Google and the James Damore Memo

JC29856

Here is a link to the memo:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

I find the memo, the author, google handling of and the reaction to all of this fascinating.

For those that are interested in the science of sexes, here are 4 experts weighing in(interesting that its from 3 male and 1 female, I would have expected 2 and 2).
https://archive.is/z6xxP

JC29856

I few points I find interesting from the memo

Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies.

My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology.

​I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

Thankfully,climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, theoverwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.

This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.

JC29856

I few points I find interesting from the scientists:
Jussism
Very few of the comments actually engage the arguments; they just fling insults and slurs. Yes, slurs. In 1960, the most common slurs were insulting labels for demographic groups. In 2017, the most common slurs involve labelling anyone who you disagree with on issues such as affirmative action, diversity, gaps, and inequality as a racist, sexist, homophobe, or bigot.
The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the type of smug self-appointed superiority that has led to widespread resentment of the left among reasonable people.

Schmitt
But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe.

Miller
Weirdly, the same people who advocate for equality of outcome in every aspect of corporate life, also tend to advocate for diversity in every aspect of corporate life. They don’t even see the fundamentally irreconcilable assumptions behind this ‘equality and diversity’ dogma.
His most important suggestion though is apparently the most contentious: ‘Be open about the science of human nature’. He writes ‘Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.’ This is also correct. If American businesses want to remain competitive in a global market, they must open their eyes to the research, and ground their policies in the known facts about the genetic evolution of sex differences, rather than blank slate delusions about the ‘social construction of gender’.

Soh
I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership.
Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.
No matter how controversial it is or how great the pushback, I believe it’s important to speak out, because if we can’t discuss scientific truths, where does that leave us?

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

I few points I find interesting from the memo

Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies.

My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology.

​I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

Thankfully,climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, theoverwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.

This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.

Yea sure, "authoritarian and extremist" policies and denial of the wage gap. The fake BLS perpetrating some kind of myth on us all. Where are the demands to cease the toxic discourse?

JC29856

CEO Sundar Pichai’s response:

This has been a very difficult time. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.

First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”

The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.

The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree—while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct. I’d encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same.

I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group—including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.

brianlux

"Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies."

They didn't do much to prevent a right wing president and congress.  Would you not say we have an extremely split bi-culture, left and right?

"I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group"

I agree only I don't get so wrapped up in the sexual identity frenzy.  People like you and I already accept differences in others.  The rest are either hopelessly ignorant and biased.  There's also a large group of people who are sexually confused.  I empathize to the degree that as a young adult that is not uncommon. I just find it a bit irritating to see people being so publicly histrionic about their sexuality and letting that override concern for all the other political, economic and environmental issues that will hurt us more in the long run.

"PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause."

Is this really that big an issue?  I don't think so.  Sounds like media hype.

"Very few of the comments actually engage the arguments; they just fling insults and slurs."

That kind of reactionary dialogue gets old, doesn't it?!

"The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the type of smug self-appointed superiority that has led to widespread resentment of the left among reasonable people."

Sorry to say, to some degree I concur with this but on the flip-side, the right brings a lot of this on themselves.

Seems to me for the most part, the whole right/left  conservative/liberal labeling has become so knee-jerk today that these terms really have little meaning other than to divide.  I'm sure that's not all accidental.  What about common sense?  What about just doing what makes sense?  We are too busy with other foolishness.  That will be our downfall.  We are so tied up in our own knots of evasion, denial, amusement (a-- lack of,  muse-- to reflect, to be absorbed in thought) and distractions, that when the proverbial shit hits the fan, we will be standing around with our hands in our pockets wondering why it's hitting in our face... everyone's face.

I'm as much to blame as anybody really.  Sometimes I feel like I kind of stopped giving a shit.  :-(  Not totally, but more and more as we sink into the mire.

Go Beavers

I disagree that there's any trend of widespread resentment toward the left. I think that's come up recently as an attempt to make sense of why trump got elected. Rather than acknowledge the uncomfortable parts of our society that include racism and fear, it's easier to blame it on a reaction to the left. Also, insults in the past were directed at demographic groups, and it's the same now, people have just created more specific groups to insult as we get closer to racial and gender equality. And the insults go both ways between the left, right and middle. Interestingly, the insults highlighted are often the ones liberals may say to conservatives. If conservatives want to make a case for their belief system, I recommend they do so with a foundation in some sort of factual reality, rather than the common "well it's what I think, and what you think is just your opinion". 

JC29856

brianlux said:

"Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies."

They didn't do much to prevent a right wing president and congress.  Would you not say we have an extremely split bi-culture, left and right?

I think what was addressed in the memo (PC mono-culture shaming dissenters in silence) about google to some extent applies to the public as a whole, it certainly applies on these forums. I don't consider Trump extreme right wing and I wouldn't use the author opinion about google as a barometer for preventing Trump, in fact I would argue it is party the reason why Trump was elected. Its practically a fact that people in power aren't held to account as they should be, as you and I would be (can we all agree on that?). I think people were fed up with any criticism of a black president being labeled racist, any criticism of a female nominee being sexist. Unfortunately, there are criticisms rooted in racism and sexism but not all criticisms are ill rooted. Even more unfortunate is when honest factual criticism is quickly (Ill add the word potentially) labeled racist sexist. I also think people were fed up with the same shit, Bush Clinton but thats another spinoff topic.
Has anyone considered the silence of Trump voters as a reason the polls were so far off or his percentage of winning so low? (I know I know the polls weren't that far off on election day) Im convinced that many voters would not admit that they were voting Trump (even anonymously) for fear of being called racist sexist bigot etc (these boards as evidence).
Did anyone ever come up with the idea that maybe voters liked Trumps message and were not sexist bigots or dumb? America First. Or that they gave him the nod simply because he had a message(s).
I could go on and on about extreme authoritarian policies as they relate to the Obama Admin but if you have been around here often you would/should know these already (habeas corpus, expanding wars, expanding surveillance/police state) but you get the gist.

Bentleyspop

Now that he has been fired from Google I predict an upcoming tweetstorm from NJ about protecting the rights and freedoms of American workers. And then the memo writer will be offered one of the many unfilled positions in the bannon white house.

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

brianlux said:

"Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies."

They didn't do much to prevent a right wing president and congress.  Would you not say we have an extremely split bi-culture, left and right?

I think what was addressed in the memo (PC mono-culture shaming dissenters in silence) about google to some extent applies to the public as a whole, it certainly applies on these forums. I don't consider Trump extreme right wing and I wouldn't use the author opinion about google as a barometer for preventing Trump, in fact I would argue it is party the reason why Trump was elected. Its practically a fact that people in power aren't held to account as they should be, as you and I would be (can we all agree on that?). I think people were fed up with any criticism of a black president being labeled racist, any criticism of a female nominee being sexist. Unfortunately, there are criticisms rooted in racism and sexism but not all criticisms are ill rooted. Even more unfortunate is when honest factual criticism is quickly (Ill add the word potentially) labeled racist sexist. I also think people were fed up with the same shit, Bush Clinton but thats another spinoff topic.
Has anyone considered the silence of Trump voters as a reason the polls were so far off or his percentage of winning so low? (I know I know the polls weren't that far off on election day) Im convinced that many voters would not admit that they were voting Trump (even anonymously) for fear of being called racist sexist bigot etc (these boards as evidence).
Did anyone ever come up with the idea that maybe voters liked Trumps message and were not sexist bigots or dumb? America First. Or that they gave him the nod simply because he had a message(s).
I could go on and on about extreme authoritarian policies as they relate to the Obama Admin but if you have been around here often you would/should know these already (habeas corpus, expanding wars, expanding surveillance/police state) but you get the gist.

The often repeated misperception that criticism of Obama means you're racist is an interesting one. Certainly there were racist people criticizing him and they were blatant about it. I think conservatives largely in denial about racism often make this claim, though. You referenced it in this forum, which I rarely saw. If someone was called racist, it was often well earned. I'm theorizing that conservatives of lten hold strong beliefs tied to over generalizations, which easily steps into prejudice and racial stereotypes. A good example is use of the term 'Obama phone'. In truth it has roots in Reagan and Baby Bush, but we all have heard the common stereotypes about people on public assistance, so it's an easy mental transition for some to now apply Obama to it. Conservatives would say this has nothing to do wiith race. I think they believe racism only exists with pointy white robes and racial slurs. 

mickeyrat

long story short, dude is free to express his opinion and disseminate his manifesto on his own time using his own equipment and an address book he built himself.

Google can and should restrict use of their equipment, internet access, etc to work related product and whatever else they deem fit.

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

long story short, dude is free to express his opinion and disseminate his manifesto on his own time using his own equipment and an address book he built himself.

Google can and should restrict use of their equipment, internet access, etc to work related product and whatever else they deem fit.

Or, have a "corporate culture." Or, the author can go work for the Trump Organization. Imagine that?

Go Beavers

I read the guy's memo. He's really trying to sound informed, so I'll give him that. The issue of biological and brain differences between the sexes is studied and discussed at colleges all over and has been for years. I'm not sure where he went to school, but he must have kept coursework pretty narrow. Sound like he's whining about not feeling validated and therefore feeling victimized by a few programs at Google. 

JC29856

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

brianlux said:

"Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies."

They didn't do much to prevent a right wing president and congress.  Would you not say we have an extremely split bi-culture, left and right?

I think what was addressed in the memo (PC mono-culture shaming dissenters in silence) about google to some extent applies to the public as a whole, it certainly applies on these forums. I don't consider Trump extreme right wing and I wouldn't use the author opinion about google as a barometer for preventing Trump, in fact I would argue it is party the reason why Trump was elected. Its practically a fact that people in power aren't held to account as they should be, as you and I would be (can we all agree on that?). I think people were fed up with any criticism of a black president being labeled racist, any criticism of a female nominee being sexist. Unfortunately, there are criticisms rooted in racism and sexism but not all criticisms are ill rooted. Even more unfortunate is when honest factual criticism is quickly (Ill add the word potentially) labeled racist sexist. I also think people were fed up with the same shit, Bush Clinton but thats another spinoff topic.
Has anyone considered the silence of Trump voters as a reason the polls were so far off or his percentage of winning so low? (I know I know the polls weren't that far off on election day) Im convinced that many voters would not admit that they were voting Trump (even anonymously) for fear of being called racist sexist bigot etc (these boards as evidence).
Did anyone ever come up with the idea that maybe voters liked Trumps message and were not sexist bigots or dumb? America First. Or that they gave him the nod simply because he had a message(s).
I could go on and on about extreme authoritarian policies as they relate to the Obama Admin but if you have been around here often you would/should know these already (habeas corpus, expanding wars, expanding surveillance/police state) but you get the gist.

The often repeated misperception that criticism of Obama means you're racist is an interesting one. Certainly there were racist people criticizing him and they were blatant about it. I think conservatives largely in denial about racism often make this claim, though. You referenced it in this forum, which I rarely saw. If someone was called racist, it was often well earned. I'm theorizing that conservatives of lten hold strong beliefs tied to over generalizations, which easily steps into prejudice and racial stereotypes. A good example is use of the term 'Obama phone'. In truth it has roots in Reagan and Baby Bush, but we all have heard the common stereotypes about people on public assistance, so it's an easy mental transition for some to now apply Obama to it. Conservatives would say this has nothing to do wiith race. I think they believe racism only exists with pointy white robes and racial slurs. 

my reference was about "trump supporters" being labeled racist and I alluded to my belief that some may be sick of valid criticism being knee jerk labeled racist sexist etc.
my response actually had little to do with Obama but it appears your reply has everything to do with him which is kinda confusing.

JC29856

Go Beavers said:

I read the guy's memo. He's really trying to sound informed, so I'll give him that. The issue of biological and brain differences between the sexes is studied and discussed at colleges all over and has been for years. I'm not sure where he went to school, but he must have kept coursework pretty narrow. Sound like he's whining about not feeling validated and therefore feeling victimized by a few programs at Google. 

if you read the opinions of the four sex gender scientists, they all agree that his memo is based on scientific fact.
what parts did you find whiny?
where does he play victim?

JC29856

Q and A with Damore

https://youtu.be/TN1vEfqHGro

just a side note, not to distract from the interview... Im a look-a-like mashup between Damore and Molyneux.

Halifax2TheMax

Snowflakes be a melting in the august heatwave of bluster. No legislative accomplishments to crow about, trump's approval tanking, his incompetence on full display and Mueller getting closer, 3D is the order of the day. Maybe Trump should buy google and run it more like trump university or his organization, like the Miss Universe pageant. Talk about nothingburger sandwiches?

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

I read the guy's memo. He's really trying to sound informed, so I'll give him that. The issue of biological and brain differences between the sexes is studied and discussed at colleges all over and has been for years. I'm not sure where he went to school, but he must have kept coursework pretty narrow. Sound like he's whining about not feeling validated and therefore feeling victimized by a few programs at Google. 

if you read the opinions of the four sex gender scientists, they all agree that his memo is based on scientific fact.
what parts did you find whiny?
where does he play victim?

Passive aggressive whining: "If we can't have an honest discussion about this"
Reference to "shaming culture" without clarifying specifically what that is.
Bullet points on page three are worded to skew in his favor and to support his conclusions.
Page 4 bullet points have some outdated verbiage, but I'm assuming he's new to the whole social science thing. I knew those guys in college; just focusing on the Computer Science classes.
Page 5: "Social constructionist". A nicely loaded term, ambiguous enough to gain favor with conservative readers.
Page 6: "google biases" bullet points. Left vague enough, but since it's the core of his complaint supposedly, shouldn't this be the main point of the whole thing? Why no detail?
Page 7: The left "denies science concerning biological differences"? and the saying 'social sciences leans left', all the while previously he references social science research about differences between the sexes? Maybe he should've paused this memo until he got past the 100 level stuff.
Page 7: Whining: "when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner". No. If you were able to communicate in any sort of adult way, you could speak to how each women's issue also carries an inverse, male issue.

​Page 8: Needs elaborations: "frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created thesame silent, psychologically unsafe environment". What did you say? What did others say? How did you respond at the time?
Page 8: what do conservatives want to say that they feel so threatened that they are unable to?

Page 10: Whining: referencing backlash from mandatory unconscious bias training.

​

.

2-feign-reluctance

Dude can be a fucking douche off the clock far as I'm concerned. Hope he doesn't mind ever dating again.

JC29856

2-feign-reluctance said:

Dude can be a fucking douche off the clock far as I'm concerned. Hope he doesn't mind ever dating again.

"dude" is a mash up of me and mony..he triple fucked either way, he seems resolved to that fact.
besides your intellect, anything else you can
an offer on his memo?

JC29856

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

I read the guy's memo. He's really trying to sound informed, so I'll give him that. The issue of biological and brain differences between the sexes is studied and discussed at colleges all over and has been for years. I'm not sure where he went to school, but he must have kept coursework pretty narrow. Sound like he's whining about not feeling validated and therefore feeling victimized by a few programs at Google. 

if you read the opinions of the four sex gender scientists, they all agree that his memo is based on scientific fact.
what parts did you find whiny?
where does he play victim?

Passive aggressive whining: "If we can't have an honest discussion about this"
Reference to "shaming culture" without clarifying specifically what that is.
Bullet points on page three are worded to skew in his favor and to support his conclusions.
Page 4 bullet points have some outdated verbiage, but I'm assuming he's new to the whole social science thing. I knew those guys in college; just focusing on the Computer Science classes.
Page 5: "Social constructionist". A nicely loaded term, ambiguous enough to gain favor with conservative readers.
Page 6: "google biases" bullet points. Left vague enough, but since it's the core of his complaint supposedly, shouldn't this be the main point of the whole thing? Why no detail?
Page 7: The left "denies science concerning biological differences"? and the saying 'social sciences leans left', all the while previously he references social science research about differences between the sexes? Maybe he should've paused this memo until he got past the 100 level stuff.
Page 7: Whining: "when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner". No. If you were able to communicate in any sort of adult way, you could speak to how each women's issue also carries an inverse, male issue.

​Page 8: Needs elaborations: "frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created thesame silent, psychologically unsafe environment". What did you say? What did others say? How did you respond at the time?
Page 8: what do conservatives want to say that they feel so threatened that they are unable to?

Page 10: Whining: referencing backlash from mandatory unconscious bias training.

​

.

this will require me to be sober and in front of a keyboard..which is a rarity. stay tuned

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

I read the guy's memo. He's really trying to sound informed, so I'll give him that. The issue of biological and brain differences between the sexes is studied and discussed at colleges all over and has been for years. I'm not sure where he went to school, but he must have kept coursework pretty narrow. Sound like he's whining about not feeling validated and therefore feeling victimized by a few programs at Google. 

if you read the opinions of the four sex gender scientists, they all agree that his memo is based on scientific fact.
what parts did you find whiny?
where does he play victim?

Passive aggressive whining: "If we can't have an honest discussion about this"
Reference to "shaming culture" without clarifying specifically what that is.
Bullet points on page three are worded to skew in his favor and to support his conclusions.
Page 4 bullet points have some outdated verbiage, but I'm assuming he's new to the whole social science thing. I knew those guys in college; just focusing on the Computer Science classes.
Page 5: "Social constructionist". A nicely loaded term, ambiguous enough to gain favor with conservative readers.
Page 6: "google biases" bullet points. Left vague enough, but since it's the core of his complaint supposedly, shouldn't this be the main point of the whole thing? Why no detail?
Page 7: The left "denies science concerning biological differences"? and the saying 'social sciences leans left', all the while previously he references social science research about differences between the sexes? Maybe he should've paused this memo until he got past the 100 level stuff.
Page 7: Whining: "when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner". No. If you were able to communicate in any sort of adult way, you could speak to how each women's issue also carries an inverse, male issue.

​Page 8: Needs elaborations: "frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created thesame silent, psychologically unsafe environment". What did you say? What did others say? How did you respond at the time?
Page 8: what do conservatives want to say that they feel so threatened that they are unable to?

Page 10: Whining: referencing backlash from mandatory unconscious bias training.

​

.

this will require me to be sober and in front of a keyboard..which is a rarity. stay tuned

Now things are making sense. 

PJ_Soul

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

I read the guy's memo. He's really trying to sound informed, so I'll give him that. The issue of biological and brain differences between the sexes is studied and discussed at colleges all over and has been for years. I'm not sure where he went to school, but he must have kept coursework pretty narrow. Sound like he's whining about not feeling validated and therefore feeling victimized by a few programs at Google. 

if you read the opinions of the four sex gender scientists, they all agree that his memo is based on scientific fact.
what parts did you find whiny?
where does he play victim?

Passive aggressive whining: "If we can't have an honest discussion about this"
Reference to "shaming culture" without clarifying specifically what that is.
Bullet points on page three are worded to skew in his favor and to support his conclusions.
Page 4 bullet points have some outdated verbiage, but I'm assuming he's new to the whole social science thing. I knew those guys in college; just focusing on the Computer Science classes.
Page 5: "Social constructionist". A nicely loaded term, ambiguous enough to gain favor with conservative readers.
Page 6: "google biases" bullet points. Left vague enough, but since it's the core of his complaint supposedly, shouldn't this be the main point of the whole thing? Why no detail?
Page 7: The left "denies science concerning biological differences"? and the saying 'social sciences leans left', all the while previously he references social science research about differences between the sexes? Maybe he should've paused this memo until he got past the 100 level stuff.
Page 7: Whining: "when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner". No. If you were able to communicate in any sort of adult way, you could speak to how each women's issue also carries an inverse, male issue.

​Page 8: Needs elaborations: "frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created thesame silent, psychologically unsafe environment". What did you say? What did others say? How did you respond at the time?
Page 8: what do conservatives want to say that they feel so threatened that they are unable to?

Page 10: Whining: referencing backlash from mandatory unconscious bias training.

​

.

this will require me to be sober and in front of a keyboard..which is a rarity. stay tuned

Now things are making sense. 

JC29856

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

I read the guy's memo. He's really trying to sound informed, so I'll give him that. The issue of biological and brain differences between the sexes is studied and discussed at colleges all over and has been for years. I'm not sure where he went to school, but he must have kept coursework pretty narrow. Sound like he's whining about not feeling validated and therefore feeling victimized by a few programs at Google. 

if you read the opinions of the four sex gender scientists, they all agree that his memo is based on scientific fact.
what parts did you find whiny?
where does he play victim?

Passive aggressive whining: "If we can't have an honest discussion about this"
Reference to "shaming culture" without clarifying specifically what that is.
Bullet points on page three are worded to skew in his favor and to support his conclusions.
Page 4 bullet points have some outdated verbiage, but I'm assuming he's new to the whole social science thing. I knew those guys in college; just focusing on the Computer Science classes.
Page 5: "Social constructionist". A nicely loaded term, ambiguous enough to gain favor with conservative readers.
Page 6: "google biases" bullet points. Left vague enough, but since it's the core of his complaint supposedly, shouldn't this be the main point of the whole thing? Why no detail?
Page 7: The left "denies science concerning biological differences"? and the saying 'social sciences leans left', all the while previously he references social science research about differences between the sexes? Maybe he should've paused this memo until he got past the 100 level stuff.
Page 7: Whining: "when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner". No. If you were able to communicate in any sort of adult way, you could speak to how each women's issue also carries an inverse, male issue.

​Page 8: Needs elaborations: "frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created thesame silent, psychologically unsafe environment". What did you say? What did others say? How did you respond at the time?
Page 8: what do conservatives want to say that they feel so threatened that they are unable to?

Page 10: Whining: referencing backlash from mandatory unconscious bias training.

​

.

this will require me to be sober and in front of a keyboard..which is a rarity. stay tuned

Now things are making sense. 

sober me thought, no reply or explanation of post...well fuck it, Phil Collins, lets booze....makes total sense

EdsonNascimento

Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento said:

Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.

Your first sentence said he basically had no rights, then your last sentence suggests that he did have rights?

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.

Your first sentence said he basically had no rights, then your last sentence suggests that he did have rights?

Yes.  That's what that means.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.

Your first sentence said he basically had no rights, then your last sentence suggests that he did have rights?

Yes.  That's what that means.

He has rights no rights. Glad we cleared that up. 

JC29856

more from Damore

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

more from Damore

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

Will Phil be behind the kit tonight?

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.

Your first sentence said he basically had no rights, then your last sentence suggests that he did have rights?

Yes.  That's what that means.

He has rights no rights. Glad we cleared that up. 

Ok.  I will help you out his once.   He has rights.  Google was within its rights.   You can stand up for him if you don't want to see your rights trampled in the future.