4 ms·

>No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. Please, PLEASE look up the definition of 'discrimination' in any diction

by flatb 7y ago

>No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. Please, PLEASE look up the definition of 'discrimination' in any dictionary you like, and tell me if you really believe that saying 'women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average' does not fit the definition, or that James Damore's many characterizations of women on his memo ("higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance", "women generally have a harder time leading") don't, either. If that's the case, we are simply not going to agree with each other, so we shouldn't waste our time trying.

username90 7y ago
Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. Discrimination would be if you said something like "We shouldn't hire women since they have trait X" or "Since women often have trait X they need to score higher in other areas for me to hire them" or "I always make sure that women don't have trait X before hiring them". So for example "I want to hire people who don't have trait X. I give an objective test for this. More men than women pass it. Studies have shown that more men than women pass this globally, so it is as expected. Therefore, due to this test, the people I hire tend to be more men than women." is not discrimination.
- flatb 7y ago
  >Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism >Definition of sexism >1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex Enough. Just believe what you want, I give up. There's no sexism on the tech industry or schools. James Damore is right and is an oppressed victim of his own bravery. Whatever.
  - username90 7y ago
    I hope people on a tech forum understand what "or" means.
    - flatb 7y ago
      I hope so too. Let's check out the definition of discrimination. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination >1. prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment Hm. Let's check out the definition of sexism again. >1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex Prejudice or discrimination. And discrimination also means prejudiced or prejudicial...since I'm not a tech person like yourself I wouldn't know what 'or' means, it's too complicated for me, but I think I do know what 'and' means: for example, you are wrong about your definition of sexism, and about your definition of discrimination, and about your use of 'or'. This is great, I love learning new tech concepts on tech forums from tech experts.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Damore advocated for neither prejudice nor discrimination. He explicitly stated that people should not assume that differences in averages should be applied at an individual level. And not only did he not advocate for discrimination, he advocated for Google to eliminate it's discriminatory practices.
manfredo 7y ago
No, it does not fit the definition of discrimination. For example, saying men are on average more violent than women is not discrimination either - it's fact.
- flatb 7y ago
  Yes: the claims James Damore makes are cold, hard facts based on the many, many studies and statistics available on, for example, women's assertiveness (which is genetically and biologically quantifiable), that he carefully reviewed and contrasted in order to form an opinion. As such, they are facts, which do not fit the definition of discriminatory. In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory. Now that you've explained to me what facts are, I finally understand James' logic, so please consider this argument won. What happened to James, who simply circulated a fact-based memo telling half of his coworkers that they need special rules to make things fair since they're at least partly genetically inferior when it comes to the job, was yet another gratuitous act of SJW, PC, fact-censoring repression against one of society's most silenced and powerless collectives: top-salaried, Ivy League educated young white males working at the top companies of male-dominated high growth industries in the largest economy on the planet, like so many others we sadly see so often here on HN. It's time we finally took a stand on these issues.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory. If you think that there is no difference between saying people who belong to a certain group are more or less X on average, and saying that individual members of that group are X then I really cannot help you. This is just patently wrong. There's nothing sexist about saying "men on average commit rape 50 times more than women". That's fact. If you told a man, "you're a rapist" because of mere fact that he is a man, then yes that is prejudice. He didn't just add the word "on average" at the end. He explicitly pointed out that conflating population wide averages and individual characteristics is wrong: > Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

by flatb 7y ago

username90 7y ago

Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. Discrimination would be if you said something like "We shouldn't hire women since they have trait X" or "Since women often have trait X they need to score higher in other areas for me to hire them" or "I always make sure that women don't have trait X before hiring them". So for example "I want to hire people who don't have trait X. I give an objective test for this. More men than women pass it. Studies have shown that more men than women pass this globally, so it is as expected. Therefore, due to this test, the people I hire tend to be more men than women." is not discrimination.

flatb 7y ago
>Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism >Definition of sexism >1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex Enough. Just believe what you want, I give up. There's no sexism on the tech industry or schools. James Damore is right and is an oppressed victim of his own bravery. Whatever.
- username90 7y ago
  I hope people on a tech forum understand what "or" means.
  - flatb 7y ago
    I hope so too. Let's check out the definition of discrimination. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination >1. prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment Hm. Let's check out the definition of sexism again. >1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex Prejudice or discrimination. And discrimination also means prejudiced or prejudicial...since I'm not a tech person like yourself I wouldn't know what 'or' means, it's too complicated for me, but I think I do know what 'and' means: for example, you are wrong about your definition of sexism, and about your definition of discrimination, and about your use of 'or'. This is great, I love learning new tech concepts on tech forums from tech experts.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Damore advocated for neither prejudice nor discrimination. He explicitly stated that people should not assume that differences in averages should be applied at an individual level. And not only did he not advocate for discrimination, he advocated for Google to eliminate it's discriminatory practices.

manfredo 7y ago

No, it does not fit the definition of discrimination. For example, saying men are on average more violent than women is not discrimination either - it's fact.

flatb 7y ago
Yes: the claims James Damore makes are cold, hard facts based on the many, many studies and statistics available on, for example, women's assertiveness (which is genetically and biologically quantifiable), that he carefully reviewed and contrasted in order to form an opinion. As such, they are facts, which do not fit the definition of discriminatory. In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory. Now that you've explained to me what facts are, I finally understand James' logic, so please consider this argument won. What happened to James, who simply circulated a fact-based memo telling half of his coworkers that they need special rules to make things fair since they're at least partly genetically inferior when it comes to the job, was yet another gratuitous act of SJW, PC, fact-censoring repression against one of society's most silenced and powerless collectives: top-salaried, Ivy League educated young white males working at the top companies of male-dominated high growth industries in the largest economy on the planet, like so many others we sadly see so often here on HN. It's time we finally took a stand on these issues.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory. If you think that there is no difference between saying people who belong to a certain group are more or less X on average, and saying that individual members of that group are X then I really cannot help you. This is just patently wrong. There's nothing sexist about saying "men on average commit rape 50 times more than women". That's fact. If you told a man, "you're a rapist" because of mere fact that he is a man, then yes that is prejudice. He didn't just add the word "on average" at the end. He explicitly pointed out that conflating population wide averages and individual characteristics is wrong: > Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.