5 ms·

> It's not about virtue signaling, he was almost certain to be terminated just because it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say - you can't tell your teammates

by darawk 9y ago

> It's not about virtue signaling, he was almost certain to be terminated just because it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say - you can't tell your teammates that they were hired because their employer lowered the bar and expect people not to be upset about it It should absolutely be ok, if it's true. Which it unequivocally is. > (and that's 100% what he did, he also made up pseudo-scientific bullshit to try to justify it, but he flat out insulted countless people within his company). What about his post was pseudo-scientific? He cited studies, and to my knowledge, the actual facts of what he said are fairly uncontroversial. > - The next time a woman interviews for his team, and he votes against hiring, how does the hiring committee interpret that vote? Did you read the document? He explicitly embraces diversity. He even says he's in favor of programs to help promote diversity.

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
He cited studies, but not until very recently did anyone have the version which actually contained the references. Gizmodo deliberately removed all charts and links, and for a while they had the only copy. It was a profoundly dishonest thing to do on their part. I'd be surprised if 5% of people commenting online even realize he cited sources.
- xienze 9y ago
  Yeah Gizmodo went "ruh-roh, this guy's argument is making too much sense, better fix that!"
api 9y ago
In many companies any form of out of line crosstalk can get you fired regardless of it's truth.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Maybe, but it doesn't mean we should promote it. Half of these comments are positively jubilant about the whistleblower's termination.
  - api 9y ago
    Would you want employees sending out chain letters implying other employees should not be there? I would fire them on the spot. No "SJW" conspiracy need be applied. That's just unprofessional and out of line. Employees are free to say whatever they want on a personal blog on their own time.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      You don't fix a problem by firing the guy who reports it. It's hardly an SJW conspiracy, pretty much every company in the industry has some variation of the practices he outlines...
- JKCalhoun 9y ago
  From the New York Times: "Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was 'misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.' He added that it was 'illegal to retaliate' against an N.L.R.B. charge." Maybe this is why he was fired? It sounds like he was becoming pro-actively hostile toward Google. And there may be more than we outsiders know going on.
  - Meditato 9y ago
    Have you read any of the leaked internal emails? People were quite literally threatening him. I would be pro-hostile in his place.
kaitai 9y ago
The "actual facts" of what he said are not uncontroversial. They aren't even facts. Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender" has an extensive bibliography of studies disputing the statements he claims are facts.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Which 'aren't even facts' are you talking about here?
deong 9y ago
It doesn't really help to say, "I'm in favor of diversity" any more than it helps to say "I'm not a racist but".
- darawk 9y ago
  Did you read what he wrote, though? He enumerates the ways in which he favors diversity and diversity programs. He's specific about which forms he likes and which he doesn't. I think his preferences are reasonable, but others may disagree. What is not reasonable, in my view, is shaming him into silence.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Sure, both things are totally fine and valid to say. Attitudes like yours have polarized me to the extent that now I just say, "I'm super racist, here's what I think:" just to see people's confused reactions.
nxmehta 9y ago
I don't think you actually read this doc. Quote: "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)" That is accompanied with citations. OK, sure, let's take that at face value. No dispute here. Next, he says: "These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics" No studies, no evidence, no nothing for this claim. X may lead to Y, because... the author feels in his gut that it may be true? This is not science. This is an unsupported assertion. The rest of the doc is littered with these claims, which I could happily go point by point through. He may have gotten the science about biological differences between men and women correctly, but the conclusions that he drew using that science is totally unsubstantiated. And frankly, it is extremely deceptive to defend him by saying that "he cited studies" without examining how he linked those studies to his own pure speculation.
- eagsalazar2 9y ago
  His argument had flaws -> he is a misogynistic pig who went on a hate filled scree and should be fired immediately!! (wait what??)
  - nxmehta 9y ago
    > (wait what??) That's exactly what I was thinking when I read your comment! What about my comment are you replying to? Did you perhaps reply to the wrong comment?
- darawk 9y ago
  He made an argument for his conclusion based on his evidence. You can't prove with science that those things are why women prefer those jobs. But if the facts he cites in his evidence are true, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that women may prefer those jobs. If you want to argue that point, I think it's totally debatable. But that's just it - it's debatable. EDIT: And as has come out, the author of this memo has a PhD in Biology. Here are comments from four PhD scientists in Sociology on the issue, if you'd like some credentials to go with it: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

by darawk 9y ago

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago

He cited studies, but not until very recently did anyone have the version which actually contained the references. Gizmodo deliberately removed all charts and links, and for a while they had the only copy. It was a profoundly dishonest thing to do on their part. I'd be surprised if 5% of people commenting online even realize he cited sources.

xienze 9y ago
Yeah Gizmodo went "ruh-roh, this guy's argument is making too much sense, better fix that!"

api 9y ago

In many companies any form of out of line crosstalk can get you fired regardless of it's truth.

weberc2 9y ago
Maybe, but it doesn't mean we should promote it. Half of these comments are positively jubilant about the whistleblower's termination.
- api 9y ago
  Would you want employees sending out chain letters implying other employees should not be there? I would fire them on the spot. No "SJW" conspiracy need be applied. That's just unprofessional and out of line. Employees are free to say whatever they want on a personal blog on their own time.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    You don't fix a problem by firing the guy who reports it. It's hardly an SJW conspiracy, pretty much every company in the industry has some variation of the practices he outlines...
JKCalhoun 9y ago
From the New York Times: "Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was 'misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.' He added that it was 'illegal to retaliate' against an N.L.R.B. charge." Maybe this is why he was fired? It sounds like he was becoming pro-actively hostile toward Google. And there may be more than we outsiders know going on.
- Meditato 9y ago
  Have you read any of the leaked internal emails? People were quite literally threatening him. I would be pro-hostile in his place.

kaitai 9y ago

The "actual facts" of what he said are not uncontroversial. They aren't even facts. Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender" has an extensive bibliography of studies disputing the statements he claims are facts.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Which 'aren't even facts' are you talking about here?

deong 9y ago

It doesn't really help to say, "I'm in favor of diversity" any more than it helps to say "I'm not a racist but".

darawk 9y ago
Did you read what he wrote, though? He enumerates the ways in which he favors diversity and diversity programs. He's specific about which forms he likes and which he doesn't. I think his preferences are reasonable, but others may disagree. What is not reasonable, in my view, is shaming him into silence.
Danihan 9y ago
Sure, both things are totally fine and valid to say. Attitudes like yours have polarized me to the extent that now I just say, "I'm super racist, here's what I think:" just to see people's confused reactions.

nxmehta 9y ago

I don't think you actually read this doc. Quote: "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)" That is accompanied with citations. OK, sure, let's take that at face value. No dispute here. Next, he says: "These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics" No studies, no evidence, no nothing for this claim. X may lead to Y, because... the author feels in his gut that it may be true? This is not science. This is an unsupported assertion. The rest of the doc is littered with these claims, which I could happily go point by point through. He may have gotten the science about biological differences between men and women correctly, but the conclusions that he drew using that science is totally unsubstantiated. And frankly, it is extremely deceptive to defend him by saying that "he cited studies" without examining how he linked those studies to his own pure speculation.

eagsalazar2 9y ago
His argument had flaws -> he is a misogynistic pig who went on a hate filled scree and should be fired immediately!! (wait what??)
- nxmehta 9y ago
  > (wait what??) That's exactly what I was thinking when I read your comment! What about my comment are you replying to? Did you perhaps reply to the wrong comment?
darawk 9y ago
He made an argument for his conclusion based on his evidence. You can't prove with science that those things are why women prefer those jobs. But if the facts he cites in his evidence are true, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that women may prefer those jobs. If you want to argue that point, I think it's totally debatable. But that's just it - it's debatable. EDIT: And as has come out, the author of this memo has a PhD in Biology. Here are comments from four PhD scientists in Sociology on the issue, if you'd like some credentials to go with it: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...