6 ms·

Please quote a part of the Damore original memo where he explained women were inferior (except, maybe, in numbers as far as the computer science field is concer

by c3d 9y ago

Please quote a part of the Damore original memo where he explained women were inferior (except, maybe, in numbers as far as the computer science field is concerned)?

yorwba 9y ago
Please quote a part of vertex-four's comment where they claim that Damore's memo explains that women are inferior. Charitable readings and all that. Although vertex-four probably did mean to imply what you are challenging, I can still agree with the denotation. Someone who gives a scientific explanation (or worse, a "scientific" "explanation") for the status quo to suggest that nothing can be changed about it, would offend a lot of people. Especially those who are disadvantaged under the status quo and want to see that change. Edit: Ironically, it seems like my explanation of the things that offend people offended some people. (Or maybe it's something about my tone. Not sure.)
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  I don't understand why anyone should feel offended about someone using a "scientific explanation" in that way. Shouldn't we laugh at and ridicule those people for their outdated beliefs? What's there to be offended about by something that isn't true?
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Saying things that you know not to be true is pretty much the standard way to offend people.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    It can be difficult to laugh at an idea when you see widespread evidence of it from multiple sources on a regular basis, unfortunately.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      Sure, yes, I agree. That doesn't mean the correct course of action is to force societies hand to accommodate someone's hurt feelings. I argue the correct course of action is for people to develop resilience and emotional maturity.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        We're not trying to force society's hand to accommodate people's hurt feelings - we're trying to force society's hand to change incorrect and dangerous/oppressive ideas that it holds, such as that women are inherently unfit for STEM work. Laughing them off doesn't get anywhere - these beliefs are not a one-off thing, as much as we wish they were - and complaining about these ideas and the prevalence of them gets seen by people like yourself as "having hurt feelings".
        TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        I've never met anyone who believes women are unfit for STEM. It's a ludicrous idea. I just don't understand why getting offended is supposed to help. I'm reminded of the former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's "Misogyny Speech" speech.[1] Being offended means you've lost. The other party has had the desired affect on you: your energy is diminished by their words. We shouldn't be offended, no. We should feel embarrassed for, we should feel pity for, these poor people who hold outdated beliefs, because they and their beliefs are hold them, and us all, back from a more whole society. Did any of the great people of history, any of the people who really helped change the world write speeches espousing the benefits of being offended. 1. http://juliagillard.com.au/articles/the-misogyny-speech/ http://juliagillard.com.au/articles/the-misogyny-speech/
        vertex-four 9y ago
        It is a ludicrous idea. Many hold it, unfortunately - and they use scientific research and the status quo ("there's few women in STEM so obviously women are genetically programmed not to be a good fit for STEM" being a common one) to back their beliefs up, usually entirely ignoring the great big warnings in the papers specifically saying that the paper cannot be used to back up those beliefs. What exactly is "being offended" and why is it bad? Where do you see people being offended, and how do you differentiate it from activism? I mostly see people being angry that even in - especially in - particularly egregious instances, many very vocal people still won't believe that there's a problem. That's different from being offended. How is feeling pity for the people we meet every day who literally think we are less able than men and who are often in positions of power over us supposed to help?
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
In his tl;dr he said hiring more women would be bad for business. For those about to jump in and suggest that he only mean the current way of hiring women is bad for business, he later suggests affirmative action to hire more conservatives would be good for business because they are more 'diligent'. Note that men are more conservative then women, so this is a double whammy.
- ptaipale 9y ago
  > In his tl;dr he said hiring more women would be bad for business. He did not. The TL;DR said: ● Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    As I said in my message that anticipated your reply, he calls for discrimination to reach higher representation of conservatives in the same memo. Presumably he wouldn't be doing so if he thought that was unfair or divisive, and he explicitly claims it would be good for business. The only factor that changes is "conservative" to "women" one of which he thinks is good for business and one of which he thinks is bad for business.
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      I don't find that call for discrimination in the text. Are we reading the same document? When I read it, he mentions conservatives only in the section "Suggestions / Stop alienating conservatives" where he says: 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. It seems to me that you are misrepresenting the memo, as so many others have done. Perhaps you have read some commentary, many of which also misrepresented it, and not the memo itself?
      - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
dang 9y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15063187 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15063187 and marked it off-topic.

by c3d 9y ago

Please quote a part of the Damore original memo where he explained women were inferior (except, maybe, in numbers as far as the computer science field is concerned)?

yorwba 9y ago

Please quote a part of vertex-four's comment where they claim that Damore's memo explains that women are inferior. Charitable readings and all that. Although vertex-four probably did mean to imply what you are challenging, I can still agree with the denotation. Someone who gives a scientific explanation (or worse, a "scientific" "explanation") for the status quo to suggest that nothing can be changed about it, would offend a lot of people. Especially those who are disadvantaged under the status quo and want to see that change. Edit: Ironically, it seems like my explanation of the things that offend people offended some people. (Or maybe it's something about my tone. Not sure.)

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
I don't understand why anyone should feel offended about someone using a "scientific explanation" in that way. Shouldn't we laugh at and ridicule those people for their outdated beliefs? What's there to be offended about by something that isn't true?
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Saying things that you know not to be true is pretty much the standard way to offend people.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  It can be difficult to laugh at an idea when you see widespread evidence of it from multiple sources on a regular basis, unfortunately.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    Sure, yes, I agree. That doesn't mean the correct course of action is to force societies hand to accommodate someone's hurt feelings. I argue the correct course of action is for people to develop resilience and emotional maturity.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      We're not trying to force society's hand to accommodate people's hurt feelings - we're trying to force society's hand to change incorrect and dangerous/oppressive ideas that it holds, such as that women are inherently unfit for STEM work. Laughing them off doesn't get anywhere - these beliefs are not a one-off thing, as much as we wish they were - and complaining about these ideas and the prevalence of them gets seen by people like yourself as "having hurt feelings".
      - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        I've never met anyone who believes women are unfit for STEM. It's a ludicrous idea. I just don't understand why getting offended is supposed to help. I'm reminded of the former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's "Misogyny Speech" speech.[1] Being offended means you've lost. The other party has had the desired affect on you: your energy is diminished by their words. We shouldn't be offended, no. We should feel embarrassed for, we should feel pity for, these poor people who hold outdated beliefs, because they and their beliefs are hold them, and us all, back from a more whole society. Did any of the great people of history, any of the people who really helped change the world write speeches espousing the benefits of being offended. 1. http://juliagillard.com.au/articles/the-misogyny-speech/ http://juliagillard.com.au/articles/the-misogyny-speech/
        vertex-four 9y ago
        It is a ludicrous idea. Many hold it, unfortunately - and they use scientific research and the status quo ("there's few women in STEM so obviously women are genetically programmed not to be a good fit for STEM" being a common one) to back their beliefs up, usually entirely ignoring the great big warnings in the papers specifically saying that the paper cannot be used to back up those beliefs. What exactly is "being offended" and why is it bad? Where do you see people being offended, and how do you differentiate it from activism? I mostly see people being angry that even in - especially in - particularly egregious instances, many very vocal people still won't believe that there's a problem. That's different from being offended. How is feeling pity for the people we meet every day who literally think we are less able than men and who are often in positions of power over us supposed to help?

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

In his tl;dr he said hiring more women would be bad for business. For those about to jump in and suggest that he only mean the current way of hiring women is bad for business, he later suggests affirmative action to hire more conservatives would be good for business because they are more 'diligent'. Note that men are more conservative then women, so this is a double whammy.

ptaipale 9y ago
> In his tl;dr he said hiring more women would be bad for business. He did not. The TL;DR said: ● Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  As I said in my message that anticipated your reply, he calls for discrimination to reach higher representation of conservatives in the same memo. Presumably he wouldn't be doing so if he thought that was unfair or divisive, and he explicitly claims it would be good for business. The only factor that changes is "conservative" to "women" one of which he thinks is good for business and one of which he thinks is bad for business.
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    I don't find that call for discrimination in the text. Are we reading the same document? When I read it, he mentions conservatives only in the section "Suggestions / Stop alienating conservatives" where he says: 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. It seems to me that you are misrepresenting the memo, as so many others have done. Perhaps you have read some commentary, many of which also misrepresented it, and not the memo itself?
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago

dang 9y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15063187 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15063187 and marked it off-topic.