|
Post by robeiae on Aug 6, 2017 18:09:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 6, 2017 18:34:01 GMT -5
I've read the document, and the responses to it.
The funny thing, it's not really "anti-diversity." It's "Anti-Huge Institutional Efforts to Prioritize Diversity Above All Else."
The author went to some trouble to emphasize that he thinks diversity is good, sexism is real, let's all not be racists, etc., before trying to put across his thesis. This was not some Red Pill/MRA manifesto or an Alt-Right screed against feminists and minorities.
But it is politically incorrect in its arguments, which in the current climate makes it as toxic as if the author had just proposed we repeal the 13th and 19th Amendments.
I am sure a lot of people at Google agree with much or all of the document's contents, but will stay very quiet about it.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 6, 2017 19:48:09 GMT -5
A smartly written memo/manifesto. Unfortunately...
I submit if racial and gender diversity on the job is so upsetting for conservatives and it makes them feel they cannot express themselves, they should consider finding another job where there is no "open hostility." I can assure the author, employees who are or a different race and/or gender also deal with open hostility on the job. But he's not worried about their problems.
Shout out to the author for "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences)." Nothing like nodding and winking to racist notions about the lack of intelligence of certain groups of color or sexist innuendo of how women lack some of the physical characters of men.
This guy needs more diversity training, not less.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 6, 2017 19:48:56 GMT -5
Thanks, Amadan . It's sad that such witch huntts are no longer surprising, and that more reasonable voices are cowed into submission. Free speech is getting expensive these days.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 6, 2017 20:10:28 GMT -5
Thanks, Amadan . It's sad that such witch huntts are no longer surprising, and that more reasonable voices are cowed into submission. Conformists and cowards often are cowed into submission. That's why they're cowards and conformists.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 6, 2017 22:23:12 GMT -5
Shout out to the author for " the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences)." Nothing like nodding and winking to racist notions about the lack of intelligence of certain groups of color or sexist innuendo of how women lack some of the physical characters of men. This guy needs more diversity training, not less. I think that might be a bit of an uncharitable interpretation of what he said. Research into IQ repeatedly shows consistent, heritable differences in IQ scores between racial/ethnic groups and sexes. These differences are so well-documented that it is considered scientific fact. The same goes for sex differences in a wide variety of other phenomena, even down to such things as toy preferences and infant eye gaze behaviors. However, demonstrating that there are differences is quite different from explaining the origins of those differences (with IQ, for example, my opinion is that a lot of the variability between racial groups can be attributed to socioeconomic factors, but the research on this is not definitive). There is also a marked bias/denialism against these kinds of scientific facts that is unsurprisingly prevalent in certain non-scientific academic disciplines. I think the racism in the discussions of those kinds of subjects comes from people imputing their own bigoted attitudes onto explanations of the origins and significance of some these differences. And, these days, it's becoming increasingly taboo among scientists to explore the actual origins of these differences, lest a political shit-storm ensue. I read the Google author's entire document (as I'm sure you did) and, given his apparent beef with "the left," I suppose it very well could be that he was insinuating what you're suggesting. But, it would also seem kind of a wild departure from the rest of his article's tone for him to randomly insert some sort of Stormfront dog-whistling into only one line of a 10-page thesis. So, while it's undeniable that there are some groups/people who will exploit and distort these differences for their own racist/sexist agendas, I don't believe that's what this author was doing. I can understand why you might have perceived it in that way, but I agreeably disagree that's what he was going for. At least until he started saying stuff like this... I mean, sure, maybe...but he's reeeally stretching credulity here for me and making some big leaps in his explanatory logic. Also, his continual invoking of "The Left" this and "the left" that takes away from what could have been a very effective objective argument. He made some really good, scientifically and culturally valid points. I felt many of his suggestions were pretty reasonable, especially given that diversity training doesn't work. But his overall delivery was marred by blatant political ranting. When I read through it a second time, it started to stick out a bit more to me. He should've just quit while he was ahead. Instead, in some parts close to the end, it started to drip with the same accusatory smugness that he accuses "the left" of having. He should've left out the entire "Why We're Blind" section and taken out all references to "the left." His article would've been better served if he'd avoided attacking the perceived political motivations of Google and instead focused solely on Google's actions and how they run counter to the scientific evidence. I was also a bit turned off by the response from Google's "VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance." 1) Because she failed to use the Oxford Comma in her title and; 2) because of this line: What were the "incorrect assumptions about gender," specifically? Citation, please. Just summarily dismissing the entire document as a bunch of "incorrect assumptions" that express a viewpoint that the company does not "endorse, promote or encourage" (there's that lack of Oxford Comma again) gives the impression that the entire thing was without merit, therefore giving evidence for his assertions that "the left" is in denial. The article raises some very important issues and it's vital that we get back to a point where we can have rational, objective dialectics about them, but I think in this case he somewhat failed in his political attack delivery and Google's VP somewhat failed in her dismissive, pooh-poohing response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2017 23:18:46 GMT -5
Wait. Someone omitted the Oxford comma?
That's just so wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 7, 2017 8:27:36 GMT -5
I submit if racial and gender diversity on the job is so upsetting for conservatives and it makes them feel they cannot express themselves, they should consider finding another job where there is no "open hostility." I can assure the author, employees who are or a different race and/or gender also deal with open hostility on the job. But he's not worried about their problems. He didn't say anything about catering to people who find racial and gender diversity on the job upsetting, "Conservative" is not synonymous with "Racist." I think it's more like being more accepting of people who vote Republican (I know, you probably think it's peachy to ostracize and blacklist anyone who votes Republican, but that's not really a good strategy for an entire industry), or who are religious, or who say things like "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences)." Acknowledging observable differences (which are a fact, and not something you can argue with, except in the sense that you can argue with gravity) is not the same as subscribing to racist or sexist conclusions. It is true that people who edge into those discussions are often reaching or sending up a trial balloon for biological determinism, but your reaction is exactly what the author of the manifesto is talking about - you can't even say "Hey, this is a thing we can actually observe, maybe it's worth studying" without being shut down hard by people who don't even want the questions asked.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 8, 2017 6:46:14 GMT -5
He should've just quit while he was ahead. The article raises some very important issues and it's vital that we get back to a point where we can have rational, objective dialectics about them, but I think in this case he somewhat failed in his political attack delivery and Google's VP somewhat failed in her dismissive, pooh-poohing response. Possibly so. But she's still employed by Google. James Damore no longer is. Embarrassing yourself is one thing. Embarrassing your employer is another. Sucks to be you, Jim-Boy.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 8, 2017 8:50:55 GMT -5
If he didn't know what he was doing to himself, or that he would be outed, he wasn't as smart as he thinks.
That said, I'm pretty disgusted by Google's response and the "pro diversity" jihadists dancing and whooping around the bonfire they created. Yes, I know, Google a legal right to fire him, and given the media outcry it was inevitable they would, but they've made it very clear what sort of discussion and opinions are and are not allowed there.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 8, 2017 10:10:14 GMT -5
It certainly didn't take long for the author's main point to be proven. Shame on Google. And it is very sobering to read the hysterical and mischaracterizing descriptions of this "manifesto" by those on the left. Do these people have no reading comprehension skills? Anti-diversity? Manifesto? Please.
He is considering suing Google. I hope he does, though I wonder if he has grounds to do so.
At least he might not be unemployed for long -
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 8, 2017 13:27:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 8, 2017 14:00:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 8, 2017 15:09:12 GMT -5
If he didn't know what he was doing to himself, or that he would be outed, he wasn't as smart as he thinks. That said, I'm pretty disgusted by Google's response and the "pro diversity" jihadists dancing and whooping around the bonfire they created. Yes, I know, Google a legal right to fire him, and given the media outcry it was inevitable they would, but they've made it very clear what sort of discussion and opinions are and are not allowed there. I'm pretty satisfied with Google's response and I'm laughing my ass off at the "anti-diversity" snowflakes whining and weeping over this doofus getting booted for being a pompous and sexist pig who thinks he's better than the women and people of color who still work at Google. It certainly didn't take long for the author's main point to be proven. Shame on Google. And it is very sobering to read the hysterical and mischaracterizing descriptions of this "manifesto" by those on the left. Do these people have no reading comprehension skills? Anti-diversity? Manifesto? Please. He is considering suing Google. I hope he does, though I wonder if he has grounds to do so. At least he might not be unemployed for long - Well, if your idea of upward mobility is to get fired by Google and move on to WikiLeaks, a subsidiary of the Russian disinformation/vote tampering machine, that's weird, but it's all yours. As usual you've diagnosed the problem, celawson. Misdiagnosed, that is. I'd expect no less than your righteous wrath over Mr. Damore's deserved dismissal, but hey, he brought this shitstorm on himself. Google has the right to terminate any employee who puts out a ten-page memo to go into painstakingly ( and boring) details of how awful diversity is and how awful it is to have women being led to believe they can do the jobs which are clearly done better by those who pee standing up. A former Google employee wrote:As do I. The System doesn't reform as much as it must be reformed. "Diversity" is a bad word to those who find it offensive, ridiculous or a threat. Those of us whom believe a diverse workplace is an asset, not a liability, find someone like Mr. Damore offensive and ridiculous. Whatever threat he posed has now been neutered. When you look at the numbers as Slate did, "Since the search giant started sharing diversity data in 2014, the company’s percentage of black employees in technical roles hasn’t improved at all. It was 1 percent in 2014, and it is 1 percent now. The percentage of female technical staff went up from 18 percent in 2015 to 20 percent this year" the obvious question to be asked is, just what the hell did James Damore have to bitch about?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 8, 2017 16:47:40 GMT -5
I'm pretty satisfied with Google's response and I'm laughing my ass off at the "anti-diversity" snowflakes whining and weeping over this doofus getting booted for being a pompous and sexist pig who thinks he's better than the women and people of color who still work at Google. You didn't read it, did you? It's pretty clear the "former Google employee" you cited didn't either. S/he just assumed, as you do, that anyone who questions the value or extent of programs ostensibly to increase diversity, or who suggests that biological differences exist, is a misogynistic white supremacist. No need to actually read his words - you can read a few cherry-picked quotes and conclude he hates women and minorities and thinks none of them should work at Google. Which of course is nothing at all like what he actually wrote. But you don't need to know what the people you're calling down hellfire upon have actually said, just what people who you agree with say about what they said.
|
|