8 ms·

Every interview I've see with Damore after him getting fired confirms that he's a misogynist. I can't imagine any SV tech firm would want to hire him with his t

Every interview I've see with Damore after him getting fired confirms that he's a misogynist. I can't imagine any SV tech firm would want to hire him with his toxic background. I suspect he calculated this outcome in the first place, so I'm curious where he thought he would end up. My guess is some kind of "realist"/alt-right media outfit, where he can preach to the choir all he wants, or starting his own business.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danso 9y ago
What's an example of a revelation that "confirms" his misogyny?
- kuschku 9y ago
  He argues against affirmative action that benefits women, because they are inferior[1] anyway, but then argues for affirmative action that benefits conservatives[2], and suggests to start by "breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation", and to hire more conservatives because "conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company" This shows he has no problem with affirmative action - aka discrimination - as long as he profits. But as soon as someone else profits, he disagrees. ________________________ [1] "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)", also see his point w.r.t. "Neuroticism" [2] because "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" EDIT: He argues that political diversity is most important: > 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. and that Google should change its hiring practices to improve this, instead of ethnical or national diversity. And he makes up more pseudo-scientific arguments for why Google should hire more conservatives: > conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. In the context of his memo - where he states that Google is too far left-wing - the recommended changes are obvious: Hire more conservative. He also recommends to track the political affiliation of all existing employees to track the diversity gap there: > I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation This is the same kind of affirmative action that he criticizes just a few paragraphs before. EDIT2: With regards to biologically inferior, he references IQ (see his footnote 8, and its use in text), "Neuroticism", and other pseudo-scientific arguments why women would be biologically inferior.
  - naturalgradient 9y ago
    This is a malicious misinterpretation of the memo. Please state the specific passages where he: - argues for affirmative action specifically benefiting conservatives - calls women genetically inferior
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Source? This directly contradicts an interview quote I read from him yesterday.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    This is simply not true, he didn't say anything even remotely close to that.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  According to the Guardian[1], "Damore initially told the Guardian he would answer questions by email on Monday, but then stopped responding to inquiries. He had a few brief email exchanges with reporters, including at the New York Times, Bloomberg and the rightwing site website Breitbart." If he wanted to get his side of the story out after being fir4ed, he could have taken advantage of any of many news organizations - which range across the political spectrum - that were offering a platform to speak from. Instead, he stopped responding to those requests and gave an interview with an "alt-right", "men's rights" activist host, Stefan Molyneux. This is one of the worst things he could have done if he wanted to avoid being associated with misogyny. I get the impression that a lot of people are not familiar with how fascist ("alt-right") propaganda works. While Molyneux's audience is large, interviewing with the NYT or Breitbart would have reached a larger audience, so this isn't about getting his story out. This isn't about the contents of the memo and the bad science about sex-linked preferences. It's about repeating the idea as many times as possible until the idea of discriminating against women becomes normalizes as a legitimate political question. The lawsuit itself is similar: it keeps people talking about discrimination. The propaganda works regardless of the outcome of the case. If you want to see a very good explanation of how this type of propaganda works, see this[2] explanation of how "Triumph of the Will" probably influenced your mental model of the Nazi party. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-interviews https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-dam... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ1Qm1Z_D7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ1Qm1Z_D7w
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Perhaps he read the articles about his memo and refused to work with those media organizations that took his remarks out of context and ignored his clear statement that: > Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. The Guardian misrepresented the memo, why would Damore trust them to publish the interview honestly?
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      > The Guardian misrepresented the contents of the memo, why would Damore trust them to publish the interview honestly? An argument about how the Guardian's supposed misrepresentation of the memo is would conveniently distraction away from my main point: he ran straight to an alt-right misogynist for his first interview instead of taking any of the other options.
sebastianconcpt 9y ago
Your are accusing him without providing evidence. Why are you okay with that?
- emodendroket 9y ago
  At a certain point you start to wonder what people want to see here. A signed, notarized declaration of prejudice?
  - markdog12 9y ago
    Nope, just evidence to support a very damaging claim.
puranjay 9y ago
> My guess is some kind of "realist"/alt-right media outfit, where he can preach to the choir all he wants In case you haven't noticed, that choir has been growing remarkably quickly. I'm a liberal and liberals could use a healthy dose of reality
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I can see how you might have that impression if you spend a lot of time on HN.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
dlss 9y ago
> Every interview I've see with Damore after him getting fired confirms that he's a misogynist. The only one I'm familiar with is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4WoeOkj2Ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4WoeOkj2Ng ... which kind of left me with the opposite impression. Can you link to the ones you're talking about? I would love to feel better about his being fired.
exergy 9y ago
Funny. I just finished watching his Bloomberg interview, where Emily Chang seemed to be at pains trying to ask him why he wanted no women in tech. His responses seemed vastly more nuanced than the transparent questioning tactics of the interviewer.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Indeed, I really dislike interview tactics like that. It's disrespectful to the audience and the interviewee. Hearing an interviewer ask the equivalent of "So, senator, when did you stop beating your husband?" is just embarrassingly egregious.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

danso 9y ago

What's an example of a revelation that "confirms" his misogyny?

kuschku 9y ago
He argues against affirmative action that benefits women, because they are inferior[1] anyway, but then argues for affirmative action that benefits conservatives[2], and suggests to start by "breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation", and to hire more conservatives because "conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company" This shows he has no problem with affirmative action - aka discrimination - as long as he profits. But as soon as someone else profits, he disagrees. ________________________ [1] "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)", also see his point w.r.t. "Neuroticism" [2] because "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" EDIT: He argues that political diversity is most important: > 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. and that Google should change its hiring practices to improve this, instead of ethnical or national diversity. And he makes up more pseudo-scientific arguments for why Google should hire more conservatives: > conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. In the context of his memo - where he states that Google is too far left-wing - the recommended changes are obvious: Hire more conservative. He also recommends to track the political affiliation of all existing employees to track the diversity gap there: > I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation This is the same kind of affirmative action that he criticizes just a few paragraphs before. EDIT2: With regards to biologically inferior, he references IQ (see his footnote 8, and its use in text), "Neuroticism", and other pseudo-scientific arguments why women would be biologically inferior.
- naturalgradient 9y ago
  This is a malicious misinterpretation of the memo. Please state the specific passages where he: - argues for affirmative action specifically benefiting conservatives - calls women genetically inferior
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Source? This directly contradicts an interview quote I read from him yesterday.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  This is simply not true, he didn't say anything even remotely close to that.
pdkl95 9y ago
According to the Guardian[1], "Damore initially told the Guardian he would answer questions by email on Monday, but then stopped responding to inquiries. He had a few brief email exchanges with reporters, including at the New York Times, Bloomberg and the rightwing site website Breitbart." If he wanted to get his side of the story out after being fir4ed, he could have taken advantage of any of many news organizations - which range across the political spectrum - that were offering a platform to speak from. Instead, he stopped responding to those requests and gave an interview with an "alt-right", "men's rights" activist host, Stefan Molyneux. This is one of the worst things he could have done if he wanted to avoid being associated with misogyny. I get the impression that a lot of people are not familiar with how fascist ("alt-right") propaganda works. While Molyneux's audience is large, interviewing with the NYT or Breitbart would have reached a larger audience, so this isn't about getting his story out. This isn't about the contents of the memo and the bad science about sex-linked preferences. It's about repeating the idea as many times as possible until the idea of discriminating against women becomes normalizes as a legitimate political question. The lawsuit itself is similar: it keeps people talking about discrimination. The propaganda works regardless of the outcome of the case. If you want to see a very good explanation of how this type of propaganda works, see this[2] explanation of how "Triumph of the Will" probably influenced your mental model of the Nazi party. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-interviews https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-dam... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ1Qm1Z_D7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ1Qm1Z_D7w
- leereeves 9y ago
  Perhaps he read the articles about his memo and refused to work with those media organizations that took his remarks out of context and ignored his clear statement that: > Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. The Guardian misrepresented the memo, why would Damore trust them to publish the interview honestly?
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    > The Guardian misrepresented the contents of the memo, why would Damore trust them to publish the interview honestly? An argument about how the Guardian's supposed misrepresentation of the memo is would conveniently distraction away from my main point: he ran straight to an alt-right misogynist for his first interview instead of taking any of the other options.

sebastianconcpt 9y ago

Your are accusing him without providing evidence. Why are you okay with that?

emodendroket 9y ago
At a certain point you start to wonder what people want to see here. A signed, notarized declaration of prejudice?
- markdog12 9y ago
  Nope, just evidence to support a very damaging claim.

puranjay 9y ago

> My guess is some kind of "realist"/alt-right media outfit, where he can preach to the choir all he wants In case you haven't noticed, that choir has been growing remarkably quickly. I'm a liberal and liberals could use a healthy dose of reality

emodendroket 9y ago
I can see how you might have that impression if you spend a lot of time on HN.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

dlss 9y ago

> Every interview I've see with Damore after him getting fired confirms that he's a misogynist. The only one I'm familiar with is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4WoeOkj2Ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4WoeOkj2Ng ... which kind of left me with the opposite impression. Can you link to the ones you're talking about? I would love to feel better about his being fired.

exergy 9y ago

Funny. I just finished watching his Bloomberg interview, where Emily Chang seemed to be at pains trying to ask him why he wanted no women in tech. His responses seemed vastly more nuanced than the transparent questioning tactics of the interviewer.

justinjlynn 9y ago
Indeed, I really dislike interview tactics like that. It's disrespectful to the audience and the interviewee. Hearing an interviewer ask the equivalent of "So, senator, when did you stop beating your husband?" is just embarrassingly egregious.