4 ms·
> I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it To try to shed a little light on this phenomenon, the "it" you refer to expands to "wh
by runako 9y ago
> I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it
To try to shed a little light on this phenomenon, the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way."
Using the expansion in your paragraph:
=====
I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend that women and minorities are biologically as qualified for this job, or that their hires are as legitimate as anyone else's.
=====
That's what some people are hearing. Hopefully it's obvious why management at most companies would consider these discussions to be less than helpful in fostering the most productive work environment.
- habitue 9y ago> the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here are illegitimate in some way." Accepting your characterization here for the sake of argument: if his claims are so laughably ridiculous as to be easily refutable, people should just have pointed to studies refuting it (of which there are plenty) and gone about their day. When you can't bring up a topic in a respectful way without being shouted down, it's a bad situation.
- gobugat 9y agoHis "theories" have been destroyed for decades. It's always the same old shit. We are tired of it. If you don't even have the decency to document yourself before blurting out such crap, you may not deserve much patience. Remember: this guy lost a job. Discriminations kill and ruin the lives of millions routinely.
- koonsolo 9y agoAccording to scientists in the field, his theories are correct. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... If you read the memo, he is completely against discrimination, including positive discrimination.
- zimpenfish 9y agoI'd be wary of saying the psychologists (especially the EvoPsych dude) are "scientists in the field" because he was quoting biology and they are 100% not biologists. Dr Soh is really the only one qualified to comment here. Also the other three are ... privileged white dudes with track records of being anti-SJW/"snowflake", etc.
- koonsolo 9y agoAnother one: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manif... Please show me the other well informed people that claim the opposite.
- zimpenfish 9y agoThat's Dr Soh, one of the people from the Quillete article, and the one I said had a decent claim to being able to comment.
- zimpenfish 9y agoHere's a evolutionary biologist's thoughts on the manifesto - https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/06/what-differentiates-a-good-engineer-from-a-clueless-ignoramus/ https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/06/what-diff...
- habitue 9y agoYeah, but they weren't debunked for decades. Nobody thought to check that before demanding he be silenced
- brighteyes 9y agoIt is a serious problem if people are hearing that - by which I mean, if many people understand the document one way, and many people understand it in a completely different way, then how can we even communicate as a society?