8 ms·
The difference with Argentina is that Damore would have been told to make a constructive argument backed by actual science, rather than be hailed or STFU. Inste
by dguaraglia 9y ago
The difference with Argentina is that Damore would have been told to make a constructive argument backed by actual science, rather than be hailed or STFU. Instead, in the US people were hailing him as a martyr of PC culture and telling everyone that they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.)
Argentine culture has it's advantages, but "tolerance to new ideas" is not one of them. I should know, I grew up there.
- conanbatt 9y agoI dont hold argentina as the standard of free speech, its just how a short stay outside of the U.S. made cultural changes very noticeable for me, and for the worse. ---- If politicians in Argentina had to resign the way they do in the US for what they say, anarchist would get their way.
- dguaraglia 9y agoLet me introduce you to 2001, the year we had five presidents in the span of a couple months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2001_riots_in_Argentina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2001_riots_in_Argenti... The perceived notion that people have to resign for "what they say or think" in the US is overblown.
- conanbatt 9y agoI'm Argentinian.
- dguaraglia 9y agoYo también.
- Houshalter 9y agoDamore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. That's probably why it got so much attention. The original had a bunch of links and graphs and plots. But the version most people read was published by some newspaper that stripped all that stuff out (and titled it an "anti-diversity screed" just to show how unbiased they were.) >they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.) Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Democracy sort of works because we tolerate each other anyway. When political polarization increases too much, bad things happen.
- tomtheelder 9y ago> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. Ehhh. Among my friends/coworkers one of the biggest objections was how dicey a lot of the referenced research was, and how much he was bending or extending conclusions to fit his narrative. At the very best his essay was awful science, but to me it felt more like a half-hearted attempt to cherrypick studies that sort of reinforced his preexisting beliefs, which is kind of the opposite of science.
- conanbatt 9y agoThe Damore case has nothing to do with the validity of the science. If the scientific interpretation had been perfectly reasonable there would still be a flip-out and would have also been fired. Thats what's scary.
- dguaraglia 9y agoDamore was fired not because his science was flawed, but because he made himself essentially impossible to work with. Would you be "scared" if someone refuses to take a shower for months on end and a company decides to fire them?
- conanbatt 9y agoI disagree entirely and vehemently to what you are saying. > he made himself essentially impossible to work with Who told you this? Im sure there were 100's of engineers, including female co-workers, at google that would have worked with him. But lets play along, lets say that effectively no single person at google would voluntarily let himself work with Damore. Why do you think that is? Because 99.9% disagree with his essay? Or because he became a target for scorn in the public eye that overpunished him? He was not fired because he wrote a shabby essay. He did not get fired for writing the essay itself. He got fired because the public asked him to be fired and punished, and google complied for PR.
- 9y ago