4 ms·

This was buried in the article, but James Danmore is racist now. > notorious ex-Googler James Damore, who suggest this is because women and people of color lac

This was buried in the article, but James Danmore is racist now. > notorious ex-Googler James Damore, who suggest this is because women and people of color lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech. It seems that people just keep tacking on “sins” to see what sticks to people’s reputations regardless of the facts. Was there anything in Danmores article that even mentioned people of color?

mgamache 5y ago
'notorious' is a Russell Conjugation unless it The Notorious B.I.G. https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/ https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/
zozbot234 5y ago
> lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech James Damore never said anything of the sort. He was concerned that women might feel excluded in an engineering-focused environment and be less likely to seek such a role because of the different aggregation of preferences and inclinations among women as opposed to men. He said zilch about quality or potential for success, or for that matter about any individual woman (as opposed to aggregate trends and their influence on 'big picture' stats).
ceph_ 5y ago
His doc repeatedly said programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended. And that diversity of gender and race should not be a goal. I don't think it's a big leap.
- rasputnik6502 5y ago
  Many years ago a big tech company opened a new office in my city and started recruiting developers at my university. They wanted to be fair and treat both sexes equally so they decided on male/female parity (at least 30% women). But on my year (computer science) there were just 3 gals vs 30 guys, but there were groups with even worse ratio. So the company hired all female students they could and then started looking outside. Even hired some girls from biology (qualifications weren't that important) because they had to fill in female positions, so then they could give offers to male programmers. Felt pretty bad, this was certainly one of such programs you mentioned
  - ceph_ 5y ago
    That is nothing like the programs at Google. More like "increase outreach at historically black colleges".
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Name the so called big tech company, you're already posting under a new throwaway. If you don't we can assume you just made that up.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- imperfectcats 5y ago
  Can you point me to the section that says that: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... Being as generous with the interpretation as possible, I guess suggesting new programs to replace existing ones could be interpreted as "programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended", as ending one and replacing it is kind of ending. Saying "repeatedly" seems a stretch though. Can you explain what I'm missing that lead to your beliefs?
  - ceph_ 5y ago
    Under the harms section first bullet for things to end: "Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race"
    - imperfectcats 5y ago
      OK, so you read that section and see it as "repeatedly said programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended"? There is another section with programs Damore claimed would be more effective. I am confused why replacing programs equates to ending them. Unless the goal is only to have good intentions, shouldn't the effectiveness of programs matter?
    - dqv 5y ago
      My interpretation: He uses that to suggest the programs increase racial tensions, not to suggest that we shouldn't be trying to get more people of color involved in tech. He cites this article [0] as his reasoning. Is there something I'm missing? [0]: http://archive.is/00yb5 http://archive.is/00yb5
belltaco 5y ago
>Was there anything in Danmores article that even mentioned people of color? James Damore's point was that diversity hires make for low quality hires. People who believe that may see a PoC working in tech and automatically assume they got hired for their skin color and not skill.

mgamache 5y ago

'notorious' is a Russell Conjugation unless it The Notorious B.I.G. https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/ https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/

zozbot234 5y ago

> lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech James Damore never said anything of the sort. He was concerned that women might feel excluded in an engineering-focused environment and be less likely to seek such a role because of the different aggregation of preferences and inclinations among women as opposed to men. He said zilch about quality or potential for success, or for that matter about any individual woman (as opposed to aggregate trends and their influence on 'big picture' stats).

ceph_ 5y ago

His doc repeatedly said programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended. And that diversity of gender and race should not be a goal. I don't think it's a big leap.

rasputnik6502 5y ago
Many years ago a big tech company opened a new office in my city and started recruiting developers at my university. They wanted to be fair and treat both sexes equally so they decided on male/female parity (at least 30% women). But on my year (computer science) there were just 3 gals vs 30 guys, but there were groups with even worse ratio. So the company hired all female students they could and then started looking outside. Even hired some girls from biology (qualifications weren't that important) because they had to fill in female positions, so then they could give offers to male programmers. Felt pretty bad, this was certainly one of such programs you mentioned
- ceph_ 5y ago
  That is nothing like the programs at Google. More like "increase outreach at historically black colleges".
- belltaco 5y ago
  Name the so called big tech company, you're already posting under a new throwaway. If you don't we can assume you just made that up.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
imperfectcats 5y ago
Can you point me to the section that says that: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... Being as generous with the interpretation as possible, I guess suggesting new programs to replace existing ones could be interpreted as "programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended", as ending one and replacing it is kind of ending. Saying "repeatedly" seems a stretch though. Can you explain what I'm missing that lead to your beliefs?
- ceph_ 5y ago
  Under the harms section first bullet for things to end: "Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race"
  - imperfectcats 5y ago
    OK, so you read that section and see it as "repeatedly said programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended"? There is another section with programs Damore claimed would be more effective. I am confused why replacing programs equates to ending them. Unless the goal is only to have good intentions, shouldn't the effectiveness of programs matter?
  - dqv 5y ago
    My interpretation: He uses that to suggest the programs increase racial tensions, not to suggest that we shouldn't be trying to get more people of color involved in tech. He cites this article [0] as his reasoning. Is there something I'm missing? [0]: http://archive.is/00yb5 http://archive.is/00yb5

belltaco 5y ago

>Was there anything in Danmores article that even mentioned people of color? James Damore's point was that diversity hires make for low quality hires. People who believe that may see a PoC working in tech and automatically assume they got hired for their skin color and not skill.