James Damore Suing Google for "Reverse Discrimination"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 

Pseudonym:
This thread... What is it even about anymore?

Silentpony:
That's weird. Outrage culture really needs to clean its language up. Reverse discrimination, reverse racism, safe space. Its just so messy.
You can be racist against white people, and sexist against men. We don't need to qualify the terms!

Very silly if you ask me.

I'm inclined to agree that the qualifier 'reverse' doesn't do much here. Especially given the context where a guy is suing for it (rightly or wrongly). I would caution that communication is a two way street. Yes, some people could work on getting their point across better and sometimes language is needlessly confusing. On the other hand, if you are listening to somebody you should at least try to understand what they mean.

Yes of course. Try to understand. But the other person has to meet you at least half way.
There's a very dangerous trend I'm seeing of people using words outside of the definition of that word:

"I was literally dying!"
"Oh my God, did you call an ambulance?!"
"No, not literally dying, duh!"

Language, being a tool for communicating information, needs to be clear. At a certain point if people just started using any random word, regardless of definition, it's not really the world's job to try to understand them.
If someone is suing Google for reverse bugabooism or Ludwig the Toasted Toyota Berry Discimination, they should explain what they mean, rather than I attempt to guess.

Catnip1024:
Yes, but I thought we were talking about highly skilled jobs, rather than general "professional" jobs.

"High skill" is usually roughly synonymous with tertiary education, usually a degree. That's often how it's effectively measured, anyway.

Catnip1024:
...but I wouldn't have put teaching under that category, personally. But minor quibbles...

Teaching may not require vast, raw intellectual processing power, but it does require considerable specialist training and exacting standards in many skills like communication.

Pseudonym:
On the other hand, if you are listening to somebody you should at least try to understand what they mean.

That depends.

If your aim is to disagree with them, you don't need to pay any attention to what they mean. Furthermore not understanding them may even make it easier to express your disagreement: because you can substitute their difficult-to-answer argument with an easy-to-answer straw man instead. And then if they correct you, insist blind you can't have misinterpred them.

Agema:

Catnip1024:
...but I wouldn't have put teaching under that category, personally. But minor quibbles...

Teaching may not require vast, raw intellectual processing power, but it does require considerable specialist training and exacting standards in many skills like communication.

Teaching in Germany requires tertiary education, usually a university degree in pedagogy. We don't let unqualified wannabes handle our children. The university courses are also linked to our curriculums which is another barrier for foreign teachers. It also requires German obviously at a very high level.
Teaching really is not a good example for skilled foreigners entering our job market.

Yes, i know there are some countries with rather lax standards for teachers where teachers are seen as people who failed to qualify for a real job. But Germany is not one of those countries.

Satinavian:
Teaching in Germany requires tertiary education, usually a university degree in pedagogy.

It's similar-ish in the UK. As far as I'm aware, secondary school teaching traditionally requires a degree in a relevant subject, plus specialist postgraduate teacher training. However...

We don't let unqualified wannabes handle our children. The university courses are also linked to our curriculums which is another barrier for foreign teachers. It also requires German obviously at a very high level.
Teaching really is not a good example for skilled foreigners entering our job market.

Yes, i know there are some countries with rather lax standards for teachers where teachers are seen as people who failed to qualify for a real job. But Germany is not one of those countries.

... independent schools can skip these requirements. Furthermore, the state school system has been part-privatised over the last few years, and certain part-privatised schools can also hire teachers without the qualifications that the full state schools require.

All my four grandparents were teachers (although the school system was very different back then) so perhaps naturally I'm a little hostile to the idea that teachers are "failures" who couldn't land a "proper" job. Several of my friends are teachers; my impression is that teaching in many schools seems to be a difficult and draining job that often requires a lot of effort for modest financial reward and public respect.

Agema:

Pseudonym:
On the other hand, if you are listening to somebody you should at least try to understand what they mean.

That depends.

If your aim is to disagree with them, you don't need to pay any attention to what they mean. Furthermore not understanding them may even make it easier to express your disagreement: because you can substitute their difficult-to-answer argument with an easy-to-answer straw man instead. And then if they correct you, insist blind you can't have misinterpred them.

True. But of course I meant that 'should' in my post not just in an instrumental way. But I fully realise that not everyone, certainly not on the internet, is always inclined to read things in an honest, openminded or charitable way. Sometimes that seems to be a wholly cynical affair. But even those who do make some attempt to be reasonable should be wary of falling into the same antagonistic reading habits, especially on the more divise topics.

Problem is: I don't always know who is arguing in good faith around here. I don't want to be too na?eve about it and some people, I just generally ignore, as they are obviously too dishonest and/or too unpleasant to deal with. I sometimes find it a hard choice to make whether something is still worth engaging with. When I do say something I try to assume and to some degree pretend that people are sincere in some way. One reason is because they might be, even when I find it hard to believe. Another reason to do so is that even when people are arguing in bad faith, they ussually frame it to themselves in various ways so as to hide their mediocre intentions from themselves. In such cases I find responding with a straight face is often more effective than calling their insincere bullshit out for what it is.

The same goes for strawmen: I think there is often a difficult mix of genuine misunderstanding, unwillingness to understand better, unwillingness to read things remotely charitable, framing and straight up strawmanning going on. In that case people are also quite good at misleading themselves about how reasonable they are being and just calling them out on their bullshit will generally just lead to anger. This anger will conveniently feed into the aforementioned framing, sadly.

That said, I can't really blame people for losing their patience with some of the dishonest nonsense around here. I can't say I've never left posts here that amounted to a slightly more eloquent version of 'fuck off with your bullshit'.

thebobmaster:
That's right. We have officially reached the point where someone is claiming, in a court of law, that they were discriminated against due to being a conservative white male. Regardless of how you feel about his memo, that's going a bit far.

It isn't going a bit far. Day after day there is a clear campaign to discriminate against white men and conservatives in particular, by far leftists who believe women and minorities are oppressed and/or victims and need free shit. He's absolutely right that it's happening and you're intentionally ignorant or blind to not see what's happening in media, silicon valley, academia and many other avenues.

KingsGambit:
It isn't going a bit far. Day after day there is a clear campaign to discriminate against white men and conservatives in particular, by far leftists who believe women and minorities are oppressed and/or victims and need free shit. He's absolutely right that it's happening and you're intentionally ignorant or blind to not see what's happening in media, silicon valley, academia and many other avenues.

Are you referring to quotas, or job descriptions that focus on minority candidates? Or something else?

If you're referring to the former, that isn't something that happened to James Damore at Google. He didn't get passed over for a job.

KingsGambit:
It isn't going a bit far. Day after day there is a clear campaign to discriminate against white men and conservatives in particular, by far leftists who believe women and minorities are oppressed and/or victims and need free shit. He's absolutely right that it's happening and you're intentionally ignorant or blind to not see what's happening in media, silicon valley, academia and many other avenues.

Citation needed. After all, 30 U.S. states can fire you simply for being trans and the president tried to fire them in the military by twitter feed. But yeah, conservative white males have it tough. Barring all the evidence that it's not ... but if you pretend hard enough. I have it on good information Damore was fire for being a shithead during a Department of Labor investigation. Last I checked, he had a job ... ran his mouth about shit he didn't know ... and lost his job.

I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth nobody owes you a job.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

KingsGambit:
It isn't going a bit far. Day after day there is a clear campaign to discriminate against white men and conservatives in particular, by far leftists who believe women and minorities are oppressed and/or victims and need free shit. He's absolutely right that it's happening and you're intentionally ignorant or blind to not see what's happening in media, silicon valley, academia and many other avenues.

Citation needed. After all, 30 U.S. states can fire you simply for being trans and the president tried to fire them in the military by twitter feed. But yeah, conservative white males have it tough. Barring all the evidence that it's not ... but if you pretend hard enough. I have it on good information Damore was fire for being a shithead during a Department of Labor investigation. Last I checked, he had a job ... ran his mouth about shit he didn't know ... and lost his job.

I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth nobody owes you a job.

When all one has known in their life and history is privilege, the loss of that unique status can seem like discrimination if one takes the me first/me only view (funny how that lines up well with the "fuck you, got mine" political wing).

The fact that a conservative white man can be fired for publicly announcing to his entire company (which is exactly what a post on a company-wide message board is) that his women coworkers are naturally inferior at their jobs (with the implication that better qualified men lost opportunities) is a break from the old land of privilege that used to be inhabited. In the good old days, one could cop a feel of the female secretary, make a joke about homosexual men, and then complain about all the black people that do facilities jobs around the office with people barely batting an eye.

KingsGambit:

thebobmaster:
That's right. We have officially reached the point where someone is claiming, in a court of law, that they were discriminated against due to being a conservative white male. Regardless of how you feel about his memo, that's going a bit far.

It isn't going a bit far. Day after day there is a clear campaign to discriminate against white men and conservatives in particular, by far leftists who believe women and minorities are oppressed and/or victims and need free shit. He's absolutely right that it's happening and you're intentionally ignorant or blind to not see what's happening in media, silicon valley, academia and many other avenues.

I actually want to just mention something here about Google's alleged "persecution" of conservatives, which Damore in large part alleges on the grounds that Google discriminates against heterosexual monogamous couples.

Google is well-known for having one of the most generous child and spousal benefits packages in the entire technology sector, if not among all companies in the entire world. If Google was "anti-nuclear family", as Damore claims, then why would they be handing out benefits to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a year to married people with children?

But I guess I can see where he's coming from. After all, there was an internal forum that was sometimes used by furries and polyamorous people, and that's of course basically the same thing as white genocide.

How's that for white privilege, we even get the nice version of discrimination XD

KingsGambit:
It isn't going a bit far. Day after day there is a clear campaign to discriminate against white men and conservatives in particular, by far leftists who believe women and minorities are oppressed and/or victims and need free shit. He's absolutely right that it's happening and you're intentionally ignorant or blind to not see what's happening in media, silicon valley, academia and many other avenues.

One might have hoped that could give white men and conservatives some insight into how everyone else in the country feels about the last few centuries, and then to reflect on how long it took white males and conservatives to grant those others a look-in.

But, you know, snowballs in hell and all that.

Avnger:

When all one has known in their life and history is privilege, the loss of that unique status can seem like discrimination if one takes the me first/me only view (funny how that lines up well with the "fuck you, got mine" political wing).

The fact that a conservative white man can be fired for publicly announcing to his entire company (which is exactly what a post on a company-wide message board is) that his women coworkers are naturally inferior at their jobs (with the implication that better qualified men lost opportunities) is a break from the old land of privilege that used to be inhabited. In the good old days, one could cop a feel of the female secretary, make a joke about homosexual men, and then complain about all the black people that do facilities jobs around the office with people barely batting an eye.

I think it's more telling the wake up call they're going to progressively get now that various minority groups are slowly reaching parity in university education despite active efforts to chase them out of academia. Trans people are statistically more likely to work for less, less likely to ask for a promotion, and more likely to simply be happy they have a job. The bitter irony, bitter like rancid lemon juice-irony, is that 'white, male conservatives' are still going to fucking whine despite creating this environment where a trans person is just simply cheaper labour than someone like Damore. With equivalent student debts, equivalent training, lower job security, and earning statistically only two thirds or less the pay cheque he was commanding.

KG's argument is no different from the vicious cycle of social scapegoating that the Irish in New York faced.

They don't dare confront the fact that the Reagan politics they propped up created the very same systems that economically incentivize the persistent search for cheaper labour... so every white, male conservative who doesn't own the means of production are suffering their own grossly inflated egos and expectations of a world destined to look elsewhere for labour...

And rather than do legitimately positive things like actively seeking policies to improve the livelihoods of others, to improve our capacity for discernment of work, to actively fight the malice of naked profiteering solely off the back of another's underpaid labour, they instead further invent narratives pretending as if we're the ones pulling the fucking strings.

The nerve of it almost outclasses the unadulterated blindness and hypocrisy.

It's pathetic. Even now they won't recognize the disconnect of why at the time Google had this workplace policy up, and yet were investigated for gross examples of underpaying women despite equivalency of seniority, training and job title. Or why Oracle's hiring roster pool for all their new wage slaves predominantly come from East Asia...

Oh no ... it couldn't be the free market ... clearly it's fucking leftists.

Because when I think of 'leftist', multinationals outsourcing jobs and importing of labour totally springs to mind .... don't you? Clearly I expect Oracle to be flying red flags on their buildings, and giving their profits and leadership to the people and telling the shareholders to go and get fucked any day now...

How fucking egotistical do you have to be to think some person is going to give you money when they can pay another person almost half for equivalent labour? What fairytale land did these people belong to that would create such a novella they read creating the assumptions of that self-importance?

All I can say to such peeps is fuck you ... It's not us, it was entirely you... None of you are so fucking special, so unique, so wonderful simply because you're fucking white and male. And if you start mouthing off about it in my workplace, I'd turf your arse as well simply because I don't want to have to put up with it on my dime and on my premises.

Welcome to the free market on migrating labour, ladies and gentlemen ... don't let the door hit you on your precious white, male and conservative ego on the way out... I'm not sure if Breitbart has enough money to treat all your butthurt...

Fun little story ... I was made homeless at 16 when I came out to my parents. I had to enlist because it was either the gutter or military service. I learnt very fucking early that if I wanted my own personal freedom I should do everything possible to raise capital. I learnt very fucking quickly that capital, the capacity to profit from another's productivity through investment, is the only means to get ahead and the only means to enjoy my current freedoms which no worker, regardless of how well paid, will ever realize.

One does not buy freedom with sweat. Anybody that tells you as such is clinically retarded, or out to hurt you or profit from you... it is as true now as ever in any political and economic system.

I didn't fucking whine. I didn't just magically assume someone would give me a job. I didn't magically assume the marketplace would somehow accommodate me. I sought to own the marketplace, that's what I did. And if you're going to just sit there comfortably, assuming the same privileges you had before in this new world of liquid borders and the race to the bottom, and just think as if you deserve something out of someone like me or get to run your mouth about me or people like me in my workplace? ... think again.

And fuck anybody that thinks that's somehow proof of the mythical plight of the white, male conservative. Fuck ... you.

Because I am not going to give you a single cent. Does that sound like a leftist to you or anybody else?

Didn't think so, but at the very least I have a functional moral compass to ask myself whether what I'm doing is right. Not hide behind pathetic, meandering excuses that allow me to project my moral failures and social inadequacies onto other people lower on the social stratum, like how the new Irish are out to get me.

Avnger:
The fact that a conservative white man can be fired for publicly announcing to his entire company (which is exactly what a post on a company-wide message board is) that his women coworkers are naturally inferior at their jobs

Not what he wrote. I get this sinking feeling that a lot of you folks read neither the Damore memo nor the actual complaint in the lawsuit, but merely someone complaining about it in bad faith.

What he actually wrote amounted to:

1. Most human traits end up with a normal distribution (a bell curve) across a population, and when grouped by gender these distributions are nonidentical but typically overlap quite a bit. Around here he explicitly points out that treating individuals as though they are the means of their demographics is explicitly incorrect and not a thing he supports (aka he is not saying his women coworkers are inferior, but rather that they are less numerous for reasons other than simple sexism).

2. If an organization has a strong preference for people possessing certain traits to high degrees, the resulting population may not have the same demographic distribution as the overall population.

3. Accordingly, it may not be correct to interpret a difference between the distribution of demographics at Google and that of the overall population as necessarily being a result of bias (aka sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia).

4. He then suggests ways to change the workplace that would better emphasize personality traits whose female mean is higher than the male mean, as an attempt to suggest a "non-discriminatory" way to reduce the gender gap. These aren't the greatest suggestions in the world, but meh.

5. Finally, he lists some alleged discriminatory practices that Google engages in, namely: Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race, A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates, Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative rate, Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias), Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal
discrimination.

renegade7:
But I guess I can see where he's coming from. After all, there was an internal forum that was sometimes used by furries and polyamorous people, and that's of course basically the same thing as white genocide.

Again with the intentionally misrepresenting what was there.

He names off a bunch of internal forums for employees where they can openly discuss alternative lifestyles including furries, polyamorous, etc, mentions a talk given by an employee who identifies simultaneously as a "wingless, yellow-scaled dragonkin" and an "ornate, expansive building" on the nature of being a plural being and some examples of expressly left wing political talk at Google because those set up that talking about lifestyle and politics isn't generally verboten, but widely accepted before bringing up an employee disciplined for suggesting the importance of traditional gender roles when raising a child as a traditional conservative. The point isn't that "oh no! Letting furries and poly people talk is the same as white genocide" but rather that tradcon views are being specifically targeted by demonstrating how utterly permissive they are of other topics.

That is to say, where someone can give a talk on what it's like to be both a dragon and a structure without someone calling a building inspector to fail them for not being up to code (I suspect a person who identifies as a building has foundation issues and should probably be condemned -- do they have to pay real property taxes on themselves, or are they personal property like a double wide?), a knight to rid them of the dragon's tyranny (I wonder how hard it is to find a building inspector who is into HEMA and kill two birds with one stone?) or possibly just having them committed, but expressing tradcon views will get you punished.

It also brings up several people in management openly keeping blacklists of conservative employees.

And also Google instructing employees to refuse any speaking engagement including more than one white male (themselves included).

Among a long, long list of other cases where the company explicitly puts whites, men, people over 40, or conservatives at an explicit disadvantage.

The argument is that that is in violation of CA state law, specifically Labor Code 1101 and 1102. To be fair, the first accusation of what it is Google allegedly did wrong is 52 pages in, so it's easy enough to give up before you get there.

Then under the third cause of action:

227. Google violated FEHA when they discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Gender and Race Subclass members because of their gender and/or race by, among other things, taking into account gender and/or race when considering promotions, failing to protect employees from negative comments made about Caucasian men as they protected members of other protected classes, and ignoring formal requests for redress from Google managers and the Human Resources department.

Under the fifth cause of action:

244. California Government Code ? 12940(h) provides that it is unlawful for any employer or person to discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code ? 12940, et seq.

The sixth cause is a common law arguement.

The seventh cause argues essentially that punishment for things like the Damore memo (as far as what it actually says as opposed to how certain journalists have presented it) is a violation of Cal. Labor Code ? 1102.5.

From the ninth cause of action:

274. Google's violations of the California Labor Code, and California statutory and common law, and other provisions, as described above in the causes of action listed in this Complaint, all constitute unfair and unlawful business practices pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

A few choice quotes from Exhibit B:

"If you're concerned about discussing conservative values at work, maybe you should be. Maybe that's a feature, and not a bug."

"I have lost count of the times at Google, for example, people tell me privately that they cannot admit their voting choice if they are Republican because they fear how other Googlers will react."

"This is not an ideological debate, full stop, period. We are in a failure mode of democracy. This is literally, in every respect, a power struggle. It's a struggle over who gets to set the rules of society, who has the power to determine facts and morality. It's best we dispense with any illusions otherwise."

"We are at a point where the dialogue we need to be having with these people is 'if you keep talking about this shit, i will hurt you'"

"I could have said 'Republicans', 'conservatives', 'alt-right', 'neo-Nazi', doesn't matter, They're all working together for the same goal."

I mean, there are 87 pages of exhibit B comments so that just a couple of examples from the first two subsections.

Schadrach:

Avnger:
The fact that a conservative white man can be fired for publicly announcing to his entire company (which is exactly what a post on a company-wide message board is) that his women coworkers are naturally inferior at their jobs

Not what he wrote. I get this sinking feeling that a lot of you folks read neither the Damore memo nor the actual complaint in the lawsuit, but merely someone complaining about it in bad faith.

I did, and while he didn't exiplicitly say that women are inferior, he was treating the subject so carelessly and in a way that was so ignorant of the actual scientific consensus (which is far more nuanced than Damore presented it) that I wouldn't fault any of his female colleagues for interpreting it that way.

And I'll restate this point for emphasis. In short order after his dismissal he began to associate with Stefan Molyneux, a man who has explicitly called for women to lose the right to vote. Any defense on his part against accusations of sexism therefore needs to go way farther than just "I just meant on average."

I also read the lawsuit in full, several times. It was, and I say this with full sincerity, some of 2017's best comedy writing.

1. Most human traits end up with a normal distribution (a bell curve) across a population, and when grouped by gender these distributions are nonidentical but typically overlap quite a bit. Around here he explicitly points out that treating individuals as though they are the means of their demographics is explicitly incorrect and not a thing he supports (aka he is not saying his women coworkers are inferior, but rather that they are less numerous for reasons other than simple sexism).

2. If an organization has a strong preference for people possessing certain traits to high degrees, the resulting population may not have the same demographic distribution as the overall population.

So the problem here is, does Google (or the high-tech sector more generally) actually favor the traits that Damore asserts are more common in men?

Damore correctly states that women are, on average, slightly higher than men on neurotic personality traits, more inclined to cooperative rather than competitive interactions, and more likely to prioritize work-family balance (though critically, he doesn't provide strong evidence that these are strictly biologically, especially the last point).

What he does not provide any evidence for at all, beyond idle speculation, is the claim that these personality traits should result in one being less inclined to work in technology and less able to progress to the higher levels of employment. In fact, we could just as well turn it around and use that same evidence to argue that women should over-represented in tech:

-Neuroticism is correlated with high attention to detail and the kind of conscientious behavior that would result in a person doing well in a difficult STEM degree program

-Since the tech sector typically has very generous family benefits packages (and Google in particular is well known for theirs) you would think that people prioritize family would be more drawn to this industry, not less

-The ability to cooperate and communicate is critical in technology, especially on large, inter-disciplinary teams. Companies compete with each other, and companies do better when their employees are more cooperative.

And so on. With no evidence provided either way, Damore's entire argument falls apart because it lacks a causal link. And given that Damore has a scientific background he should know this and the fact that he still chose to publicize these claims suggests to me that he had an ulterior motive in making them.

It just seems a bit vacuous, is all.

3. Accordingly, it may not be correct to interpret a difference between the distribution of demographics at Google and that of the overall population as necessarily being a result of bias (aka sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia).

The operative word is "may". There is ample evidence that sexism and racism are barriers to representation of women and minorities in the high-tech industry (see, for instance, the well-studied phenomenon of stereotype threat). There is not as much evidence in favor of Damore's argument.

4. He then suggests ways to change the workplace that would better emphasize personality traits whose female mean is higher than the male mean, as an attempt to suggest a "non-discriminatory" way to reduce the gender gap. These aren't the greatest suggestions in the world, but meh.

And here's why a lot of women were very angry about this. To a lot of women, especially those who are veterans in the industry and who spent their early years working in a much less forward-thinking environment, "Emphasize female personality traits" really does kind of sound like "women should just stay at home or be secretaries" because that's the sort of thing that they spent a lot of time hearing.

5. Finally, he lists some alleged discriminatory practices that Google engages in, namely: Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race, A high priority queue and special treatment for ?diversity? candidates,

James Damore is attempting to assert that he and white men at Google are systematically discriminated against. No evidence is provided that these classes have lead any white men at Google to be harmed.

Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for ?diversity? candidates by decreasing the false negative rate, Reconsidering any set of people if it?s not ?diverse? enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias), Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal
discrimination.

Again, this is an empirical claim, and no evidence is provided in favor of it. You have to do more than just speculate that diversity programs could potentially lead to the bar being lowered, you have to show that it's actually happening by showing that incompetent candidates are being hired solely by virtue of their race or gender, which Damore fails to do.

renegade7:
But I guess I can see where he's coming from. After all, there was an internal forum that was sometimes used by furries and polyamorous people, and that's of course basically the same thing as white genocide.

Again with the intentionally misrepresenting what was there.

He names off a bunch of internal forums for employees where they can openly discuss alternative lifestyles including furries, polyamorous, etc, mentions a talk given by an employee who identifies simultaneously as a "wingless, yellow-scaled dragonkin" and an "ornate, expansive building" on the nature of being a plural being and some examples of expressly left wing political talk at Google because those set up that talking about lifestyle and politics isn't generally verboten, but widely accepted before bringing up an employee disciplined for suggesting the importance of traditional gender roles when raising a child as a traditional conservative.

That is to say, where someone can give a talk on what it's like to be both a dragon and a structure without someone calling a building inspector to fail them for not being up to code (I suspect a person who identifies as a building has foundation issues and should probably be condemned -- do they have to pay real property taxes on themselves, or are they personal property like a double wide?), a knight to rid them of the dragon's tyranny (I wonder how hard it is to find a building inspector who is into HEMA and kill two birds with one stone?) or possibly just having them committed, but expressing tradcon views will get you punished.

As I said in my post, the argument being advanced by Damore is that Google discriminates against men who hold Damore's views about gender roles, family, etc.

The furries and transgenders get chat rooms. The heterosexual married monogamists with children get five-figure benefits packages. Google isn't punishing people with traditionalist or conservative views on gender, it's rewarding them.

As for the building thing, how exactly does the existence of that talk discriminate against heterosexual parents?

Although, I will say this. Heterosexual monogamy is the norm in society. No one needs or wants to attend a special seminar to have it explained to them how heterosexual monogamy works because we already know all about that ("What? You mean to tell me that there are some people who marry members of the opposite sex and have children with them? Color me shocked, just shocked, I tell you!"). But a guy who thinks he's a dragon-building, now that's interesting. How did he come to the conclusion that he's a dragon-building, how does that realization affect his day-to-day life? I need to know.

Now, no further information about this provided, so I won't speculate further on this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this event may also have just been what we in the leftist community know as a "joke".

It also brings up several people in management openly keeping blacklists of conservative employees.

All right, so this is a weird one.

At no point does a manager say "We are refusing to hire conservatives" or anything of that nature. What's happening here is that managers are saying that they would refuse to hire people who hold openly sexist, racist, religiously discriminatory, etc, views. Based on the quotes in the lawsuit, these people are being literal, ie, they are literally saying that sexists and racists have no place at Google.

But Damore's lawsuit is retroactively assuming that "sexist" and "racist" are being used as slurs against white male conservatives. When the weasel words are stripped away, all the lawsuit proves is that there are some people at Google who prefer not to work with sexists, racists, homophobes, etc.

The lawsuit furthermore insists, and this is where it gets really interesting, that this isn't just the actions of individual employees, but rather a deliberate conspiracy that goes from the bottom all the way to the top to encourage and manipulate people into making these "blacklists" in order to discriminate against white conservative men. No evidence is provided for this.

And also Google instructing employees to refuse any speaking engagement including more than one white male (themselves included).

"Google" did not do that. One guy said that. In fact, this wasn't even a directive to anyone, more like he's expressing his own thoughts on how a white male employee could act to improve diversity if he was so inclined.

Among a long, long list of other cases where the company explicitly puts whites, men, people over 40, or conservatives at an explicit disadvantage.

No evidence is provided that such people were explicitly and deliberately put at a disadvantage.

That said, ageism in Silicon Valley actually is a well-known problem, but the lawsuit doesn't spend much time on this concern.

The argument is that that is in violation of CA state law, specifically Labor Code 1101 and 1102. To be fair, the first accusation of what it is Google allegedly did wrong is 52 pages in, so it's easy enough to give up before you get there.

Trust me, I didn't give up before page 52. In fact, I wanted it to keep going.

A few choice quotes from Exhibit B:

"If you're concerned about discussing conservative values at work, maybe you should be. Maybe that's a feature, and not a bug."

"I have lost count of the times at Google, for example, people tell me privately that they cannot admit their voting choice if they are Republican because they fear how other Googlers will react."

"This is not an ideological debate, full stop, period. We are in a failure mode of democracy. This is literally, in every respect, a power struggle. It's a struggle over who gets to set the rules of society, who has the power to determine facts and morality. It's best we dispense with any illusions otherwise."

"We are at a point where the dialogue we need to be having with these people is 'if you keep talking about this shit, i will hurt you'"

"I could have said 'Republicans', 'conservatives', 'alt-right', 'neo-Nazi', doesn't matter, They're all working together for the same goal."

I mean, there are 87 pages of exhibit B comments so that just a couple of examples from the first two subsections.

How do those comments constitute or show evidence of discrimination against white, conservative men?

Also, a lot of that 87 pages is just memes that people posted. For instance, the following meme is alleged to be an example of "Encouraging political violence":

I don't see how it's "encouraging violence" to point out that "America First!" was at one time used as a slogan by neo-Nazis. And maybe that's poisoning the well against the current incarnation of the slogan, but the lawsuit isn't about people's debating skills.

And this meme is alleged to be "Anti-conservative posting" encouraged by Google:

Yeah, calling Scott Adams a paranoid sexist isn't racist against white people. Nor is a woman complaining that she can't get a word in edgewise about the issue of sexual harassment because threads keep getting derailed about false accusation stuff.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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