3 ms·
>He was fired because he can't reliably review his peers if he thinks they are genetically inferior to him. He literally said the exact opposite of this. Why
by anapaix 9y ago
>He was fired because he can't reliably review his peers if he thinks they are genetically inferior to him.
He literally said the exact opposite of this.
Why are you purposefully misrepresenting his views? And if not purposefully, why are you then commenting on a story whose main source (the document) you haven't read?
- DiNovi 9y agoWait. I'm sorry. Are you saying someone who would write and share this can be trusted to control his own bias, because he said he could?
- leereeves 9y agoHe wrote the memo poorly but he tried to make it clear that he wasn't talking about individuals. He was offering a different explanation, based on group averages, of why the industry is unable to reach a 50/50 ratio of male/female engineers. And most of his arguments were based on interests, not abilities. That's very different from the way it's been mischaracterized as an argument that women are inferior.
- ImSkeptical 9y agoSuppose I think my female colleagues can't be trusted to review and respond to my work, because their explanation for demographic imbalances among engineers is that white heterosexual men are racist, sexist, and homophobic. How can I trust someone who suspects me of being every kind of bigot will treat me fairly?
- HumbleGamer 9y agoAnd minorities never have to worry about biases when they come in for a review, interview, etc.
- jshevek 9y agoDidn't github actually hire some diversity training people who projected a slide attacking white women?
- to_bpr 9y ago>why are you then commenting on a story whose main source (the document) you haven't read? Because they're outraged by what they've heard about it and demand that someone (almost without question) facilitate that outrage, correct or not.