3 ms·

Uh, I read the James Damore memo, and that's what I got out of it. It's the classic groundwork for an argument of scientific sexism.

dnissley 6y ago
I'm guessing you got that impression by reading between the lines since he certainly did not say so literally. Since the memo is pretty short, could you go back over it and offer up a justification for that assertion? Is it possible that you rushed to judgement and heard what you wanted to hear?
- jacksnipe 6y ago
  As I said, "It's the classic groundwork for an argument of scientific sexism". Yes, it's reading between the lines, but the implication is there and clearly intended to be there. Not only is he implying it, he is implying it using the exact same arguments that have been used in neuro circles for years. There is an explicitly sexist context for these arguments that is not present in the memo but which nobody making those arguments could have been completely unaware of.
- paulcole 6y ago
  > I'm guessing you got that impression by reading between the lines since he certainly did not say so literally. It’s called a dog whistle. Damore knew exactly what he was saying, who it would appeal to, and how to attempt to cover himself when the whole thing blew up in his face.
  - jacksnipe 6y ago
    100% this.
  - dnissley 6y ago
    Who was he dog whistling to? The secret google cabal of sexist software engineers? This strong claim borders on conspiracy. It flies in the face of the fact that the memo was not originally posted for the whole company to see, but in response to a request for feedback on bias training.
    - paulcole 6y ago
      > The secret google cabal of sexist software engineers Go back and read the comment threads here when the story broke. The population of sexist software engineers extends far beyond Google and isn’t a secret to anyone.
pas 6y ago
The memo called into question the diversity effort's efficiency and methods, because it pointed out that it seems that the effort had no rational grounding, therefore it was succeeding at best as an expensive PR (or Corporate Social Responsibility) stunt and worst it hurts Google. Does this sound like a truthful and faithful assessment to you?

dnissley 6y ago

I'm guessing you got that impression by reading between the lines since he certainly did not say so literally. Since the memo is pretty short, could you go back over it and offer up a justification for that assertion? Is it possible that you rushed to judgement and heard what you wanted to hear?

jacksnipe 6y ago
As I said, "It's the classic groundwork for an argument of scientific sexism". Yes, it's reading between the lines, but the implication is there and clearly intended to be there. Not only is he implying it, he is implying it using the exact same arguments that have been used in neuro circles for years. There is an explicitly sexist context for these arguments that is not present in the memo but which nobody making those arguments could have been completely unaware of.
paulcole 6y ago
> I'm guessing you got that impression by reading between the lines since he certainly did not say so literally. It’s called a dog whistle. Damore knew exactly what he was saying, who it would appeal to, and how to attempt to cover himself when the whole thing blew up in his face.
- jacksnipe 6y ago
  100% this.
- dnissley 6y ago
  Who was he dog whistling to? The secret google cabal of sexist software engineers? This strong claim borders on conspiracy. It flies in the face of the fact that the memo was not originally posted for the whole company to see, but in response to a request for feedback on bias training.
  - paulcole 6y ago
    > The secret google cabal of sexist software engineers Go back and read the comment threads here when the story broke. The population of sexist software engineers extends far beyond Google and isn’t a secret to anyone.

pas 6y ago

The memo called into question the diversity effort's efficiency and methods, because it pointed out that it seems that the effort had no rational grounding, therefore it was succeeding at best as an expensive PR (or Corporate Social Responsibility) stunt and worst it hurts Google. Does this sound like a truthful and faithful assessment to you?