am I mistaken?

The issue is out in the open, we are where we are. It's not the means that we would have chosen, but there is the opportunity to do something now, or we can just ignore it completely.

Silvanus:
Now, proper researchers are often doing analyses into workplace practises and how best to get people into certain fields. Bring that research in, by all means. As far as I understand it, there's a wealth of evidence that a shorter working week can do wonders for productivity.

Researchers tend to be a little disjointed from actual industry. It's the very nature of academia. You can't leave all progress up to research - suggestions should be taken seriously regardless of the source. I mean, this is the reason so many companies have improvement suggestion systems.

Agema:
The issue of how men and women differ where I argue introducing stereotypes on the back of dubious science unnecessarily muddies the ability of individuals to excel in their own way?

So which issue exactly am I avoiding here? Let me know, please, because I'm damned if I know.

Well, this is the one. You can brush statistics away as stereotypes, but they are at least actual statistics. If changing working arrangements to optimise performance is a possibility, it is worth looking into.

I mean, 40 years ago working in an office was sat at your desk for 8 hours a day, and compare that to your trendy IT companies today. Who knows what they think the best way to work will be in another 40 years? (Trick question, it's robots - robots will be our overlords)

If you want to fight any percieved sexism in Google, you CANNOT do it via this blatant sexist. He should stay fired and lose this case. If someone else, someone not sexist wants to fight Google on sexism, then we can revisit this, but you cannot support Damore, period, without supporting sexism, which makes fighting 'sexism' void, since really you are just fighting FOR sexism.

Ogoid:
Trump-voting, women-and-minorities-hating, Russian sockpuppet bot mega-Nazi, etc. etc., Tim Pool

Avnger:

Congratulations! You found another altright idiot on youtube to spout back your preconceived biases at you. Cookie time?

Random asshole on internet makes a video full of shoddy research, confirmation bias, and arguments that sound "powerful" but in actuality can't hold up so much as a feather. This isn't a new phenomenon mate.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Catnip1024:
The suggestion is that as the industry is currently set up, women are less pre-disposed to enter it, and less pre-disposed to stick around.

Okay. Why?

There are two possible answers to that question.

1) The way that the industry (and the broader culture around that industry) is currently set up is actively hostile to women.
2) Women are just naturally not as good at these jobs and so tend to be selected out in open competition with superior man intellect.

The thing is, one of these represents the acknowledgement of a problem which probably needs to be solved. If something is pushing women out of the tech industry, or out of management positions, then we should probably be viewing that as an issue, even if it's not always subjectively experienced as an issue by those involved (and, newsflash, there is quite a lot of evidence that it is).

The other represents a naturalistic fallacy the purpose of which is to question whether women as a group deserve the accolades of working in said industry or positions.

Catnip1024:
That is so far off demanding that the ones that do stick around prove themselves that I genuinely can't tell if you are taking the piss or not.

I know a black doctor. He's a really good doctor!

I know it's rare to see a black doctor. Usually when you see black people they're stealing cars or shooting each other with their guns held sideways, but wow, this doctor has really dark skin and he also manages to have studied medicine and know how to heal people's illnesses using science, even though black people don't normally know anything about science because they didn't invent it. Amazing, huh? I'm pretty sure he's just as good at it as any white doctor you could mention. Also, most black people seem to speak in shouty ebonics, but this doctor, he speaks proper English just like a normal person! He's so kind and gentle, and has such good bedside manner.

Some people think that black people shouldn't have civil rights. I can't imagine being a racist like those people. I mean, just because most black people couldn't be doctors doesn't mean this black doctor is a bad doctor even though he's black. He's nothing like those other black people, he always behaves like a proper doctor.

EDIT: For the sake of clarity, the point is that acknowledging the existence of exceptions to a rule does not imply the ability to look past prejudices grounded in that rule. It practically impossible to believe that women as a group are inherently poorly suited for particular positions and yet not have that function as a standard on women who defy the stereotype. Once you have inherently associated femininity (or blackness) with failure, then the slightest appearance of such things will take on a very different meaning when exhibited by the "exception".

Or to put it very simply, when the black doctor succeeds, it's in spite of being black. When he fails, it's because he is black. It is very difficult to judge someone fairly if you genuinely believe that "their kind" are inherently inferior.

Zontar:
On an unrelated note though, it is funny to see people trying to take the fact that wasting one's time and money on gender studies will net them a job that pays less then someone who studies in STEM and try and flip use that as an equivalent to an accusation of having been fired for political reasons.

I think what's far, far funnier is people who think the world actually works like this, and that the difference in earning potential between different degree subjects is due to 3l33t STEM techniques rather than being a relatively simple function of end career choice.

I know quite a few software engineers (and a few finance workers, for that matter) with degrees in the humanities, social sciences and other "non STEM" subjects, but who taught themselves the relevant skills and went into the tech industry or the finance sector. They don't magically get paid less than those who did CS or economics degrees because they weren't initiated into the 5th qlippothic circle of STEM by defeating the sacred Python.

But hey, there's no accounting for the personal delusions of the outspokenly anti-intellectual.

altnameJag:
Something something free market, something something at will employment, something something just not suited to working with others, something something invisible hand, something something life choices.

It's hilarious how right-wingers who are punished for their speech by private corporations suddenly believe in work regulation.
Where's your free market god now?!

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/everyones-a-leftist-once-a-corporation-tramples-on-them

StrayArrow:
It's hilarious how right-wingers who are punished for their speech by private corporations suddenly believe in work regulation.
Where's your free market god now?!

Also, let's not forget about all the people who are in favor of free speech until free speech is used to criticize them, at which point something should be done to shut their detractors up.

Ogoid:

Ogoid:
Trump-voting, women-and-minorities-hating, Russian sockpuppet bot mega-Nazi, etc. etc., Tim Pool

Avnger:

Congratulations! You found another altright idiot on youtube to spout back your preconceived biases at you. Cookie time?

Random asshole on internet makes a video full of shoddy research, confirmation bias, and arguments that sound "powerful" but in actuality can't hold up so much as a feather. This isn't a new phenomenon mate.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

I'm sorry[1], but was I supposed to know this random journalist's name offhand? Is he on one of the goobergate/t_d/4chan journalist hitlists or something? I went off the pattern of the ridiculous number of youtube videos posted as "proof" of some rightwing point and are full of nonsense.

I put as much effort into my post as you put into yours. If you have an actual argument to make, make it yourself. Unless, of course, you're just trying to play some baby's-first-gotcha game instead of actually talking about the topic?

[1] I'm not really sorry

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here