Wow, I was just going to post this myself. Authoritarianism has fully taken hold in the Republican Party. 52% (if you are keeping score, that's a majority) of Republicans would favor postponing the 2020 Election if Trump said so. This is dangerous stuff.
Wow, I was just going to post this myself. Authoritarianism has fully taken hold in the Republican Party. 52% (if you are keeping score, that's a majority) of Republicans would favor postponing the 2020 Election if Trump said so. This is dangerous stuff.
I'm pretty sure 100% of democrats would oppose it however so that makes what, 20-25% of people who would be for it? Not worth losing any sleep over...
Wow, I was just going to post this myself. Authoritarianism has fully taken hold in the Republican Party. 52% (if you are keeping score, that's a majority) of Republicans would favor postponing the 2020 Election if Trump said so. This is dangerous stuff.
I wouldnt say 52% are Authoritarian, just that half of them believe authoritarian propaganda enough to make this type of discussion a reality.
Wow, I was just going to post this myself. Authoritarianism has fully taken hold in the Republican Party. 52% (if you are keeping score, that's a majority) of Republicans would favor postponing the 2020 Election if Trump said so. This is dangerous stuff.
I wouldnt say 52% are Authoritarian, just that half of them believe authoritarian propaganda enough to make this type of discussion a reality.
At this point it's a distinction without a difference. This is all based on Trump's "3 million illegal votes" lie. They would favor suspending it until the non-existent problem of voter fraud can be solved. Again, if your scoured the entire country, person by person, and had the aid of psychic powers and telepathy, you wouldn't be able to find 30 cases of voter fraud, much less 3 million (who, coincidentally, all voted for the same person). It's more fantastical than anything in any RPG ever made. These people are led to think this way by a myth and an illusion. Because Donald Trump said so. Which means they will swallow any pill he gives them. The bigger the lie, the more they'll believe.
I'm curious. Anyone know right off if any other major pres. candidates have hollered voter fraud? From any party running for pres. , in recent or more distant past? Is it just a republican thing or does anyone else play this card?
Yeah, I hear it bandied about on the state lvl, well, here in NC for sure. We have had all sorts of interesting things making the national headlines in the last few years.
Just the talk of it mainly, I just could not recall any pres mentioning it to this extent before, esp. after the darn election.
Has anyone talked about the Google Memo yet? A number of interesting points. One, I hate to say I told ya so, but i'm validated yet again in my claim that toxic, discriminatory social justice pervades left leaning orgs. I'm gonna quote the relevant part of his memo:
The Harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
The message is clear. If you aren't lucky enough to be a member of the "oppressed" groups, the liberal world has it out for you. They will actively discriminate against you, from the highest levels of government like in Obama's White House or in the highest levels of the private sector like in Google. They will make the lives of you and your children more difficult solely on the basis of your race or gender, and will feel justified in doing it. They will demean you and mock you and throw awful accusations about you in their media day in and day out. Because hey, you deserve it.
To be clear, it is 100% illegal to fire the man for this speech. To express disagreement about company policy or concern that something may be illegal is protected. Thus, Google claims it violates their sexual harassment codes (protip: no real sexual harassment involved by any stretch of the imagination).
It is important to note that Google worked with the Clinton Campaign.
It is also important to note that this man went straight to the alternative media rather than first wasting his time with the far left, social justice pushing mainstream media. Nobody trusts them, and for good reason. If you want to get your message out unfiltered, alternative media is where you go these days. Here's him explaining himself.
Has anyone talked about the Google Memo yet? A number of interesting points. One, I hate to say I told ya so, but i'm validated yet again in my claim that toxic, discriminatory social justice pervades left leaning orgs. I'm gonna quote the relevant part of his memo:
The Harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
The message is clear. If you aren't lucky enough to be a member of the "oppressed" groups, the liberal world has it out for you. They will actively discriminate against you, from the highest levels of government like in Obama's White House or in the highest levels of the private sector like in Google. They will make the lives of you and your children more difficult solely on the basis of your race or gender, and will feel justified in doing it. They will demean you and mock you and throw awful accusations about you in their media day in and day out. Because hey, you deserve it.
To be clear, it is 100% illegal to fire the man for this speech. To express disagreement about company policy or concern that something may be illegal is protected. Thus, Google claims it violates their sexual harassment codes (protip: no real sexual harassment involved by any stretch of the imagination).
It is important to note that Google worked with the Clinton Campaign.
It is also important to note that this man went straight to the alternative media rather than first wasting his time with the far left, social justice pushing mainstream media. Nobody trusts them, and for good reason. If you want to get your message out unfiltered, alternative media is where you go these days. Here's him explaining himself.
I talked about it, and apparently those on the Alt-right have never held a real job. The idea that you can just start distributing memos about your personal political beliefs to all your co-workers and expect no repercussions is ludicrous. And just straight up childish. Again, I DARE anyone to go to work tomorrow and distribute such a memo to your co-workers without running it up the chain of command (so to speak). Try it. And then have fun looking for a new job.
It is also important to note that this man went straight to the alternative media rather than first wasting his time with the far left, social justice pushing mainstream media. Nobody trusts them, and for good reason. If you want to get your message out unfiltered, alternative media is where you go these days. Here's him explaining himself.
I agree it's important to note that he went to the alternative media - because he was seeking an audience receptive to the story he wanted to tell. In reading the full memo he circulated to Google there are some points that I have sympathy with (as indeed did Google's CEO), but there are other points where he is quite clearly coming from a pretty radical perspective - one that Google can quite justifiably interpret as being against their ethos, which is why he was fired (and his choice of who to give interviews with just reinforces what his real views are).
This is a more difficult message to deal with than some of those circulated by extreme right-wingers as there is not as much of a scientific consensus. On evolution for instance scientists have a clear position and have had for many years (although there are plenty of those on the right that disagree). That doesn't mean that there is no disagreement among scientists at all, but there's as much consensus as you're ever going to get among a group of human beings. In recent years the position on climate change has moved almost to this state - where although there are still significant numbers of non-scientists opposing the theory of human-driven change, there are vanishingly few scientists still of this view.
On the question of gender differences though I don't think there is such a clear position. Pretty much all scientists would agree that there are some differences, but most consider that biological differences are either so small that they should not affect policy or that gender differences affect approach, but not overall capability. However, there is a significant minority that consider differences are larger and do potentially affect capability. As a result it is not unreasonable for Damore to hold the views he does and also not unreasonable for him to express those views. The method of expression though can be questioned. Google has a number of channels set up for people to exchange views in 'safe spaces' and Damore seems to have deliberately bypassed those.
I must admit I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that this was a sacking offense. On the one hand you can argue that he was just putting forward an unfashionable view that deserves to be heard in order to give some overall balance. However, on the other hand he clearly indicates at several points that females are biologically less suited for top jobs than males - as opposed to just having different strengths and weaknesses. As this runs counter to Google's company philosophy (and their Code of Conduct that all employees are required to abide by) it should have not been a surprise to him that the company reacted as it did.
In relation to the overall charge that this is just another instance of some huge discriminatory campaign against white males I think as with so many other things you just need to look at the figures. Google as an entire company is heavily biased towards white males in top positions and that's even more the case in relation to the engineering section Damore was in. Whether or not there really are biological differences between males and females that make them more or less suited to this work, Google's position is that there should be equality and it was Damore setting himself against the Code of Conduct that he'd agreed to abide by that gave rise to the sacking rather than the content of the memo itself.
It's very simple, if you're a corporate employee, you have to abide by company policy. This includes their policy regarding diversity, regarding communications, whatever. For example, I am not allowed to publish stuff in the name of my company, because I am not a designated PR person. If I did, no matter how insignificant, it would be cause for disciplinary action. Not to mention if it was a memo that goes against company core values!!
curious. Anyone know right off if any other major pres. candidates have hollered voter fraud? From any party running for pres. , in recent or more distant past? Is it just a republican thing or does anyone else play this card?
The Republicans allegedly had an valid claim against JFK in certain ridings. Nixon, however nixed ths type of talk before it happened because he didnt want to question the validity of the election and so it went no where.
About the google memo:
What was he attempting to achieve by sending this message to everyone instead of those responsible for the policies?
In the memo, he is basically calling out those he emailed of being hired for their skin colour and not their qualifications, once again diminishing what they actually bring to the team.
If he was truly feeling slighted by not being able to attend classes that are seperated by race or gender, why did he not ask specificly to attend such a class and the reason why he wanted to attend? You'd be surprised, with valid reasoning, exceptions can be made on policies.
I personally wouldnt fire him outright. I would have dragged him into the office for him to let his grievances known, asking for specifics to his vague accusations, then go the course there following up his memo with an official one.
Who knows, maybe this actually happened and he really didnt have anything to back up his claims with and was explained that these policies are in place for a certain reason, and they should be abided by all employees. He was probably asked to retract the memo he sent with a follow up apology of his own. He refused, so he was shown the door. He runs to Alt-right media to tell his side of the story which they eat up like gospel truth of the media is out to get them.
He wanted some time off so he could sit on the couch at home, binge-watching some TV shows and eating potato chips.
At this point, there are companies who will not hire him specifically because of his current "15 minutes" status. Politics has no place at work, as others have noted. I have been at the corporate location for 10 years now--if I make a lot of noise the CIO would be able to hear me--and only once has someone asked me a political question, to which I replied "I don't have any opinions about that here--I am just here to do my job".
I'm curious. Anyone know right off if any other major pres. candidates have hollered voter fraud? From any party running for pres. , in recent or more distant past? Is it just a republican thing or does anyone else play this card?
Al Gore is still claiming that he really won Florida (and by extension, the election) as recently as a few days ago on Bill Maher's show.
I must admit I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that this was a sacking offense. On the one hand you can argue that he was just putting forward an unfashionable view that deserves to be heard in order to give some overall balance. However, on the other hand he clearly indicates at several points that females are biologically less suited for top jobs than males - as opposed to just having different strengths and weaknesses. As this runs counter to Google's company philosophy (and their Code of Conduct that all employees are required to abide by) it should have not been a surprise to him that the company reacted as it did.
In relation to the overall charge that this is just another instance of some huge discriminatory campaign against white males I think as with so many other things you just need to look at the figures. Google as an entire company is heavily biased towards white males in top positions and that's even more the case in relation to the engineering section Damore was in. Whether or not there really are biological differences between males and females that make them more or less suited to this work, Google's position is that there should be equality and it was Damore setting himself against the Code of Conduct that he'd agreed to abide by that gave rise to the sacking rather than the content of the memo itself.
I actually understand on a corporate PR level why you have to do something even if I don't sympathize. But the charge about discrimination isn't in question- the policies he takes issue with *are* discrimination, the argument you are putting forth is that it is justified. He even attempts to offer constructive alternatives to the issue of diversity, if we are to assume this is an inherent need and good, that don't inherently discriminate.
I still don't see any moral basis for discrimination even when parity is non existent, for many reasons. Reason one being that the proposed solution to the lack of it is to punish people on the basis of race and gender, something I once thought the left was against in my foolish, younger years. What you are doing when you discriminate is punish innocent people for arbitrary things and imagined offenses. First, why should we assume it's a problem when different fields have different gender representations. Nobody complains that construction workers are overwhelmingly male and public school teachers and nurses are overwhelmingly female. I see different people making different choices, and no reason to impede them making the choices they want because we feel there are too many of them. If the cause of a lack of demographic parity isn't discrimination, but the imbalanced demographics of those qualified applicants who are signing up, is it right to penalize them for it? Why would it be?
I must admit I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that this was a sacking offense. On the one hand you can argue that he was just putting forward an unfashionable view that deserves to be heard in order to give some overall balance. However, on the other hand he clearly indicates at several points that females are biologically less suited for top jobs than males - as opposed to just having different strengths and weaknesses. As this runs counter to Google's company philosophy (and their Code of Conduct that all employees are required to abide by) it should have not been a surprise to him that the company reacted as it did.
In relation to the overall charge that this is just another instance of some huge discriminatory campaign against white males I think as with so many other things you just need to look at the figures. Google as an entire company is heavily biased towards white males in top positions and that's even more the case in relation to the engineering section Damore was in. Whether or not there really are biological differences between males and females that make them more or less suited to this work, Google's position is that there should be equality and it was Damore setting himself against the Code of Conduct that he'd agreed to abide by that gave rise to the sacking rather than the content of the memo itself.
I actually understand on a corporate PR level why you have to do something even if I don't sympathize. But the charge about discrimination isn't in question- the policies he takes issue with *are* discrimination, the argument you are putting forth is that it is justified. He even attempts to offer constructive alternatives to the issue of diversity, if we are to assume this is an inherent need and good, that don't inherently discriminate.
I still don't see any moral basis for discrimination even when parity is non existent, for many reasons. Reason one being that the proposed solution to the lack of it is to punish people on the basis of race and gender, something I once thought the left was against in my foolish, younger years. What you are doing when you discriminate is punish innocent people for arbitrary things and imagined offenses. First, why should we assume it's a problem when different fields have different gender representations. Nobody complains that construction workers are overwhelmingly male and public school teachers and nurses are overwhelmingly female. I see different people making different choices, and no reason to impede them making the choices they want because we feel there are too many of them. If the cause of a lack of demographic parity isn't discrimination, but the imbalanced demographics of those qualified applicants who are signing up, is it right to penalize them for it? Why would it be?
You have two people equally qualified for a single position. Which of the two do you hire?
I actually understand on a corporate PR level why you have to do something even if I don't sympathize. But the charge about discrimination isn't in question- the policies he takes issue with *are* discrimination, the argument you are putting forth is that it is justified. He even attempts to offer constructive alternatives to the issue of diversity, if we are to assume this is an inherent need and good, that don't inherently discriminate.
I still don't see any moral basis for discrimination even when parity is non existent, for many reasons. Reason one being that the proposed solution to the lack of it is to punish people on the basis of race and gender, something I once thought the left was against in my foolish, younger years. What you are doing when you discriminate is punish innocent people for arbitrary things and imagined offenses. First, why should we assume it's a problem when different fields have different gender representations. Nobody complains that construction workers are overwhelmingly male and public school teachers and nurses are overwhelmingly female. I see different people making different choices, and no reason to impede them making the choices they want because we feel there are too many of them. If the cause of a lack of demographic parity isn't discrimination, but the imbalanced demographics of those qualified applicants who are signing up, is it right to penalize them for it? Why would it be?
We've had a similar discussion not long ago. I don't disagree that there is discrimination and, yes, I think that can be justified. In moral terms if you believe that, in the absence of discrimination, genders would be equally represented in a particular workforce then all you're doing is counter-acting existing discriminatory forces. I accept that not everyone does believe that, but I think the majority do.
We were previously talking about public employment where one justification for 'levelling the playing field' (apart from the moral case) would be to ensure representation reflects population. That wouldn't be appropriate in the private setting of Google, but the justification here can be to enhance the performance of the company. There is an academic argument about whether gender diversity does in fact enhance company performance and the evidence that this does so is weak. However, in the case of Google the company had concluded that gender diversity would be positive for them (and this could be a perfectly rational response for them even if they believed that gender did affect the performance of individuals, e.g. as a result of getting a broader choice of candidates for posts and to fit in with corporate branding and marketing in order to enhance sales).
In implementing that conclusion Google included the aim of equal regard for genders in their policies. As has been referred to several times in previous comments if an employee publishes views across a company that are directly contrary to the stated aims of the company they're heading for trouble irrespective of the rights and wrongs of what they've said.
On the wider picture I would also take issue with your view that no-one cares about gender representation in other areas of the workforce. As I've mentioned before I've done quite a lot of work associated with education policy over the years and I have seen many, many people seriously concerned about the gender imbalance in teaching - and in relation to this discussion one of the potential consequences of this imbalance in schools is that it can reinforce gender stereotypes which in turn lead to the disparities observed in workforces later in life ...
I'm sitting here thinking about how the Alt-right attacks liberals on a daily basis about how weak-minded and overly sensitive they are. Yet they INSTANT anyone on that side gets pushback for one of their ideas, they start screaming like a baby. As far as I know, this guy was an engineer. He was not in the Human Resources department, he has no experience or direct knowledge of Google's hiring process. He was offering his OPINION about it. And he could have made his views known in any number of ways, mostly with his direct supervisor. Or he could have had the courage of his convictions and quit.
Instead, what I suspect he did was write the memo, all the while expecting to get fired, and make a martyr of himself to this new movement that is thriving online. Maybe he can co-host a podcast with a cartoon frog.
The best part is the predictions that this is the beginning of the end for Google. LMFAO. Yeah, I'm sure most of the world is going to change their search engine and web browser because of this twerp. Maybe they'll go back to Lycos or Excite.
How could they not fire him? "Hey, 30% of my colleagues are genetically inferior for this industry. Now, who wants me on their development team?"
And despite all that, it isn't even the contents of the memo that get to me. It's this attitude that somehow free speech has morphed into the right to pass out manifestos at work. I can't think of a place in society that most people have LESS free speech than at work, and the same goes for pretty much everyone. And honestly, I don't even see this aspect of it being discussed in most of the coverage online. Everything is about how they are either for or against his memo. I'm against the memo on principle before reading a word. All writing and handing it out says is "I'm a little shithead who thinks my opinions are so important that all my co-workers need to not only hear them, but read them in long-form".
The only reason we are hearing about this at all is because the Gamer-Gate/Alt-right/Pepe crowd is CONSTANTLY on the look out for stories like this to be pissed about. For awhile it was the fact that the new Ghostbusters movie had female leads. Then it was Milo being somehow owed a right to a book contract with Simon and Shuster. Now apparently Google's HR department is subject to their infantile bullshit. Having an entire internet to proclaim their beliefs from is not enough. Apparently every single aspect of society owes them a platform to spew their opinions. The World Wide Web is the great equalizer. Nazis, Marxists, and Nickelback fans all have the freedom to say what they want without fear of government retribution. The Alt-right has decided to use their platform as an endless bitch-fest about the persecution of the straight, white male.
About the North Korea problem: I've mentioned before that it only takes a single warmonger to start a war between the United States and North Korea. North Korea and Trump have both issued statements that were more provocative than usual, but I'm not sure what to make of them.
North Korea and Trump both have a habit of making empty threats and exaggerating their own strength. And now, the big talk is getting bigger. But does that mean either side is really considering military action, or is it just more noise?
That's the problem with big talk. What happens if people realize the words are empty?
About the North Korea problem: I've mentioned before that it only takes a single warmonger to start a war between the United States and North Korea. North Korea and Trump have both issued statements that were more provocative than usual, but I'm not sure what to make of them.
North Korea and Trump both have a habit of making empty threats and exaggerating their own strength. And now, the big talk is getting bigger. But does that mean either side is really considering military action, or is it just more noise?
That's the problem with big talk. What happens if people realize the words are empty?
The better question is what happens when one of two unstable nutcases becomes convinced the words aren't empty.
That's how many wars get started. People get scared by another country's strength, they act tough in response, and then other people think the scared guy acting tough is actually a dangerous guy acting aggressively.
Then they shoot first, because in their minds, they're just defending themselves from a dangerous aggressor. And the "dangerous aggressor" fights back, thinking that they were right all along: those guys were always out to get us.
This isn't just amateur philosophy, incidentally. The psychology of fear and its relation to the outbreak of war is a huge thing in political science today.
That's how many wars get started. People get scared by another country's strength, they act tough in response, and then other people think the scared guy acting tough is actually a dangerous guy acting aggressively.
Then they shoot first, because in their minds, they're just defending themselves from a dangerous aggressor. And the "dangerous aggressor" fights back, thinking that they were right all along: those guys were always out to get us.
This isn't just amateur philosophy, incidentally. The psychology of fear and its relation to the outbreak of war is a huge thing in political science today.
This is the reason people were talking about temperament during the campaign. Hillary said it, but not many people took it seriously. Trump is a man who will go off the handle on any given morning attacking celebrities, his defeated political opponents, reporters or even call half the country his enemies. He asked, during the campaign, when being getting security briefings from Generals, why we have nuclear weapons if we don't use them. How many briefing papers do people think Donald Trump has read on North Korea?? The first major military action he took was deciding to bomb a Syrian airfield over dinner at his resort in Florida. His only governing philosophy (now being confirmed in news reports by a multitude of foreign leaders) seems to be "Was Obama for it?? Then I'm against it." Donald Trump is not a serious person who even remotely understands the gravity of his actions. The President of the United States does not just casually threaten a nuclear attack when asked a question by a reporter. It's absurd, and it's dangerous. It's especially dangerous when the intended recipient of the message has been told from birth he is a living God.
I must admit I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that this was a sacking offense. On the one hand you can argue that he was just putting forward an unfashionable view that deserves to be heard in order to give some overall balance. However, on the other hand he clearly indicates at several points that females are biologically less suited for top jobs than males - as opposed to just having different strengths and weaknesses. As this runs counter to Google's company philosophy (and their Code of Conduct that all employees are required to abide by) it should have not been a surprise to him that the company reacted as it did.
In relation to the overall charge that this is just another instance of some huge discriminatory campaign against white males I think as with so many other things you just need to look at the figures. Google as an entire company is heavily biased towards white males in top positions and that's even more the case in relation to the engineering section Damore was in. Whether or not there really are biological differences between males and females that make them more or less suited to this work, Google's position is that there should be equality and it was Damore setting himself against the Code of Conduct that he'd agreed to abide by that gave rise to the sacking rather than the content of the memo itself.
I actually understand on a corporate PR level why you have to do something even if I don't sympathize. But the charge about discrimination isn't in question- the policies he takes issue with *are* discrimination, the argument you are putting forth is that it is justified. He even attempts to offer constructive alternatives to the issue of diversity, if we are to assume this is an inherent need and good, that don't inherently discriminate.
I still don't see any moral basis for discrimination even when parity is non existent, for many reasons. Reason one being that the proposed solution to the lack of it is to punish people on the basis of race and gender, something I once thought the left was against in my foolish, younger years. What you are doing when you discriminate is punish innocent people for arbitrary things and imagined offenses. First, why should we assume it's a problem when different fields have different gender representations. Nobody complains that construction workers are overwhelmingly male and public school teachers and nurses are overwhelmingly female. I see different people making different choices, and no reason to impede them making the choices they want because we feel there are too many of them. If the cause of a lack of demographic parity isn't discrimination, but the imbalanced demographics of those qualified applicants who are signing up, is it right to penalize them for it? Why would it be?
You have two people equally qualified for a single position. Which of the two do you hire?
CNN commentator Jeffery Lord was fired for giving a nazi salute tweet to a left leaning media person. What's with Trump and all these crazy people like the Google engineer coming out of the woodwork?
On a lighter note: No big time analysis here from me, too much at the moment, just a flat out colloquial comment. Obama surely had his holier than thou moments but this dude takes the cake. No, I tell a lie, he takes the whole bakery.
t Rump does like to feel like the big cheese, but worse, it comes off in a way, well... that shows what an ignorant, ill-informed, impatient, ineffectual, uninformed, unintelligent, and UN-presidential braggart he really IS. I was thinking at one time he could ruffle enough feathers to get a fire lit under people in order to have some real change. Now it's just a feather ruffling contest by a little punk chicken running around crying wolf seeing how much damage he can do (there, that feels better). What-an-ass. Jeeze. Come on USA, people, get that fire going. Unfortunately, I think it's real chaos that will be needed first ( I guess we got that startin though). We'll see.
't Rump' (Sorry asses, your better and deserve more than this guy to be compared to).
Comments
Just the talk of it mainly, I just could not recall any pres mentioning it to this extent before, esp. after the darn election.
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
The message is clear. If you aren't lucky enough to be a member of the "oppressed" groups, the liberal world has it out for you. They will actively discriminate against you, from the highest levels of government like in Obama's White House or in the highest levels of the private sector like in Google. They will make the lives of you and your children more difficult solely on the basis of your race or gender, and will feel justified in doing it. They will demean you and mock you and throw awful accusations about you in their media day in and day out. Because hey, you deserve it.
To be clear, it is 100% illegal to fire the man for this speech. To express disagreement about company policy or concern that something may be illegal is protected. Thus, Google claims it violates their sexual harassment codes (protip: no real sexual harassment involved by any stretch of the imagination).
It is important to note that Google worked with the Clinton Campaign.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html
It is also important to note that this man went straight to the alternative media rather than first wasting his time with the far left, social justice pushing mainstream media. Nobody trusts them, and for good reason. If you want to get your message out unfiltered, alternative media is where you go these days. Here's him explaining himself.
This is a more difficult message to deal with than some of those circulated by extreme right-wingers as there is not as much of a scientific consensus. On evolution for instance scientists have a clear position and have had for many years (although there are plenty of those on the right that disagree). That doesn't mean that there is no disagreement among scientists at all, but there's as much consensus as you're ever going to get among a group of human beings. In recent years the position on climate change has moved almost to this state - where although there are still significant numbers of non-scientists opposing the theory of human-driven change, there are vanishingly few scientists still of this view.
On the question of gender differences though I don't think there is such a clear position. Pretty much all scientists would agree that there are some differences, but most consider that biological differences are either so small that they should not affect policy or that gender differences affect approach, but not overall capability. However, there is a significant minority that consider differences are larger and do potentially affect capability. As a result it is not unreasonable for Damore to hold the views he does and also not unreasonable for him to express those views. The method of expression though can be questioned. Google has a number of channels set up for people to exchange views in 'safe spaces' and Damore seems to have deliberately bypassed those.
I must admit I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that this was a sacking offense. On the one hand you can argue that he was just putting forward an unfashionable view that deserves to be heard in order to give some overall balance. However, on the other hand he clearly indicates at several points that females are biologically less suited for top jobs than males - as opposed to just having different strengths and weaknesses. As this runs counter to Google's company philosophy (and their Code of Conduct that all employees are required to abide by) it should have not been a surprise to him that the company reacted as it did.
In relation to the overall charge that this is just another instance of some huge discriminatory campaign against white males I think as with so many other things you just need to look at the figures. Google as an entire company is heavily biased towards white males in top positions and that's even more the case in relation to the engineering section Damore was in. Whether or not there really are biological differences between males and females that make them more or less suited to this work, Google's position is that there should be equality and it was Damore setting himself against the Code of Conduct that he'd agreed to abide by that gave rise to the sacking rather than the content of the memo itself.
About the google memo:
What was he attempting to achieve by sending this message to everyone instead of those responsible for the policies?
In the memo, he is basically calling out those he emailed of being hired for their skin colour and not their qualifications, once again diminishing what they actually bring to the team.
If he was truly feeling slighted by not being able to attend classes that are seperated by race or gender, why did he not ask specificly to attend such a class and the reason why he wanted to attend? You'd be surprised, with valid reasoning, exceptions can be made on policies.
I personally wouldnt fire him outright. I would have dragged him into the office for him to let his grievances known, asking for specifics to his vague accusations, then go the course there following up his memo with an official one.
Who knows, maybe this actually happened and he really didnt have anything to back up his claims with and was explained that these policies are in place for a certain reason, and they should be abided by all employees. He was probably asked to retract the memo he sent with a follow up apology of his own. He refused, so he was shown the door. He runs to Alt-right media to tell his side of the story which they eat up like gospel truth of the media is out to get them.
So once again, what was he attempting to achieve?
At this point, there are companies who will not hire him specifically because of his current "15 minutes" status. Politics has no place at work, as others have noted. I have been at the corporate location for 10 years now--if I make a lot of noise the CIO would be able to hear me--and only once has someone asked me a political question, to which I replied "I don't have any opinions about that here--I am just here to do my job".
I still don't see any moral basis for discrimination even when parity is non existent, for many reasons. Reason one being that the proposed solution to the lack of it is to punish people on the basis of race and gender, something I once thought the left was against in my foolish, younger years. What you are doing when you discriminate is punish innocent people for arbitrary things and imagined offenses. First, why should we assume it's a problem when different fields have different gender representations. Nobody complains that construction workers are overwhelmingly male and public school teachers and nurses are overwhelmingly female. I see different people making different choices, and no reason to impede them making the choices they want because we feel there are too many of them. If the cause of a lack of demographic parity isn't discrimination, but the imbalanced demographics of those qualified applicants who are signing up, is it right to penalize them for it? Why would it be?
We were previously talking about public employment where one justification for 'levelling the playing field' (apart from the moral case) would be to ensure representation reflects population. That wouldn't be appropriate in the private setting of Google, but the justification here can be to enhance the performance of the company. There is an academic argument about whether gender diversity does in fact enhance company performance and the evidence that this does so is weak. However, in the case of Google the company had concluded that gender diversity would be positive for them (and this could be a perfectly rational response for them even if they believed that gender did affect the performance of individuals, e.g. as a result of getting a broader choice of candidates for posts and to fit in with corporate branding and marketing in order to enhance sales).
In implementing that conclusion Google included the aim of equal regard for genders in their policies. As has been referred to several times in previous comments if an employee publishes views across a company that are directly contrary to the stated aims of the company they're heading for trouble irrespective of the rights and wrongs of what they've said.
On the wider picture I would also take issue with your view that no-one cares about gender representation in other areas of the workforce. As I've mentioned before I've done quite a lot of work associated with education policy over the years and I have seen many, many people seriously concerned about the gender imbalance in teaching - and in relation to this discussion one of the potential consequences of this imbalance in schools is that it can reinforce gender stereotypes which in turn lead to the disparities observed in workforces later in life ...
Instead, what I suspect he did was write the memo, all the while expecting to get fired, and make a martyr of himself to this new movement that is thriving online. Maybe he can co-host a podcast with a cartoon frog.
The best part is the predictions that this is the beginning of the end for Google. LMFAO. Yeah, I'm sure most of the world is going to change their search engine and web browser because of this twerp. Maybe they'll go back to Lycos or Excite.
The only reason we are hearing about this at all is because the Gamer-Gate/Alt-right/Pepe crowd is CONSTANTLY on the look out for stories like this to be pissed about. For awhile it was the fact that the new Ghostbusters movie had female leads. Then it was Milo being somehow owed a right to a book contract with Simon and Shuster. Now apparently Google's HR department is subject to their infantile bullshit. Having an entire internet to proclaim their beliefs from is not enough. Apparently every single aspect of society owes them a platform to spew their opinions. The World Wide Web is the great equalizer. Nazis, Marxists, and Nickelback fans all have the freedom to say what they want without fear of government retribution. The Alt-right has decided to use their platform as an endless bitch-fest about the persecution of the straight, white male.
North Korea and Trump both have a habit of making empty threats and exaggerating their own strength. And now, the big talk is getting bigger. But does that mean either side is really considering military action, or is it just more noise?
That's the problem with big talk. What happens if people realize the words are empty?
That's how many wars get started. People get scared by another country's strength, they act tough in response, and then other people think the scared guy acting tough is actually a dangerous guy acting aggressively.
Then they shoot first, because in their minds, they're just defending themselves from a dangerous aggressor. And the "dangerous aggressor" fights back, thinking that they were right all along: those guys were always out to get us.
This isn't just amateur philosophy, incidentally. The psychology of fear and its relation to the outbreak of war is a huge thing in political science today.
He's emboldening the worst qualities in people.
Obama surely had his holier than thou moments but this dude takes the cake. No, I tell a lie, he takes the whole bakery.
t Rump does like to feel like the big cheese, but worse, it comes off in a way, well... that shows what an ignorant, ill-informed, impatient, ineffectual, uninformed, unintelligent, and UN-presidential braggart he really IS. I was thinking at one time he could ruffle enough feathers to get a fire lit under people in order to have some real change. Now it's just a feather ruffling contest by a little punk chicken running around crying wolf seeing how much damage he can do (there, that feels better).
What-an-ass. Jeeze.
Come on USA, people, get that fire going. Unfortunately, I think it's real chaos that will be needed first ( I guess we got that startin though). We'll see.
't Rump'
(Sorry asses, your better and deserve more than this guy to be compared to).