4 ms·

> and who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women I believe in it also, but shouldn't this id

> and who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women I believe in it also, but shouldn't this idea be quantifiable in order to be a legit basis of a firing? I.E. where is the line between "promoting stereotypes" and "promoting science?"

tptacek 9y ago
I think? the answer is that it probably doesn't much matter. The Advice Memo states explicitly that the NLRB gives deference to employers on this matter, because they're required by state and federal EEO laws to suppress discrimination of protected classes. So where this might become a material question is if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for superior male aptitude, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Like, maybe you couldn't discipline them at the insistence of some other employee? But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  So, what if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for completely equivalent aptitude between males and females, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Then someone dissented from that view and a large number of those employees demanded the head of the dissenter? In that case, the NLRB has your back! But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back. Well, for one thing, I think the issue James Damore was organizing around is, "does our employer effectively make it thoughtcrime to question how they comply with EEO laws on the basis of differing average preferences." The NLRB's answer is that, yes the employer can make it a thoughtcrime, the NLRB has your back on that, and furthermore, that a lower level NLRB functionary can adjudicate on matters of truth in science. Basically, what the NLRB has done here is to "instantiate into law" through the back-door of regulations and regulatory bodies, ideologically driven junk science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I assume you write this knowing (a) that I do not at all agree with your conclusions about "science" and (b) do not really care, because science is not the issue here. Google has an anti-harassment policy. Damore violated it. The NLRB defers to employers in the enforcement of anti-harassment policies. Damore cannot use the NLRA to "overturn" Google's anti-harassment policies. This part of Damore's game is over.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      (b) do not really care, because science is not the issue here. The issue is witch-hunts. You may well come to care if and when they decide to come for you. Given my conclusions that you are a rational person who values truth, that may well happen to you. Then again, most people are just fine with coercion and injustice, so long as it's happening to people who "deserve it," in the style of comic book stories. It may never happen to you, and you may well be fine with them. That is also quite normal.

tptacek 9y ago

I think? the answer is that it probably doesn't much matter. The Advice Memo states explicitly that the NLRB gives deference to employers on this matter, because they're required by state and federal EEO laws to suppress discrimination of protected classes. So where this might become a material question is if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for superior male aptitude, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Like, maybe you couldn't discipline them at the insistence of some other employee? But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back.

stcredzero 9y ago
So, what if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for completely equivalent aptitude between males and females, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Then someone dissented from that view and a large number of those employees demanded the head of the dissenter? In that case, the NLRB has your back! But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back. Well, for one thing, I think the issue James Damore was organizing around is, "does our employer effectively make it thoughtcrime to question how they comply with EEO laws on the basis of differing average preferences." The NLRB's answer is that, yes the employer can make it a thoughtcrime, the NLRB has your back on that, and furthermore, that a lower level NLRB functionary can adjudicate on matters of truth in science. Basically, what the NLRB has done here is to "instantiate into law" through the back-door of regulations and regulatory bodies, ideologically driven junk science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
- tptacek 9y ago
  I assume you write this knowing (a) that I do not at all agree with your conclusions about "science" and (b) do not really care, because science is not the issue here. Google has an anti-harassment policy. Damore violated it. The NLRB defers to employers in the enforcement of anti-harassment policies. Damore cannot use the NLRA to "overturn" Google's anti-harassment policies. This part of Damore's game is over.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    (b) do not really care, because science is not the issue here. The issue is witch-hunts. You may well come to care if and when they decide to come for you. Given my conclusions that you are a rational person who values truth, that may well happen to you. Then again, most people are just fine with coercion and injustice, so long as it's happening to people who "deserve it," in the style of comic book stories. It may never happen to you, and you may well be fine with them. That is also quite normal.