6 ms·

You're not convincing me when your argument is literally "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it." Which isn't true anyway. As I said,

You're not convincing me when your argument is literally "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it." Which isn't true anyway. As I said, his opinions were nowhere near that extreme and are basically just "women have statistically different interests than men." He never said the women in tech were less interested or capable or should be treated any differently.

dguaraglia 9y ago
> "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it." I never said it was illegal. I said it was stupid to do it at work. There's a lot of things that while not illegal, are stupid to do at work and will get you fired. > his opinions were nowhere near that extreme and are basically just "women have statistically different interests than men." He never said the women in tech were less interested or capable or should be treated any differently. His opinions demonstrated that he holds biases against women and minorities, and he thinks the company is doing the wrong thing by hiring more of both. Whether those biases are justified by his "science" (they aren't) or not, is neither here nor there, he's a walking legal landmine. On that basis alone, it would be perfectly justified to fire him. Now, should he be able to express his opinions? Sure! Talk to your friends at a bar. Find people you think are like-minded and discuss this. Better yet: find people you know to hold the opposite opinion and discuss it with them. Don't fucking spread something company-wide and then complain when you get fired.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  It's a double standard. Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Not only that, but actually have them become official policy. Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. But if you dare to object to it... Against policies that are actually sexist and actually relevant to your work. Make an actual scientific case for your side. Then somehow you are an evil sexist that wants to discriminate against minorities.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Please give examples. > Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. Again, provide examples. I hear this argument a lot "poor men are being discriminated by women!!!" and yet I have to see a single shred of evidence of this. Again, for context, I'm a male working in the tech field and I have worked at Google. Do you personally feel that a field where 80% of the workforce is male (vs a 50/50 split in overall demographics) is "actively discriminating against hiring males? I find that argument very, very, VERY difficult to defend. > Then somehow you are an evil sexist that wants to discriminate against minorities. What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent?
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > Please give examples. Mandatory gender quotas. Women-only lectures, events and benefits. > What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent? Why does it matter. Thats not the point.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        > Mandatory gender quotas. Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. I interviewed tons of candidates there. I was never told to benefit this person or the next because they were of a particular gender or ethnic background. In fact, there was mandatory training on how to not fall for your own biases. > Women-only lectures, events and benefits. So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take. > Why does it matter. Thats not the point. That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise?
        conanbatt 9y ago
        You keep doing this in all the arguments you have in this thread: you ask a question, and then when you get a response you reframe the question. You are being either dishonest or a zealot. > Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. You asked for example of extreme "feminists" opinions that are allowed in the workforce and I gave you some. Also Damore's argument is that google is propping the numbers in a way akin to quotas, by jigging the selection process. (Well, I heard people say that, i haven't read the essay). > So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take. Now you are reframing the question as in a constitutional matter. That was not the question you asked. You asked for examples of extreme feminist positions in the workplace and women-only events is an example of one. Man-only corporate events dont exist, and if you called it one, there would also be public outrage. Women-only is actively discriminatory. Some people are fine with that, some aren't. The standard is not the same for everyone. > That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise? So if a feminist had written the essay, you would agree with it and would find it enlightening? Its a simple ad-hominem. It can be true and Damore be the worst person ever born at the same time. Its not an argument of anything.

dguaraglia 9y ago

> "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it." I never said it was illegal. I said it was stupid to do it at work. There's a lot of things that while not illegal, are stupid to do at work and will get you fired. > his opinions were nowhere near that extreme and are basically just "women have statistically different interests than men." He never said the women in tech were less interested or capable or should be treated any differently. His opinions demonstrated that he holds biases against women and minorities, and he thinks the company is doing the wrong thing by hiring more of both. Whether those biases are justified by his "science" (they aren't) or not, is neither here nor there, he's a walking legal landmine. On that basis alone, it would be perfectly justified to fire him. Now, should he be able to express his opinions? Sure! Talk to your friends at a bar. Find people you think are like-minded and discuss this. Better yet: find people you know to hold the opposite opinion and discuss it with them. Don't fucking spread something company-wide and then complain when you get fired.

Houshalter 9y ago
It's a double standard. Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Not only that, but actually have them become official policy. Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. But if you dare to object to it... Against policies that are actually sexist and actually relevant to your work. Make an actual scientific case for your side. Then somehow you are an evil sexist that wants to discriminate against minorities.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Please give examples. > Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. Again, provide examples. I hear this argument a lot "poor men are being discriminated by women!!!" and yet I have to see a single shred of evidence of this. Again, for context, I'm a male working in the tech field and I have worked at Google. Do you personally feel that a field where 80% of the workforce is male (vs a 50/50 split in overall demographics) is "actively discriminating against hiring males? I find that argument very, very, VERY difficult to defend. > Then somehow you are an evil sexist that wants to discriminate against minorities. What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > Please give examples. Mandatory gender quotas. Women-only lectures, events and benefits. > What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent? Why does it matter. Thats not the point.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      > Mandatory gender quotas. Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. I interviewed tons of candidates there. I was never told to benefit this person or the next because they were of a particular gender or ethnic background. In fact, there was mandatory training on how to not fall for your own biases. > Women-only lectures, events and benefits. So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take. > Why does it matter. Thats not the point. That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise?
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        You keep doing this in all the arguments you have in this thread: you ask a question, and then when you get a response you reframe the question. You are being either dishonest or a zealot. > Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. You asked for example of extreme "feminists" opinions that are allowed in the workforce and I gave you some. Also Damore's argument is that google is propping the numbers in a way akin to quotas, by jigging the selection process. (Well, I heard people say that, i haven't read the essay). > So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take. Now you are reframing the question as in a constitutional matter. That was not the question you asked. You asked for examples of extreme feminist positions in the workplace and women-only events is an example of one. Man-only corporate events dont exist, and if you called it one, there would also be public outrage. Women-only is actively discriminatory. Some people are fine with that, some aren't. The standard is not the same for everyone. > That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise? So if a feminist had written the essay, you would agree with it and would find it enlightening? Its a simple ad-hominem. It can be true and Damore be the worst person ever born at the same time. Its not an argument of anything.