6 ms·

Smearing Free Thought in Silicon Valley

55 points by cosmiccartel 9y ago

ares2012 9y ago
This article is a great example about why there is a sexual harassment problem in technology. It's conflating two completely different things in the name of "free thinking": the facts about men and women and the severity of sexism. Are men and women different? Yes. Have those differences ever been shown to affect their ability to do the same job? No. Sexism exists because of the perceived answer to the second question, not the first. The dismissal of Costolo's point about the urgency of addressing sexual harassment based on a false dichotomy summarizes the key flaw in the entire article. You cannot simultaneously have an intellectual debate about a topic when one of the parties involved is being actively demeaned and marginalized.
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  I'm confused by your last sentence. How else can we decide which side or sides is/are being demeaned/marginalized other than intellectual debate?
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    The terms are often used specifically to end debate, by negating the opinions of the accused without having to address the content of what was said. None of these issues will be solved until those who feel they are being demeaned find the strength to address their opposition with the dignity they demand for themselves.
    - ares2012 9y ago
      No, I wasn't trying to end debate. Your position is, in contrast, an appeal to motive which is a logical fallacy. We cannot expect the people who have been discriminated against and oppressed to stand up on their own. That is not the approach of a civil society, that is placing the entire burden on the wronged party.
      - fortythirteen 9y ago
        We can expect people who are discriminated against and oppressed - I don't doubt this as the case - to explain why and how they were discriminated against so that it can be addressed. We can expect there to be some semblance of discourse. We can only ask that the accusations remain truthful and not go beyond what actually occurred. Nobody changes their opinion by being badgered. One must have empathy if one expects genuine change. We have objectively failed in this as a society, as is exhibited by how divided we are. I'm personally tired of hearing how everything is the other side's fault, from both sides. We are drowning in straw men. Until we're willing to listen to each other and understand why people feel the way they do (yes, even those with the most vile opinions), we will continue down this path.
  - neuronexmachina 9y ago
    > How else can we decide which side or sides is/are being demeaned/marginalized other than intellectual debate? The problem is that "intellectual debate" often ends up just being thinly-veiled excuses for why it's ok to discriminate against the marginalized group. It's kind of like how "intellectual debate" about phrenology was used to justify attitudes about different races.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - alexandercrohde 9y ago
      I notice you didn't answer my question.
- monochromatic 9y ago
  > You cannot simultaneously have an intellectual debate about a topic when one of the parties involved is being actively demeaned and marginalized. So as long as a single man is sexist, there’s no place for intellectual debate?
  - ares2012 9y ago
    No, that's an over simplification. Until the statistically high rate of sexual harassment and discrimination is addressed we cannot have a valid intellectual debate on whether sex influences someone's ability as a software engineer.
    - monochromatic 9y ago
      Why not?
      - synicalx 9y ago
        I'll be willing to bet no one can answer this
        ares2012 9y ago
        I just did, above. Let me know if you disagree.
      - ares2012 9y ago
        Because the harassment itself becomes a limiting factor on women's ability to perform the role. You cannot have objective measurements of performance with the bias introduced by harassment.
- belorn 9y ago
  > Have those differences ever been shown to affect their ability to do the same job? No. Has anyone claimed that? No. Why arguing against something for which no one is arguing for? If sexism exist because of a perceived answer to which no one is asking, then maybe it is time to stop.
  - ares2012 9y ago
    That was the entire argument in the Damore essay. He made a logical jump from facts about men and women to the claim that women were less capable as software engineers.
    - hipcactus 9y ago
      If he made that claim, then you can quote it and cite it from his document. This article is about how he did not make that claim, while media outlets and social media accounts claimed he did.
      - ares2012 9y ago
        "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."
        kbutler 9y ago
        I don't see, "less capable as engineers" stated or implied in that quote.
      - yahna 9y ago
        > Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. Women are less suited for high stress jobs, i.e. leadership positions.
- threatofrain 9y ago
  I think there may be a third question: Do differences between men and women, in combination with the effects of historicity, lead to different patterns of engagement or attrition with a domain? Such as teaching or child-related jobs?
- synicalx 9y ago
  > Have those differences ever been shown to affect their ability to do the same job? No Just want to point out that this isn't necessarily true in a broader sense; look at all the recent coverage of women being allowed to serve in frontline combat roles in various Western militaries around the world - their drop out, and medical discharge rate has been exponentially higher than their male counterparts. So while some women can do that same job as men in that field, the vast majority physically cannot.
alexandercrohde 9y ago
I think the policy of flagging without providing an explanation is becoming a problem on contentious issues. It allows a minority to have disproportionate influence on a discussion. I think there are several conflicting ideas of flagging: - Reason: I'm tired of this topic (I feel like this doesn't happen much, or else all this bitcoin talk would have stopped 3 years ago, as well as "Building X in language Y"). - Reason: I think this piece is non-factual and doesn't present any falsifiable claims. - Reason: I think this piece is demonstrably inaccurate - Reason: I think this is a controversial topic I think controversy is an indication of the importance of a topic.
aaron-lebo 9y ago
It's still hard for me to get over the fact that the very first people Damore had interview him were Stephen "cult leader" Molyneux and Jordan Petersen. He's also got interviews with Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. It's totally possible that they were the only outlets that would give him a platform, but those are very biased and partisan outlets. If he was as objective and free thinking as he's depicted as, why was his first reaction to jump to one of the extremes? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux
- cosmiccartel 9y ago
  I'd mainly chalk that up to them being the only ones open to a genuine discussion with him. The articles coming out in the aftermath were all extremely demonizing of Damore. I remember watching Peterson's interview with him, and Damore didn't really seem comfortable with many of the former's statements, just based on his body language. Maybe that was just social awkwardness. Also, I don't follow Molyneux or Carlson, but neither Peterson nor Shapiro can be truthfully called extreme.
  - yahna 9y ago
    Shapiro seems pretty extreme, just more mainstream conservatism. Peterson just has a head the size of ontario at this point.
- Uhhrrr 9y ago
  Here it's mentioned that no one on the left had wanted to interview him: http://seriouspod.com/sio79-james-damore-author-google-memo/ http://seriouspod.com/sio79-james-damore-author-google-memo/
jordigh 9y ago
Every repugnant conclusion has always come coated in a veneer of rationality. No racist, sexist, islamophobe or any other kind of bigot has ever called themselves by these appellations or expressed their opinions without being able to bring in piles of dubious evidence to back up their opinions. Let's take the example of the Men's Rights Movement discussed in the article. While there are of course many factions within the MRM, the very existence of something that arose specifically to counteract the rise of feminism is a slap in the face to the struggles brought forth by women. With the same veneer of rationality, its purpose is to drown out women's concerns by raising the voices of men to a raucous cry. This is not to say that men do not experience problems, but the MRM is almost exclusively a reaction to feminism. It's an age-old divisionary tactic, of pitting an oppressed group against an even more oppressed group. The English American colonists considered the genocided Native Americans to be one of their biggest oppressors, the war-torn Germans took to blaming the Jews who have already been persecuted for centuries. It's easier to find a weaker target than to look for the deeper causes of oppression. The problem with Damore is not that his stats are wrong, but their veneer of rationality. Disagreeing with his repugnant conclusions (such as, eliminating Google's diversity programmes), is not because we hate scientific discourse, but because his veneer of rationality is just that: a veneer. The causes and explanations are far more complicated than what he cites or could cite in the space of 11 pages, and in the meantime it's far better to err in the side of caution and offer an advantage to the underrepresented group.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  Note the veneer of rationality in the above comment.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - WaxProlix 9y ago
    I must have missed it - could you elaborate a bit?
    - 9y ago
yahna 9y ago
> In the aftermath of the so-called Google memo affair, there has been no shortage of misleading and in some cases downright inaccurate media coverage painting the author, James Damore, and his supporters in a very unfavorable light. Personally I think the biggest problem is that people who criticize him keep going "he's wrong" "you can't say that" "saying women are less interested is sexist". It just lets others further their manufactured outrage and act like victims of oppression. Vs he said things that strongly implied his female coworkers were less competent and he was fired because of the damage this did to the work environment. > it is difficult to see how one could read his memo in its entirety and walk away with the conclusion that it was written by someone who seeks to keep women out of technology uh huh. I'm getting really tired of being told I just didn't read it or understand it. I read it. I think Damore is a fucking idiot for writing it that way. I also think the basic idea "maybe less women are interested" is perfectly reasonable to talk about. I think bringing up how much more neurotic women are was incredibly fucking stupid. I think bring up the fact that he's a conservative was just him whining. I think the people who say "it's science" are missing the point. I think his memo was incredibly slanted and discussed no reasons beyond some tenuous biological links as reasons for women not to go into tech. I also think a lot of the people who keep complaining about how they want a dialogue are being disingenuous, because when someone says something against the memo the response is that they obviously didn't read it. > a political movement seeking to raise awareness of how gender inequality issues affect men and boys that has long been smeared in the media as misogynistic. maybe cause it's pretty misogynistic. check their Reddit sometime (although it's not as bad as MGTOW). > it is not a hate movement rooted in misogyny but there does seem to be a lot of misogyny in it. They have real complaints about some things, but I feel like it's pretty easy to why people are turned off by it.
insickness 9y ago
Why is this post flagged?

55 points by cosmiccartel 9y ago

ares2012 9y ago

This article is a great example about why there is a sexual harassment problem in technology. It's conflating two completely different things in the name of "free thinking": the facts about men and women and the severity of sexism. Are men and women different? Yes. Have those differences ever been shown to affect their ability to do the same job? No. Sexism exists because of the perceived answer to the second question, not the first. The dismissal of Costolo's point about the urgency of addressing sexual harassment based on a false dichotomy summarizes the key flaw in the entire article. You cannot simultaneously have an intellectual debate about a topic when one of the parties involved is being actively demeaned and marginalized.

alexandercrohde 9y ago
I'm confused by your last sentence. How else can we decide which side or sides is/are being demeaned/marginalized other than intellectual debate?
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  The terms are often used specifically to end debate, by negating the opinions of the accused without having to address the content of what was said. None of these issues will be solved until those who feel they are being demeaned find the strength to address their opposition with the dignity they demand for themselves.
  - ares2012 9y ago
    No, I wasn't trying to end debate. Your position is, in contrast, an appeal to motive which is a logical fallacy. We cannot expect the people who have been discriminated against and oppressed to stand up on their own. That is not the approach of a civil society, that is placing the entire burden on the wronged party.
    - fortythirteen 9y ago
      We can expect people who are discriminated against and oppressed - I don't doubt this as the case - to explain why and how they were discriminated against so that it can be addressed. We can expect there to be some semblance of discourse. We can only ask that the accusations remain truthful and not go beyond what actually occurred. Nobody changes their opinion by being badgered. One must have empathy if one expects genuine change. We have objectively failed in this as a society, as is exhibited by how divided we are. I'm personally tired of hearing how everything is the other side's fault, from both sides. We are drowning in straw men. Until we're willing to listen to each other and understand why people feel the way they do (yes, even those with the most vile opinions), we will continue down this path.
- neuronexmachina 9y ago
  > How else can we decide which side or sides is/are being demeaned/marginalized other than intellectual debate? The problem is that "intellectual debate" often ends up just being thinly-veiled excuses for why it's ok to discriminate against the marginalized group. It's kind of like how "intellectual debate" about phrenology was used to justify attitudes about different races.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - alexandercrohde 9y ago
    I notice you didn't answer my question.
monochromatic 9y ago
> You cannot simultaneously have an intellectual debate about a topic when one of the parties involved is being actively demeaned and marginalized. So as long as a single man is sexist, there’s no place for intellectual debate?
- ares2012 9y ago
  No, that's an over simplification. Until the statistically high rate of sexual harassment and discrimination is addressed we cannot have a valid intellectual debate on whether sex influences someone's ability as a software engineer.
  - monochromatic 9y ago
    Why not?
    - synicalx 9y ago
      I'll be willing to bet no one can answer this
      - ares2012 9y ago
        I just did, above. Let me know if you disagree.
    - ares2012 9y ago
      Because the harassment itself becomes a limiting factor on women's ability to perform the role. You cannot have objective measurements of performance with the bias introduced by harassment.
belorn 9y ago
> Have those differences ever been shown to affect their ability to do the same job? No. Has anyone claimed that? No. Why arguing against something for which no one is arguing for? If sexism exist because of a perceived answer to which no one is asking, then maybe it is time to stop.
- ares2012 9y ago
  That was the entire argument in the Damore essay. He made a logical jump from facts about men and women to the claim that women were less capable as software engineers.
  - hipcactus 9y ago
    If he made that claim, then you can quote it and cite it from his document. This article is about how he did not make that claim, while media outlets and social media accounts claimed he did.
    - ares2012 9y ago
      "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."
      - kbutler 9y ago
        I don't see, "less capable as engineers" stated or implied in that quote.
    - yahna 9y ago
      > Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. Women are less suited for high stress jobs, i.e. leadership positions.
threatofrain 9y ago
I think there may be a third question: Do differences between men and women, in combination with the effects of historicity, lead to different patterns of engagement or attrition with a domain? Such as teaching or child-related jobs?
synicalx 9y ago
> Have those differences ever been shown to affect their ability to do the same job? No Just want to point out that this isn't necessarily true in a broader sense; look at all the recent coverage of women being allowed to serve in frontline combat roles in various Western militaries around the world - their drop out, and medical discharge rate has been exponentially higher than their male counterparts. So while some women can do that same job as men in that field, the vast majority physically cannot.

alexandercrohde 9y ago

I think the policy of flagging without providing an explanation is becoming a problem on contentious issues. It allows a minority to have disproportionate influence on a discussion. I think there are several conflicting ideas of flagging: - Reason: I'm tired of this topic (I feel like this doesn't happen much, or else all this bitcoin talk would have stopped 3 years ago, as well as "Building X in language Y"). - Reason: I think this piece is non-factual and doesn't present any falsifiable claims. - Reason: I think this piece is demonstrably inaccurate - Reason: I think this is a controversial topic I think controversy is an indication of the importance of a topic.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

It's still hard for me to get over the fact that the very first people Damore had interview him were Stephen "cult leader" Molyneux and Jordan Petersen. He's also got interviews with Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. It's totally possible that they were the only outlets that would give him a platform, but those are very biased and partisan outlets. If he was as objective and free thinking as he's depicted as, why was his first reaction to jump to one of the extremes? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

cosmiccartel 9y ago
I'd mainly chalk that up to them being the only ones open to a genuine discussion with him. The articles coming out in the aftermath were all extremely demonizing of Damore. I remember watching Peterson's interview with him, and Damore didn't really seem comfortable with many of the former's statements, just based on his body language. Maybe that was just social awkwardness. Also, I don't follow Molyneux or Carlson, but neither Peterson nor Shapiro can be truthfully called extreme.
- yahna 9y ago
  Shapiro seems pretty extreme, just more mainstream conservatism. Peterson just has a head the size of ontario at this point.
Uhhrrr 9y ago
Here it's mentioned that no one on the left had wanted to interview him: http://seriouspod.com/sio79-james-damore-author-google-memo/ http://seriouspod.com/sio79-james-damore-author-google-memo/

jordigh 9y ago

Every repugnant conclusion has always come coated in a veneer of rationality. No racist, sexist, islamophobe or any other kind of bigot has ever called themselves by these appellations or expressed their opinions without being able to bring in piles of dubious evidence to back up their opinions. Let's take the example of the Men's Rights Movement discussed in the article. While there are of course many factions within the MRM, the very existence of something that arose specifically to counteract the rise of feminism is a slap in the face to the struggles brought forth by women. With the same veneer of rationality, its purpose is to drown out women's concerns by raising the voices of men to a raucous cry. This is not to say that men do not experience problems, but the MRM is almost exclusively a reaction to feminism. It's an age-old divisionary tactic, of pitting an oppressed group against an even more oppressed group. The English American colonists considered the genocided Native Americans to be one of their biggest oppressors, the war-torn Germans took to blaming the Jews who have already been persecuted for centuries. It's easier to find a weaker target than to look for the deeper causes of oppression. The problem with Damore is not that his stats are wrong, but their veneer of rationality. Disagreeing with his repugnant conclusions (such as, eliminating Google's diversity programmes), is not because we hate scientific discourse, but because his veneer of rationality is just that: a veneer. The causes and explanations are far more complicated than what he cites or could cite in the space of 11 pages, and in the meantime it's far better to err in the side of caution and offer an advantage to the underrepresented group.

creaghpatr 9y ago
Note the veneer of rationality in the above comment.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- WaxProlix 9y ago
  I must have missed it - could you elaborate a bit?
  - 9y ago

yahna 9y ago

> In the aftermath of the so-called Google memo affair, there has been no shortage of misleading and in some cases downright inaccurate media coverage painting the author, James Damore, and his supporters in a very unfavorable light. Personally I think the biggest problem is that people who criticize him keep going "he's wrong" "you can't say that" "saying women are less interested is sexist". It just lets others further their manufactured outrage and act like victims of oppression. Vs he said things that strongly implied his female coworkers were less competent and he was fired because of the damage this did to the work environment. > it is difficult to see how one could read his memo in its entirety and walk away with the conclusion that it was written by someone who seeks to keep women out of technology uh huh. I'm getting really tired of being told I just didn't read it or understand it. I read it. I think Damore is a fucking idiot for writing it that way. I also think the basic idea "maybe less women are interested" is perfectly reasonable to talk about. I think bringing up how much more neurotic women are was incredibly fucking stupid. I think bring up the fact that he's a conservative was just him whining. I think the people who say "it's science" are missing the point. I think his memo was incredibly slanted and discussed no reasons beyond some tenuous biological links as reasons for women not to go into tech. I also think a lot of the people who keep complaining about how they want a dialogue are being disingenuous, because when someone says something against the memo the response is that they obviously didn't read it. > a political movement seeking to raise awareness of how gender inequality issues affect men and boys that has long been smeared in the media as misogynistic. maybe cause it's pretty misogynistic. check their Reddit sometime (although it's not as bad as MGTOW). > it is not a hate movement rooted in misogyny but there does seem to be a lot of misogyny in it. They have real complaints about some things, but I feel like it's pretty easy to why people are turned off by it.

insickness 9y ago

Why is this post flagged?