patrick.net

" who was fired in August after posting a memo to an internal Google message board arguing that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering"

This is not what he argued as far as I can remember.

Heraclitusstudent says

Anyone think this has a chance against Google?

If it goes in front of a jury it might.

He definitely has a chance. His firing was complete SJW BS. I hope he makes tens of millions of dollars in damages.

anon_45790 says

This is not what he argued as far as I can remember.

Yup, Yahoo has SJW'd their content again.

What he actually said was that Women find interest and motivation in different things, so they approach problem solving differently, and cited not ONE but TWO psychology, peer reviewed, studies to back up his point.

anon_45790 says

" who was fired in August after posting a memo to an internal Google message board arguing that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering"

This is not what he argued as far as I can remember.

This is also not what I heard him say on Bloomberg.

Persecution is good. It is easier to maintain a persecution complex with occasional de facto persecution.

I reread the memo again. As far as I can tell, this may be the one triggering sentence in the memo that got him in trouble:
I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why
we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
He would have been better off saying preferences and personality traits.

I think there is a chance

anon_3e01a says

the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes

Does anyone doubt that this is factually correct?

There is plenty of science to back up varying distribution of abilities between the genders. To take a trivial example, men can lift greater weights than women on average. This is not open to scientific debate, only to ideological distortions.

The typical distortion is to misrepresent the argument as saying that all men can lift greater weights than all women. Damore was careful to point out exactly this kind of misrepresentation as a near-certain response to even the slightest questioning the SJW Koran.

I'm a big Jordan Peterson fan boi, so I'm kinda shocked to take the counter argument here.
Fearless leader, are you saying lifting weights explains the [un]equal representation of women in tech and leadership? The rest of the memo is fairly airtight, but you can drive a truck through abilities. Abilities could be taken as a pejorative term. Not sure why I didn't notice it when the memo came out originally. From what I can tell, he did a good job footnoting the preferences part, so maybe it comes down to a poor word choice.

yeeeeah but.... even if you make that nuance of not saying "all men can life greater weights than all women", you are still saying that statistically women can lift a lower weight. Now the first thing you see when looking at a woman candidate (after her boobs) is that they are part of a category that can lift lower weight. You see the category first, you don't see the individual skills. This is how the human brain works. Not to mention how women see themselves. Which is why Google calls this "harmful stereotype" i.e. something that can affect how women are seen a priori independently of their skills.
Hence the thought gestapo reaction. And I'm not sure how this memo will stand in a court room, even if demonstrably true.

Still I'm not convinced lying and defending a lie is a good approach to fostering justice. It seems to me the entire rational to bring more women for the sake of bringing more women is preposterous to start with and based only on vague economic notions that a larger labor force will be good be default. They should fight for access and against discrimination, not for equality.

anon_3e01a says

I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ

Different abilities is not the same as "less capable for engineering" (the former is quite a general statement), but I am sure that it will be used against him and interpreted mean exactly that.

Damore clearly ties abilities to equal representation of women in tech, which, if I was a women, I would might be inclined to read as "less capable for engineering". It's his only big misstep in the memo, but I can see how that would trigger some folks. Given the tenor of the rest of the memo, I think its ridiculous that he was fired and the lawsuit may have merit. Harmeet Dhillon is becoming the Gloria Allred of the conservative set.

anon_3e01a says

are you saying lifting weights explains the [un]equal representation of women in tech and leadership

Start by answering why men (can) lift more weights. Then follow that up with a few more "why" questions, and perhaps you'll arrive at the explanation why the default assumption (until proven otherwise) should be that men and women have different abilities.

anon_3e01a says

I'm a big Jordan Peterson fan boi, so I'm kinda shocked to take the counter argument here.
Fearless leader, are you saying lifting weights explains the [un]equal representation of women in tech and leadership? The rest of the memo is fairly airtight, but you can drive a truck through abilities. Abilities could be taken as a pejorative term. Not sure why I didn't notice it when the memo came out originally. From what I can tell, he did a good job footnoting the preferences part, so maybe it comes down to a poor word choice.

So what? Should you not employ people because you think they made a poor word choice? Sure the company may have the right - or may not we will see how the lawsuit goes - but it's a sad testimony of leftoid SJW degeneration that we are now choosing coworkers based on their political correctness and choice of words. I mean if Adolf fucking Hitler would have invented the polio vaccine and saved millions of lives, should we have not taken his work because he also was a murdering asshole? Maybe he could have partially redeemed himself. Granted a very polarizing example, but the world will end in degenerate idiocracy if we base work on subjective feelings and not on objective skills. In fact you can likely place bets on the forthcoming demise of modern (tech) companies as soon as they embrace modern feminism and other SJW bullshit.

anon_3e01a says

Harmeet Dhillon is becoming the Gloria Allred of the conservative set.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmeet_Dhillon
Harmeet sounds interesting. Gloria Allred just sounds bitter.

3.

Throughout the Class Periods, and in violation of California law, Google employees who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google’s employment policies and its business, such as “diversity” hiring policies, “bias sensitivity,” or “social justice,” were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights.

4.

Google’s open hostility for conservative thought is paired with invidious discrimination on the basis of race and gender, barred by law.

Wow, actual respect for non-discrimination. I'm impressed.

https://www.scribd.com/document/368692388/James-Damore-Lawsuit#download&from_embed

A little JP and Haidt speech to round off this talk about viewpoint diversity. The payoff is at the end.www.sPho0bpoKm8

rando says

https://www.scribd.com/document/368692388/James-Damore-Lawsuit#download&from_embed

Wow. Very interesting. I read almost the whole thing. What a toxic atmosphere in this company! They have thought police!

This case is interesting because it reverses the typical conservative viewpoint. All the Trump fans on here are basically arguing that a company does not have the right to fire an employee based on him not following the company belief system and values. So conservatives are crying to Big Government to force companies to behave how they think they should.

Shouldn't the free market take care of this? If diversity really isn't better, like most here believe, won't Google suffer for their belief and policies vs. other companies that hire white males?

HappyGilmore says

diversity really isn't better, like most here believe

I don't think anybody here has argued that diversity at the work force - diversity representative of the demographic diversity, is bad. The problem is when (1) diversity is imposed by ways of discriminating against people of certain race and gender; and (2) diversity of opinions is suppressed and prosecuted (unlawfully in this case!).

Tenpoundbass says

won't Google suffer for their belief and policies vs. other companies

1. Yes, but this process may take long time and meanwhile many people will suffer.
2. This lawsuit is one way in which Google suffers.

HappyGilmore says

Shouldn't the free market take care of this?

Yes, unless the law is broken, which seems to be the case here. Read the lawsuits document, especially the screenshots from internal Google correspondence. Or see this:
https://www.facebook.com/dhillonlaw/videos/1565136140242243

FP says

I don't think anybody here has argued that diversity at the work force - diversity representative of the demographic diversity, is bad. The problem is when (1) diversity is imposed by ways of discriminating against people of certain race and gender; and (2) diversity of opinions is suppressed and prosecuted (unlawfully in this case!).

This is where I don't follow--if Google feels that diversity improves their overall company performance by increasing the width and breadth of ideas and thinking, is that not OK? I can't imagine that Google is hiring fewer than 50% male (male population). Especially when it is also argued that women have different abilities than men. Doesn't Google have the right to value those abilities?

Also-is it against the law for a company to suppress opinions or terminate based on an employee's opinion? I can't imagine it is. It happens all the time.

FP says

Yes, unless the law is broken, which seems to be the case here

OK--I'll look up the document.

HappyGilmore says

Shouldn't the free market take care of this? If diversity really isn't better, like most here believe, won't Google suffer for their belief and policies vs. other companies that hire white males?

Only if the courts and jury arrive at the correct verdict. Otherwise it's just SJW politics enforced at the courts.