Labor Board Says Google Could Fire James Damore For Anti-Diversity Memo (theverge.com) 605
According to a recently disclosed letter from the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, Google didn't violate labor laws by firing engineer James Damore for a memo criticizing the company's diversity program. "The lightly redacted statement is written by Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel of the NLRB's division of advice; it dates to January, but was released yesterday, according to Law.com," reports The Verge. "Sophir concludes that while some parts of Damore's memo was legally protected by workplace regulations, 'the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.'" From the report: Damore filed an NLRB complaint in August of 2017, after being fired for internally circulating a memo opposing Google's diversity efforts. Sophir recommends dismissing the case; Bloomberg reports that Damore withdrew it in January, and that his lawyer says he's focusing on a separate lawsuit alleging discrimination against conservative white men at Google. NLRB records state that its case was closed on January 19th. In her analysis, Sophir writes that employers should be given "particular deference" in trying to enforce anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, since these are tied to legal requirements. And employers have "a strong interest in promoting diversity" and cooperation across different groups of people. Because of this, "employers must be permitted to 'nip in the bud' the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a 'hostile workplace,'" she writes. "Where an employee's conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions."
Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:4, Insightful)
between men and women is illegal in this country.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not illegal, just not speech that's granted special legal protection from a company disagreeing with you so vehemently that they feel that you damaged them so badly that they need to fire you.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
This particular topic aside: stop saying that. Freedom of any kind absolutely is freedom from at least specific kinds of consequences. You're "free" (inasmuch as nothing is physically stopping you) to not give a mugger your wallet, if you're willing to accept the consequences of being shot; that doesn't mean you really gave it to him freely in the relevant sociopolitical sense. You're "free" to break the law, so long as you're willing to accept the consequences of the punishment. But absence of such consequ
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes - the point in this case is that it's a very specific type of freedom that's granted by the 1st amendment. Specifically, the government can not ban you from saying things.
This wasn't the government banning him from saying anything, it was google saying "yes, you can say that, but we disagree, and feel that you damaged our image so badly that you're fired". That's an entirely different thing.
No one from a government agency put him in prison, or legally punished him in any way for saying what he said, t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This particular topic aside: stop saying that.
No.
Not just no, but fuck no.
Seriously with friends like you, free speech does not need enemies.
If speech is inconsequential then it's barely worth defending. It's only as important as it is because it has not just consequences but massive, important consequences. With a gun you can kill a few people. With speech, you can topple an empire. You know, liberty or death and all that shit.
Freedom of any kind absolutely is freedom from at least specific kinds of conse
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That should go down in history as one of the famous quotes.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:4, Insightful)
The phrase "freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences," deliberately and pointedly oversimplifies a problem that is much more difficult than a few words. If you can expect your life to be ruined extrajudicially for exercising your freedom of speech, then by default, it does not exist in a practical sense for the vast majority. Only those who are independently wealthy will be able to exercise the right, and for everyone else it will be a cruel mockery of a right. The rest will be able to speak when they express the "correct" ideas.
This is worse than not having freedom of speech at all, because it provides the illusion of it while at the same time destroying it for the common people. And that is what we effectively have in this case, and in a lot of other cases.
Punishment does not need to be issued from a judge's bench or a firing squad to ruin a life, and your practical contempt for free speech and desire to make it effectively an imaginary construct lends little credence to your judgment of who is or is not the enemy of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can be punished for doing something, then you are not free to do it.
You are perfectly free to do it, and then you will receive your expected consequence. In the US legal frame, that consequence will not be criminal prosecution. Didn't you learn that in grade school?
Re: (Score:3)
What we're really saying, then, is that nobody has the "freedom" to work for Google.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how freedom dies, by redefining what it is.
Freedom of speech is not just a government law, it's also a cultural value. When people or organizations don't support or tolerated dissenting opinions, then they are unambiguously against free speech. If the culture doesn't support a particular freedom, the legislation won't be far behind.
Arguing otherwise reminds me of the old Polish joke: In Poland we have freedom of speech. In America you have freedom after speech.
citations (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't make original claims, he cited peer reviewed journal articles! If citing scientific journals (even ones later found to be wrong) is disruptive then we need to be disrupted. I'm not worried about damore, he is set for life on the speaking circuit, but all those people stuck in these companies who are afraid to speak their mind make me sad. My workplace is the opposite. If it was found you voted Democratic you would be ostracized. It is a megacorp, but in a sector with conservative selection bias. I have friends who are liberal and they feel they can't mention opinions at work and I hate that for them.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:4, Informative)
"The court" didn't rule on anything. A single person, Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel of the NLRB’s division of advice, decided in an analysis that “the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.”
Basically, without actually providing any counter-evidence to dispute any claims made by Davore, she dismisses his claims as discriminatory and of a sexually harassing nature.
The letter proper is the following link.
http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/docu... [nlrb.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
That says that Congress (and then via the later incorporation clause, state legislatures) cannot infring on free speech. It says nothing one way or another about whether or not anyone else may infringe on it. Free speech is broader than just the first amendment, which accepta it as a preexisting right and prohibits congress from infringing it.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you say it, there are a trove of idiots that just don't get it. Freedom of speech allows you to express yourself without criminal prosecution, but that's about it.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Interesting)
This may not be a freedom of speech issue but it is still a dick move by Google. One that I hope comes back and bites them in the ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Only as long as google continues to play the socjus game. If they did nothing and let the paper sit there and collect support/criticism like any other, it would've eventually blown over. Too many corporates are bending knee to this shit. They need to stop. It's costing them money and damaging society as a whole.
Re: (Score:3)
You might think I'm over-hyping that, but we're out here talking about it almost a year later!
The fact that we are still talking about it almost a year later should be a indication of how poorly it was handled by Google. If Google would have just internally disciplined him and not fired him, we probably would never heard about it at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Let the mob rule begin!!!
Problem is, groups of people are really dumb, and do terrible things, for terrible reasons. And furthermore, they cannot tell that they're being dumb. From their point of view, they thing they're doing the right thing. This is the dynamic behind many historic tragedies. And it is precisely what you're advocating for. Because, you know, your team is right!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the relevant part of the decision: (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 page 5)
The Charging Partyâ(TM)s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. statements about immutable traits linked to sexâ"such as womenâ(TM)s heightened neuroticism and menâ(TM)s prevalence at the top of the IQ distributionâ"were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, not withstanding effort to cloak comments with âoescientificâ references and analysis, and notwithstanding âoenot all womenâ disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace. Indeed, the memorandum did cause extreme discord, which the Charging Party exacerbated by deliberately expanding its audience. Numerous employees complained to the Employer that the memorandum was discriminatory against women, deeply offensive, and made them feel unsafe at work. Moreover, the Charging Party reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace. Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so. Thus, while much of the Charging Partyâ(TM)s memorandum was likely protected, the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.
So basically:
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
2. The use of softening language / disclaimers like "not all women" and "on average" don't help him.
3. He distributed the memo himself initially, expanding its audience, and should have known that such an inflammatory document would be more widely distributed once circulated.
4.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited."
There is no way to make a contrary argument any more. All further discussion is prohibited to anyone who wants a job.
It's like the Catholic church saying the sun rotates around the earth and anyone who tries to say otherwise is subject to excommunication (or worse).
Damore may be wrong, but this is not progress.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no way to make a contrary argument any more.
You don't get some sort of right of first dibs simply by speaking first. If your argument is not sound, people don't have to come up with a rigorus rebuttal to the central premise of your thesis, they merely have to point out where your argument is unsound.
Otherwise, the burden is always massively on the second person. You're basically absolving the first person of the need to make a coherent argument.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I am not absolving the first person.
Given that the second person has a massive burden, it behooves us to give him/her an opportunity to state a case.
But you are not only enacting a "massive burden", you are also erecting further barriers by shutting down discussion.
Sounds like you are scared your beliefs may be found wanting? If you are confident, then welcome opposition in the knowledge that you will be strengthened.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no way to make a contrary argument any more. All further discussion is prohibited to anyone who wants a job.
The last time I heard that, it was about climate science. The time before that, it was about evolution. It wasn't true either of those times, either.
Here in the real world, if someone can actually disprove the prevailing wisdom in some academic field, it would make their academic career. History is full of examples, especially in fields where non-academics are convinced there's a grand conspiracy to prevent it from happening.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless, of course, the author just said that to avoid being driven out of academia for heresy.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless, of course, the author just said that to avoid being driven out of academia for heresy.
Your argument is edging awfully close to:
If they agree with me, they're right.
If they disagree with me it's only because they're too afraid to agree.
Literally nothing anyone could say would change your opinion. That is not a rational position to take.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't express a personal opinion. I just observed that when expressing an opinion (any opinion) that goes against orthodoxy becomes a firing offense it becomes hard to know what anyone actually believes.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that if you lay traits out on spectra, you'll find two bell curves with a great deal of overlap, one representing women, another representing men. Much of that may be a matter of socialization, but that doesn't make it not exist.
None of that is a value judgement and none of it grants an overall superiority to either gender.
Damore made too much of that and made a few poor word choices, but then many people read a LOT more into it than he actually wrote.
But perhaps more to the point here, what he wrote wasn't hostile, nor was it anti-diversity. Right or wrong, he seemed to genuinely want to foster more diversity. He did not release it outside of Google and shows no sign of intent that it ever be read outside of Google. Interestingly, as far as we know, the jackass that published his essay for the world seems not to have been penalized at all.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it possible to perform a rigorous study with the hypothesis that there are inherent gender differences?
Is there no science because the hypothesis is incorrect, or because the science cannot be objectively performed and peer-reviewed?
It seems we'll never know.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a hypothesis, does your wife have a penis?
Re: (Score:3)
"women should belong in the kitchen" is not an argument, it is a opinion on what should be allowable for women. It should be dismissed on the basis of the right to autonomy. And it is not amenable to scientific study.
The statement "In general, women are happier in a kitchen than in a laboratory" is also an opinion. It may or may not be correct, but it does not take away autonomy. And is is amenable to study, which should be reproducible.
But the studies of gender equivalence are not allowed to be reprod
Re: (Score:2)
I should also add that the Labour Board was at pains to point out that they don't accept imagined or spurious slights, the harm, discrimination and disruption has to be real. They cite other cases where people have been disciplined after making bogus claims of harm, and that in this case they judged that his memo wasn't just triggering snowflakes or whatever.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
2. The use of softening language / disclaimers like "not all women" and "on average" don't help him.
It absolutely amazes me people are still trying to make everyone believe men and women are the same physically and mentally. That they think and care about the same things and all differences can be explained away by environmental pressures. This is plainly false to everyone and everyone knows it. No study or research required. It is a plainly obvious fact. Girls like girl shit and boys like boy shit. It's just the way shit is.
Damore was fucking trying to get more girls interested in boy shit by makin
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we need a scientific argument to explain neuroticism in females? It is a self evident truth that is backed by research. [wikipedia.org] So where is the "debunked"?
Except that is what our best research says.
"Facts are inflammatory"
Why? If women are the same as men, women withdrawing and being replaced by men shouldn't be a problem should it?
Except this is bullshit. Would you like me to explain the birds and bees to you before we get started on sexual dimorphism and evolution? Damore was arguing for more female engagement in the workplace and you are a shill!
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:4, Informative)
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
Personally, I think that the Myers-Briggs studies he brought up were awful, but I don't think that was his fault. Have you actually read them? If he made mistakes, or if his information was outdated, you correct him. That's how we resolve differences. Some people can't be corrected, that's true enough, but honestly, I don't think that was the case for him
2. The use of softening language / disclaimers like "not all women" and "on average" don't help him.
No, those were quantifiers, not disclaimers.
And unlike President Trump for instance, Damos used quantifiers pretty well actually. Many feminists could learn a thing or two from him instead of using absolute quantifiers, or instead of using no quantifier at all.
3. He distributed the memo himself initially, expanding its audience, and should have known that such an inflammatory document would be more widely distributed once circulated.
He distributed the memo inside an official working group of ~8 people. He didn't expand the memo behind that. Others did it for him.
4. People complained and actually withdraw from job opportunities as a result. Snowflakes or otherwise, there was measurable damage done to Google's workplace.
Not to mention men.
I guarantee you that far many more men stopped applying to Google than women after their reaction to Damos.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Informative)
1. That should not matter, the science was published, and the conclusions he took from it are a valid conclusion, so to the best of his ability he was stating fact, normally THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH. The fact that some of the publishers (not all not, some actually said his interpretation was correct) since backpedaled on their own research is hardly Damores fault. You are not required to be CORRECT in all interpretations, just to have not presented things you know to be false - this is LONG established - otherwise everyone would be required to be THE leading expert in everything they said - which is obviously impossible.
2 - Why not? Because you want to change what he was saying? He made it clear he was speaking of averages and trends, not absolutes - and then is getting punished as though he stated absolutes.
3 - He (amongst others) was asked by his employer to write their thoughts on the subject and publish them to a specific internal location - he did exactly as requested by his employer. He is no was distributed it further than that - where is the punishment for those who did? Why is he being punished for following instructions of his employer?
4 - Why is that his responsibility? Google asked people for their thoughts, he did exactly as asked. The fact that they did not like the response was not his fault - perhaps they should have had a process in place to vet submissions if they didnt want such opinions.
5 - Why not? They are very well known science, and the fact that they may be unpopular amongst some at present does not change than, neither does a backpedal on published research by some of the people involved (but, importantly, not all, and not the leaders in the field) does not change that. He published information that was at that time publicly published in respectable scientific journals - why should he be punished for repeating such content?
The situation we are creating here is one where someone can get punished for repeating publicly accepted (by peer reviewed journal publishing) information in a way their employer asked them to, because the employer felt embarrassed about it after the fact. Think about the ramifications of that for a while.
Also note that NO action was taken against him at the time he followed the instructions of Google - in fact it was only taken after a 3rd party made this information public. THAT, above all else, should indicate that Googles actions are blindingly wrong.
Read the judgement (Score:3)
Now, you can argue he didn't intend to do that (in fact that's exactly what you're doing) but that wouldn't be the conclusion of the labor board. The labor board disagrees with you.
For my money I don't have enough information. I'd want to know what happened with the document after he wrote it. Who did
Re: Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Well shit it looks like people at the NLRB didn't read the actual memo either. Damore had written specifically against forming stereotypes based on differences in population distributions because of their overlaps.
The NLRB called such quantifiers defining the scope and context of what he wrote "softening language" (although how one could possibly construct a meaningful argument regarding real-world problems without quantifiers puzzles me). The NLRB knows what Damore *really* meant [nudge-nudge, wink-wink] even if he wrote the exact opposite and cited multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies from multiple sources to back it up.
What an evil genius Damore must be to have written a cited memo that to most of us means wh
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If he'd prefixed the memo with "Allah (PBUH) says ..." you'd be supporting him 100%.
Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... (Score:5, Interesting)
Another point in his favour is that he was saying that there are better ways to make the gender balance more equal than 'illegal discrimination'
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
The harm of Google's biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
* 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
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google. ...
Suggestions
I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.
* As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims."
Stop alienating conservatives.
* Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
* In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
* Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google's biases.
* I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
* I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
* These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
If you say that you agree with what your employer is trying to do but they way they are doing it 'incentivising illegal discrimination' and suggest legal alternatives that makes you a whistleblower. CA has a whistleblower protection law -
https://www.workplacefairness.... [workplacefairness.org]
Could Damore claim under it? I'm not sure. If I were him I'd try though.
Racist facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientifically backed research is now just "opinion" in the eyes of the Left. And they have the gall to call others "anti-science".
Never mind that men and women being different and having different motivators and goals in life is something you pick up even in elementary school. It shouldn't take a research paper to tell you that which is obvious.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Scientifically backed research is now just "opinion" in the eyes of the Left. And they have the gall to call others "anti-science".
Wait, who is the "left" here? The Labour Board is going by the science, as explained to them by the authors of the studies that Damore cited. So the one treating the research as just "opinion" would be Damore, since he reaches a different conclusion to it despite not being a peer reviewed scientist himself.
I don't think that fits Damore at all. He seems to have just made a mistake. He did that classic internet rationalist thing of deciding on his opinion first and then looking for some science to back it up
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly you do not understand the difference between a science degree and any other stem degree. Sure from the social arts side, it all looks different but from the stem side, it's just a couple of alternate subjects, no more difficult than any other stem course and for example somewhat easier than engineering courses. Anyone out of stem who read the memo saw it exactly for what is was. Any from the arts side, in the most self evident neurotic way imaginable read it through their beliefs and typical for wom
Re:Racist facts (Score:4, Insightful)
AmiMoJo, why don't you try linking to claims made actual scientists, rather than journalists?!??
Here is a comprehensive scientific evaluation of the factual points made in the Google Memo:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ [heterodoxacademy.org]
The science is generally in agreement with Damore, and certainly far from "dubious". Here is an article at Psychology Today that makes similar claims:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers [psychologytoday.com]
Re:Racist facts (Score:4, Informative)
Read the article I linked to, they interviewed the actual authors of the study. Not some other scientists, the people who wrote the studies that Damore cited as scientific evidence in his memo. And they said in clear, unambiguous language that his conclusions were unwarranted.
The main issue is not that there are not differences between genders, no one is disputing that. The problem is the degree to which they influence career choice and performance. The authors of the actual studies Damore cites say that the differences are small and would not account for the low percentage of women working at Google.
Perhaps Damore will cite those other people you found in his lawsuit. The problem is that the court will consider the memo as it was when he circulated it at Google. He can't very well try to argue against the authors of the studies he cites as evidence of his own views, so it's hard to see how he can win on the grounds of his memo being scientifically sound.
Re:Racist facts (Score:5, Insightful)
I just read the article. There were a few quotes from scientists that really weren't all that cogent in "debunking" anything Damore wrote. On top of that, most of article was a big giant pile of projection. The central thesis to that article was that James Damore started at a conclusion and cherry picked findings to assert to support his pre-supposed conclusion. What is actually going on is the opposite. What is actually going on from what I read in that article was the converse. In fact, it seems like the author of the wired article is far more guilty of that logical sin than Damore is.
In any case, the scientists that Damore cites actually say that women tend to do better than men in math related subjects. How do I know this? Months ago out of sheer curiosity I read the damn studies. Damore didn't falsely represent the findings.
So, if women are generally sharper at math than men, why then do women shy away from STEM fields? The science has shown over and over that women typically favor working in social environments, and men the opposite. This is why you see a a massive disparity of gender ratio in fields like veterinary medicine and nursing. Why don't you see new agencies blasting the medical field for such gender disparities?
Simply put, people gravitate towards what interests them. That is the essence of what Damore was saying, and i'm sorry but psychological science by and large has settled the matter that men and women in general are interested in different things. What is more sad about the rage against Damore is that he in fact suggested ways in the memo in which the tech industry might go about attracting more women. His whole point was that arbitrary affirmative action and quotas were not going to solve the problem. You had to solve the interest problem first. Being blind to facts and truth will hinder you from ever making the progress you actually want to achieve. He wasn't trying to explain reasons why women should stay out of tech, rather he was explaining why they aren't getting into tech, and what could be done to actually resolve it instead of trying to push the fantasy narrative of SJWs claiming that men and women are pretty much the same biologically and psychologically in all aspects. That's bullshit and sane people know it. If you want real progress, you have to start with truth.
Re:Racist facts (Score:5, Informative)
You are lying openly and systematically throughout this thread. The science on biological differences between men and women has been settled for almost half a century now. The screaming by people like you that "evolution ends at the neck, and everything above it is socially constructed", while enacting catholic-grade punishments for breaching your dogma is horrifying and clean cut anti-science.
There was nothing discriminatory or bigoted about the memo. Damore was asked what to do about the problem of too few women at Google. Like a proper engineer he broke the problem down based on scientific facts, and then made suggestions.
And like folks like Galilei and Copernicus, he ran afoul the religious fanatics such as yourself, who are at the reigns of power in today's world and have no qualms in using societal punishment to silence anyone who dares to challenge their dogmatic anti-scientific beliefs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The science on biological differences between men and women has been settled for almost half a century now.
No it hasn't.
And it's especially entertaining that your argument that someone is lying is to simply make stuff up.
I wn't claim you're lying because I believe you're deluded enough t oactually believe this and are therefore arguing in god but woefully misguided faith.
Re:Racist facts (Score:5, Informative)
When the story first broke, I didn't even bother checking Damore's exact references on the science. A quick google search will turn up tens of thousands of journal articles [google.com] substantiating that the gender differences he specified do in fact exist.
If you can come up a similar list of empirical studies which show no gender difference, then you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise you are using your preconceptions and biases to subvert scientific facts.
If you actually cared about the science, the very first link in my search above presents in its abstract (so you only need to spend 15 seconds reading) an obvious scientific rebuttal to Damore's memo. Women score higher on neuroticism than men. Men score higher on psychoticism. You can then make the scientific argument that gender differences exist, but they tend to cancel out. Since the null theory has to be that there is no difference (you cannot prove a negative), it then becomes the scientific duty of those advocating that there is a difference to analyze the data and show that it doesn't cancel out.
But that's not what happened. That would entail admitting that gender differences exist, and the people crucifying Damore can't have that. So they did what they could to discredit the science - ask paper authors until one of them presented opinions conciliatory to their POV. They then use that singular opinion as an excuse to ignore the entire body of scientific work on the topic.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok so lets just say I am right 99.8% of the time. the other 0.2% can be up for debate.
Well, no. The fact that 99.8% (for sake of argument) of people fit neatly into one category or the other means you're still wrong 100% of the time that there are only two caegories.
If you had done any stats then you would call that proven. If you want absolutes then we could debate that out. I am not angry that you disagree with me but it is a symptom of the propergander from the LGBT that people are confused about the bas
Re:Racist facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't agree more. This thread is full of people saying effectively that if you disagree with the Blank Slate view of humanity, you're a bigot and a science denier and need to be hounded out of society.
If on the other hand you pay lip service to that idea you get promoted to places like NLRB. I.e. it's setting up a horrible dystopia where the left's views are The Science and anyone who disagrees is a heretic that needs to be ruined.
And it's not even as if the left's views are stable. E.g. Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins were regarded as being left wing stalwarts even ten years ago. Now Overton window has shifted to the point where they've all been no platformed.
It's like the Medieval Catholic church where heliocentrism was OK when Copernicus suggested it but Galileo sinned in being a bit rude about the priesthood and was stomped on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Similarly Pinker could criticise the Blank Slate without much pushback in 2002. Now any attempt to suggest that men and women are, on average, different is completely unacceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The most depressing thing about Damore is that his critics aren't criticising what he said, rather they're criticising what other critics of him said that he said.
Then again if you're going to shrink the Overton window it's probably easier to pick on some tongue tied autist like Damore over someone like Jordan Peterson. Peterson gives a much better defence of his ideas than Damore does. And most of the ideas in the memo seem to come from Peterson.
Peterson was attacked by the left, but it doesn't seem to have done him any harm. In fact he probably makes more on Patreon than he ever did at his day job.
That's a sure sign that a lot of people are pissed off at the people attacking him even if, unlike Damore, those people know better than to dissent from the orthodoxy the left are trying to enforce.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop blatantly lying AmiMoJo.
Many of the authors involved have publicly come out stating that his interpretation of their research is technically correct.
A few (notably, not those leading in their field) had said that they disagree with his memo itself, however none have claimed that the science is actually incorrect.
After all, this is not exactly bleeding edge science - it is well established fact that has been deeply studied and well proven.
In fact there are many differences that ARE embraced by the very
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, for fuck's sake, the ruling is based on the people D'amore quoted, saying his conclusions were wrong.
What more do you need? What you call facts aren't. At all.
Only problem with that is that it is not actually true.
Re:Racist facts (Score:4, Insightful)
I really tried teaching my girl programming, and she was good as a beginner, immediately learned the basic principles and could write programs better than most of her class. But the thing is, the moment I stopped pushing programming, she forgot it. She's much more interested in makeup, clothes and her social circle. She doesn't have that starry look in her eyes when talking about what she can make computers do. So she has the skill and mental power but not the drive or interest to do it. I just accepted this reality out of respect for her. She has a better path for herself, and I might not be able to fully understand her values as she does.
I guess (Score:5, Funny)
The checks must have cashed.
Read the damn thing. (Score:5, Informative)
There is so much disinformation surrounding Damore.
His memo was not against diversity. He specifically included very well-researched and reasoned suggestions on how to encourage more women to get involved and make tech more attractive to them as a career choice.
Read the damn thing yourself, people.
Re:Read the damn thing. (Score:5, Informative)
My son's taking pre engineering courses.
In his science and math courses, there might be one or two females.
So far, after about 4 weeks of class time, ALL of the females have dropped the courses.
We wonder why there aren't a lot of women in STEM courses.
Well, this could be one of the reasons.
Similarly, I tried to talk my niece in to taking engineering courses. She quit after the first semester. Her reason: "Math is too difficult" (I am not kidding).
Re:Read the damn thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I got into programming on the 6502 because I liked programming, especially low level programming. When I went to university I picked electronic engineering because I wanted to know more about how hardware worked. Both low level coding and engineering are very seriously skewed towards men.
Now if you look at Damore's memos his point was simply that not seeing 50% men and 50% women was not prima facie evidence of discrimination. He also explained a bunch of reasons why men might be more likely to pick engineer
Re: (Score:2)
He got fired because that simply isn't a "fact". It is just a "statement" (his opinion). Sor
Re:Read the damn thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
What is a "fact"? That's not a scientific term, so how are you using it? It's very close to a "measurement", which is the basis for all science. Sure, there's some judgement involved as to what personality traits make one better at software development, and it undoubtedly varies by field, but the measured differences between the statistical distributions in men and women are certainly facts. The fact that in the Scandi countries, where great pains have been taken to remove social pressure and allow people to choose the career of their choice, engineering is 95% male and nursing is 95% female is, well, a fact.
So, it's a fact there are differences in preference. It's a fact there are differences in ability - though how to weigh those differences is a matter of judgement.
It's also a fast that Google interviews for dev positions in the way least likely to produce gender equality, by focusing narrowly on the most technical aspects of the job and ignoring measuring the social aspects of the jobs entirely from what I saw. FFS Google, if you want more women, then interview as if software development was the team effort it actually is!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Read the damn thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Her reason: "Math is too difficult"
Great example of how stereotypes can be harmful. In the UK girls overtook boys in maths at school over a decade ago. They are measurably better at maths than boys, once the stereotypes about girls being bad at maths are addressed. Efforts are also being made to address the things that cause boys to lag behind in maths, because no one seriously thinks that boys are biologically inferior with numbers.
Another interested and related example is how in some European countries with high levels of gender equality the number of women studying STEM is rather low, yet in countries where women are widely oppressed like Iran they are actually the majority. Turns out that because engineering and medicine are not prestigious careers in Iran they are often majority female at university, but in European countries even when there is equality in wages and conditions those centuries of cultural stereotypes are really hard to shake off, especially if it feels like the battle has already been won.
"[Girls] are measurably better at maths than boys" (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK girls overtook boys in maths at school over a decade ago.
Exactly when they stopped testing accrued competence in 2000. When they returned to an objective competency test in 2017:
A-level results 2017: Boys overtake girls in top grades for first time in years [independent.co.uk]
Some 43 per cent of male maths candidates scored an A or higher, compared with 41.1 per cent of girls.
Re: (Score:2)
Her reason: "Math is too difficult" (I am not kidding).
Your argument is basically "I sopke to a woman once therefore I know everything about the issue".
I notice you didn't touch on the motivations of the men tha tdropped out of the course.
So far, after about 4 weeks of class time, ALL of the females have dropped the courses.
Plus you know, it's not that there's anything wrong with saying "females", it's just that you sounds a bit like a Ferengi when you say it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually the Labour Board specifically examined his research and claims that his statements were backed up by science. Since the authors of some of those papers have publicly rejected his conclusions it would be odd if the Labour Board went against their expert opinions and agreed that Damore's interpretation was the correct one, given that they are lawyers and not scientists and that Damore hasn't been peer reviewed or even qualified.
This outcome was inevitable as soon as it became clear that he got the sc
Re: (Score:2)
Google could probably get the authors of those studies to testify against him if necessary, and he couldn't exactly try to discredit the sources he relies on his own memo.
You underestimate the ability of lawyers to find holes in our convoluted legal system.
IANAL, but as an example, as a plaintiff, Damore's lawyer could always pre-emptively call the authors as a hostile witnesses and attempt to discredit their conclusion from their data on the stand and plant Damore's interpretation in the eyes of the jury before the google lawyers (representing the defendant) get a chance at remediation. Who knows what a jury would think...
I'm sure a real lawyer could come up with something
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bigots commonly use a lot of scientific facts and observations to support their bigotry. This does not in any way, shape or form invalidate the scientific facts and observations.
You know it's coming... (Score:2)
... a call to clean house of the Deep Staters at the NRLB.
Jayme Sophir (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.judicialwatch.org/... [judicialwatch.org]
In response to an April 29, 2011, Wall Street Journal article, calling on President Obama to explain the NLRB lawsuit against Boeing, NLRB attorney Jayme Sophir issues a one word email response on May 2, 2011, to NLRB attorney Debra Willen, Division of Advice: âoeUgh.â
She was appointed by Obama
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
An Obama administration holdover at the National Labor Relations Board recommended last year that a case accusing President Donald Trumpâ(TM)s businesses and presidential campaign of requiring workers to sign unlawful confidentiality agreements be dismissed, according to a memo released this week.
Associate General Counsel Jayme Sophir in an advice memo dated Oct. 31, 2017 said there was no evidence that the agreements were ever enforced, and the law firm that brought the case, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, did not file it on behalf of any employees of the Trump Organization Inc or the campaign.
I think it's safe to assume Sophir is a left winger.
Article here
https://www.wsj.com/articles/S... [wsj.com]
It's paywalled, but you can read it here
http://archive.is/1pp1R [archive.is]
South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and we're proud that within our borders workers cannot be required to join a labor union as a condition of employment. We don't need unions playing middlemen between our companies and our employees. We don't want them forcefully inserted into our promising business climate. And we will not stand for them intimidating South Carolinians.
That is apparently too much for President Obama and his union-beholden appointees at the National Labor Relations Board, who have asked the courts to intervene and force Boeing to stop production in South Carolina. The NLRB wants Boeing to produce the planes only in Washington state, where its workers must belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
Let's be clear: Boeing is a great corporate citizen in Washington and in South Carolina. The company chose to come to our state because the cost of doing business is low, our job training and work force are strong, and our ports are tremendous. The fact that we are a right-to-work state is an added bonus.
The actions by the NLRB are nothing less than a direct assault on the 22 right-to-work states across America. They are also an unprecedented attack on an iconic American company that is being told by the federal governmentâ"which seems to regard its authority as endlessâ"where and how to build airplanes.
The president has been silent since his hand-selected NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon, who has not yet been confirmed by the United States Senate as required by law, chose to engage in economic warfare on behalf of the unions last week.
While silence in this case can be assumed to mean consent, President Obama's silence is not acceptableâ"not to me, and certainly not to the millions of South Carolinians who are rightly aghast at the thought of the greatest economic development success our state has seen in decades being ripped away by federal bureaucrats who appear to be little more than union puppets.
Basically Nikki Haley criticised the Obama admin for taking Boeing to court over setting up shop in a 'right to work' state where workers don't have to join a union..
Presumably her reaction to Damore's memo was a similarly visceral 'Ugh'.
So it's not surprising she's decided that the labor rules she's so keen on defending don't appl
Re: (Score:2)
He was wrong to not sack all the Obama holdovers but I can see why people voted for him given how if Clinton had won the left would have even more power, including control over SCOTUS appointments. And all the signs are that would mean a serious erosion of constitutional rights.
And let's face it if he had sacked all the Obama holdovers the media would be full of scare stories about how he was LITERALLY HITLER for doing it.
Given a choice between an well organised group who aim to abolish freedom and a disorg
IT jobs aren't that great (Score:2)
Women might be too smart to take them.
Same as in Venezuela (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw this happen in Venezuela: first the ideologues pump their ideology for years, get people to fall in love with their romantic left-wing utopia where human nature dosn't really exist and is a product of society and can and changed at will with enough enthusiasm and—if that doesn't work—good old-fashioned repression. As long as government is not on board the "harmelss" ideas spread and do not cause that much damage. Eventually authorities are elected that are ideologically compromised and we end up with an authoritarian left-wing dictatorship.
To deny human nature and the findings of science is to deny ourselves understanding that can lead to improvement of our collective quality of life. But if we prefer to be sedated into ideology and expect science to always reinforce our already-established value systems we will just deepen our miseries and do a disservice to ourselves and future generations.
I read Damore's memo. There is nothing there that disagrees with modern psychology. The findings he refers to have been discovered by psychologists and sociologists from prestigious institutions using sound methodologies. We better accept the information that science gives us and decide how we'll organise incorporating rather than denying the uncomfortable bits. Science doesn't tell us how to be moral, it just tells us what is. It is up to us to find meaning and fairness within the context of what is, and not fall into the trap of thinking that what ought to be is what is. The Universe doesn't need to follow our moral convictions du-jour.
Not really a federal case (Score:4, Insightful)
Federal labor law doesn't make political speech a protected class in employment.
California law, however, does. [ca.gov]
His lawsuit is going to be a lot more complicated than the news media (and most people who read it) can comprehend.
Not a Left v. Right Thing -- It's NOW vs. Judicios (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not that simple nor is the argument along the line of political leanings. It's about speed and collateral damage.
Nearly a decade ago, the Tea Party Movement began its own irrational and loud stranglehold on conservative politics. There were loyalty oaths and identity politics. The Republican party is still trying to re-discover itself and its integrity having sold itself to the more ignorant side of populism.
Today, following almost the same exact playbook, there is a very vocal minority of the liberal-leaning part of America who is choosing activism over advocacy, punishment over education, and change now without consideration for collateral damage. Again, the face of irrational populism peaks over the the horizon.
These are the same beasts with different goals. Both are repulsed by the long-game of social change. They refuse to accept that society changes at the speed of generations. They don't want to accept that engineers are grown from a young age, not simply given jobs. They don't care that reducing deficit first comes with a better-educated populace and thus a better workforce. They want what they want NOW. They want to show short term gains because all will be damned if they didn't make their mark on this world before they shuffle this mortal coil.
But then there are the mature conservatives and the mature liberals who know that it simply takes time to coexist and progress together. It takes time to convince people to compromise and it takes time for those who refuse to compromise to die off. And when you force try to force people to change under threat of loss of loss of livelihood or try to shoe-horn in a solution that benefits the very few without consideration for the many, you will get widespread resentment, rebellion, and reaction. And the cycle will continue.
Or we can simply teach our young parents that they should foster the spark of nerd they see in their daughters as they would an ember in tinder instead of immediately reaching for the Barbies and pom-poms. They should step in to prevent the mockery of nerds, gamers, and computer users so that there is less social resentment harbored by those who choose to be so engrossed in the loving blue glow of a monitor. And then allow those better-adjusted, better-educated, and more equitably educated children grow up and show their actual demand in their chosen fields of work.
Or we can just keep trying to force it and fighting about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly a decade ago, the Tea Party Movement began its own irrational and loud stranglehold on conservative politics. There were loyalty oaths and identity politics. The Republican party is still trying to re-discover itself and its integrity having sold itself to the more ignorant side of populism.
I know what you're saying, but I think you're missing some of the history before that. The rise of populism is a reaction to the kind of Straussian fundamentalism [wikipedia.org] that took over conservative politics a few decades earlier. It's hard to say when this really "began", but the place I'd identify is the Powell Memorandum [reclaimdemocracy.org] of 1971. It really picked up momentum in the aftermath of Watergate.
In the late 70s, fundamentalists started hostile takeovers of conservative institutions such as the NRA and the Southern Bapti [mchorse.com]
Math contest results vs high school results (Score:3)
Here are the math contest results http://www.cemc.uwaterloo.ca/c... [uwaterloo.ca] you will see a Cynthia on the 6th page of the results. That's the first woman's name I recognized
Summary title (Score:3, Informative)
>"Labor Board Says Google Could Fire James Damore For Anti-Diversity Memo"
And thus, misinformation continues to flow. His memo was not "anti-diversity." A correct title could be:
"Labor Board Says Google Could Fire James Damore For Memo About Anti-Diversity Program"
"Labor Board Says Google Could Fire James Damore For His Memo Criticizing Google's Diversity Program"
Putting the cart before the horse... (Score:3)
Particularly the latter scientifically-backed point is so benign that claiming it's somehow sexist makes it clear that the labor board just went looking for stuff to be offended over and when they couldn't find anything genuinely offensive they went for the closest thing. A board that makes it's decisions based on bad information and then rather than changing it's mind when having to examine the actual facts has some serious serious issues.
Republicans (Score:3)
You guys, the same idiots who said bakers have the right to refuse service to gays, are the ones now saying Google should be forced to let declared mysognists stay on there staff? Unless you are a racist, you cant be against affirmative action while saying companies dont have the right to hire or fire who at will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The memo tried to find ways to fix the problem. That is something modern feminism cannot tolerate (hence the extreme response). If they lose their victim-status, what do they have left?
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Translation: (Score:3)
NLRB are stooges of big business, responsible for giving a veneer of "lawfulness" to the predations of capital against labor.
So no surprise here: Stooges be stoogin'
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Define "nasty things", please.
And while we're at it, please define "hostile" as well.
Right now, as I see things (and please correct me if I'm wrong, with arguments if possible), both those terms are very loosely defined, boiling down to "anything that fits one's agenda".
I really want those defined and clarified, it would help a long way making workplaces a better environment.
Re: Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you see that is the problem; those things are never defined, and the people in charge of the definitions tend to use them more politically and socially, While pretending it's all in the name of compassion
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense if laws where well defined then you wouldn't need courts to make a ruling, and you would never get an appeal court overturning the laws. Courts are able to make legal rulings because they are people. People are capable of coming to conclusions from 1 minute of news article, it doesn't mean that their conclusion is right. Take for example people not even reading the article on slashdot. When have you ever heard of a ruling where the judge says I am just not sure of what the law is so I can't make up
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Define "nasty things", please.
And while we're at it, please define "hostile" as well.
See, here's the problem with this: Harassment is inherently subjective. The same thing can be enjoyable to one person, and ruin another person's life.
That's why (to pick one example) all sane legal frameworks say that, unless it is over some clearly objective threshold to begin with, it's not illegal/fireable unless it continues after you've been asked to stop.
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
The rules are simple:
1. Fuck you, plebs
2. You have no rights
3. You lose
4. Bow before the nomenklatura
5. Fuck you, plebs
I guess that's why the current regime needs a repressive police state to maintain its grip on power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Translation: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Be a gross human being, get fired for it (Score:3)
You seem to have mistaken "conservative" for "capitalist running dog". These days the latter tend to self-identify as "progressive".
Re: (Score:3)
I really dislike useless stereotypical descriptions.
You can be conservative and want more government regulation. You can be progressive and want less government regulation. An individual can be conservative on some issues, progressive on others, and want more or less government regulation depending on the issue.
People and their views are a little bit more nuanced than "left" and "right".