James Damore Sues Google, Alleging Discrimination Against Conservative White Men - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53039694]I have a hard time being convinced that Google discriminates against white men in particular, considering how many white men they seem to employ in positions of leadership.[/QUOTE] That's a fallacy. You can be part of a majority and still be discriminated against, see: quotas. Having white men in most positions of power doesn't necessarily mean that you're not discriminating against white men. It could simply mean that lots of white men have an interest in this field.

[QUOTE=Wii60;53040920][t]https://i.imgur.com/ibtpaRY.png[/t] what does a corporate-Google approved furry internal mailing list look like[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/UDfOplQ.png[/IMG] I don't know, but it sounds like our dragon threads of old couldn't begin to compete with them.

I can't say much on the actual substance of the trial, but I will say Google is a huge company and there's a huge variation in your work culture depending on what team you're on. Not surprised that there are people saying downright ridiculous stuff like "I will never work with conservatives, ever", but that definitely isn't the norm. One of the teams I worked on had a hardcore libertarian as it's manager, but a far left adamant socialist as the senior engineer. Everyone got along great, we could even discuss politics without it devolving in to shitflinging. I'd definitely consider myself more right-leaning (fiscally) than the average Bay Area resident and I've never once had someone disrespect me or my beliefs at work. Oh, I saw someone mentioning that Alex Jones is on the security blacklist. [URL="https://youtu.be/CJNO3CCI7rI"]That's probably because of the time he stormed into the Austin office, started doing one of his rants, and had to be removed by security[/URL] rather than anything specific about his beliefs.

[QUOTE=01271;53039480]The memo is an overhyped reddit post with at least one of the scientists whose research he quoted saying "no my research doesn't prove that claim". His propagating the memo in the way he did and his actions more than justified his firing, shitcanned by HR for making a hostile work environment. Immediately after doing that he went around the table of the most disingenuous right-wing personalities and appeared on all their shows, sealing his credibility away for good and retroactively justifying his firing several times over by showing just how much he didn't want to be there.[/QUOTE] The problem I have with this post is that the reason why he went around to those right-wing personalities was because they were the ONLY people who were willing to actually talk to him and entertain his viewpoint, even though it was only so they could "own the libs". What'd you expect him to do, say "Thanks for being sympathetic, but I can't allow myself to be interviewed by you because the people who already think I'm a sexist nazi are going to keep calling me a sexist nazi if I talk to you"? Goddamn, it's like GamerGate and Milo all over again.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53041176][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/UDfOplQ.png[/IMG] I don't know, but it sounds like our dragon threads of old couldn't begin to compete with them.[/QUOTE] The model here is kind of collegiate in that you're encouraged/allowed to set up clubs or events. A friend, for instance, is in a "Google Choir" that exists just because a bunch of employees used to sing in college and decided it'd be fun to continue. They just use empty presentation rooms for their practices/performances after work. No one's required to attend.

[t]https://i.imgur.com/uoCxxvc.png[/t] From page 8. That and [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1590749&p=53039273&viewfull=1#post53039273"]this[/URL] and this [QUOTE]The suit also says there are other potential class members and includes more than 80 pages of allegedly offensive or discriminatory posts made on a variety of platforms. The first item under "Anti-conservative postings" was an anonymous Kermit tea meme reading, "I think all of Trump's supporters are deplorable for backing an openly racist candidate, but that's none of my business." [/QUOTE] Really seems to suggest that his branch of conservatism is pretty much in-line with being a dick

Unrelated to Google specific stuff, I think a lot of issues stem from different understandings of the word conservative. Am I conservative in that I want the government to be conservative in its use of power and authority, in the sense that its authority is used only when absolutely necessary? Sure. This would actually align with a lot of socially progressive beliefs. IE, a conservative in this sense would want the government completely removed from the business of marriage or gender identity. It should be something determined entirely by the individual. The government should be "conservative" in how it intrudes into people's personal lives Am I conservative in the sense that I want the government to enforce antiquated social views and practices by being "conservative" with social progress or personal freedoms? Fuck no. I forget if "conservative" has a specific meaning in political circles like leftist or liberal does, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=Wii60;53040920][t]https://i.imgur.com/ibtpaRY.png[/t] what does a corporate-Google approved furry internal mailing list look like[/QUOTE] man i wish my company had a mailing list on straight monogomous relationships because resources and discussion for that is really lacking in the real world

If I had James Damores' problems (I think conservative views are being discriminated against) I would have gone to hr about it. If I was James Damore and had his ideas (affirmative action sux) I would've kept my trap shut because Damore lied on his resume and it's not in his self interest to bring hiring practices up. If I just happened to have that view well it'd probably be time to go to court without ruining my own image and giving them an excuse to fire me. Once the court system was in motion I could then go to normal publications that don't sell you brain pills and make my case.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53040980]That's a fallacy. You can be part of a majority and still be discriminated against, see: quotas. Having white men in most positions of power doesn't necessarily mean that you're not discriminating against white men. It could simply mean that lots of white men have an interest in this field.[/QUOTE] If they have quotas that seems like an open and shut case to me, but even then, it doesn't seem like a very effective means of discrimination if the people you are discriminating against keep ending up in positions of power and wealth within the company.

[QUOTE=Harbie;53041425]Unrelated to Google specific stuff, I think a lot of issues stem from different understandings of the word conservative. Am I conservative in that I want the government to be conservative in its use of power and authority, in the sense that its authority is used only when absolutely necessary? Sure. This would actually align with a lot of socially progressive beliefs. IE, a conservative in this sense would want the government completely removed from the business of marriage or gender identity. It should be something determined entirely by the individual. The government should be "conservative" in how it intrudes into people's personal lives Am I conservative in the sense that I want the government to enforce antiquated social views and practices by being "conservative" with social progress or personal freedoms? Fuck no. I forget if "conservative" has a specific meaning in political circles like leftist or liberal does, so correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] Conservatism is an ideology just like Liberalism is.

[QUOTE=Antimuffin;53040875]I read through his memo a few months ago because I couldn't believe how the media was against this guy and.... like what the fuck. There is literally [I]nothing[/I] in the whole memo that suggests that he is sexist or racist or anything like that. He doesn't think that women are inferior and complains about actual issues like discrimination within Google and how they offer courses and benefits but only to certain people of certain race, gender and ethnicity. And simply exclude others. He offers genuine improvements like better learn capabilities and does talk to some theories and studies about how women tend to learn a bit more differently than men (since they also think differently) and that there should be better ways to encourage women and get them more interested in tech jobs. Like holy shit. Did [I]any[/I] of the media outlets that made headlines against the guy even read the memo? He is like pro-women in tech jobs but thinks that the current way is just not the right way because it discriminates other people. The same applies to the way Google treats people of different gender, ethnicity and race.[/QUOTE] Do you have any mainstream media sources that accused him of sexism or racism, or accused him of saying that women were inferior?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53041652]Do you have any mainstream media sources that accused him of sexism or racism, or accused him of saying that women were inferior?[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/08/google-sexist-memo-alt-right-martyr-james-damore]"Google’s sexist memo has provided the alt-right with a new martyr"[/url]

[QUOTE=Elspin;53041668][url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/08/google-sexist-memo-alt-right-martyr-james-damore]"Google’s sexist memo has provided the alt-right with a new martyr"[/url][/QUOTE] It technically fits my request but I was more looking for an actual news article and not an opinion piece. Thanks for providing this, but it's a bit scant for what Antimuffin seems to imply was more widespread.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53041544]If they have quotas that seems like an open and shut case to me, but even then, it doesn't seem like a very effective means of discrimination if the people you are discriminating against keep ending up in positions of power and wealth within the company.[/QUOTE] I don't see how you can make that point unless every single white guy is in a position of power and wealth within the company. Heck you could have cases where the higher ups are all white guys who discriminate against lower status white guys in an effort to appear diverse.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;53039402]Isn't this the guy who believes women are inferior engineers?[/QUOTE] Do people just not read things before they comment on them? Oh, wait, of course they do. [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGtsv1xUwAAcM_y.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Boaraes;53042227]Do people just not read things before they comment on them? Oh, wait, of course they do. [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGtsv1xUwAAcM_y.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] ah, it's a [url=https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biotruth]biotruth[/url]. I don't think that's any better, personally.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53042258]ah, it's a [URL="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biotruth"]biotruth[/URL]. I don't think that's any better, personally.[/QUOTE] What kind of a non-response is that? As far as I've seen, the science is pretty conclusive that there are real biological differences between men and women's brains, and these differences have real behavior consequences. "In her preface to the first edition, Halpern wrote: “At the time, it seemed clear to me that any between-sex differences in thinking abilities were due to socialization practices, artifacts and mistakes in the research, and bias and prejudice. ... After reviewing a pile of journal articles that stood several feet high and numerous books and book chapters that dwarfed the stack of journal articles … I changed my mind. Why? There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys." ([URL]https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html[/URL])

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53042258]ah, it's a [url=https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biotruth]biotruth[/url]. I don't think that's any better, personally.[/QUOTE] Okay This bugs me. The logic/argument behind trasngenderism is that there are apreciable differences in the brains of men, and women, and that some people are quite literally not in the correct body for them. These differences in brain chemistry are objective, and used as a hardline for why transgenderism is correct(and this is a perspective I agree with), but to then turn around and say "BIOTRUTH" when that fact contradicts a different argument is straight up wrong IMO.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53042258]ah, it's a [url=https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biotruth]biotruth[/url]. I don't think that's any better, personally.[/QUOTE] it's a measurement of personality distributions. It's a statisic representing measured averages and mapping the distributions onto a curve, not an absolute statement that the median of those two is a canonical and fixed absolute element of those groups. Which is the claim of people saying "reee it's a sexist memo", even though that this is 100% uncontroversially accepted scientific findings that have been stable since first being measured.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53042334] These differences in brain chemistry are objective, and used as a hardline for why transgenderism is correct(and this is a perspective I agree with), [/QUOTE] Do you have a link to a study on this? I'd like to read it. [QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53042371]it's a measurement of personality distributions. It's a statisic representing measured averages and mapping the distributions onto a curve, not an absolute statement that the median of those two is a canonical and fixed absolute element of those groups. Which is the claim of people saying "reee it's a sexist memo", even though that this is 100% uncontroversially accepted scientific findings that have been stable since first being measured.[/QUOTE] Ditto.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53041652]Do you have any mainstream media sources that accused him of sexism or racism, or accused him of saying that women were inferior?[/QUOTE] Here is what I got by Google searching James Damore and just looking at some of the articles in the first 5 pages. [url]https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/james-damore-just-filed-a-class-action-lawsuit-against-google-saying-it-discriminates-against-white-male-conservatives/[/url] [quote]James Damore, a former Google engineer who was fired in August after posting a memo to an internal Google message board [b]arguing that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering,[/b] has filed a class action lawsuit against the company in Santa Clara Superior Court in Northern California.[/quote] [url]https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/16863342/james-damore-google-lawsuit-diversity-memo[/url] [quote]James Damore was fired as an engineer after the manifesto, which questioned the benefits of diversity programs and [b]suggested women may be biologically inferior engineers,[/b] was widely passed around the company. In a new lawsuit, he and another fired engineer claim that “employees who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google’s employment policies and its business, such as ‘diversity’ hiring policies, ‘bias sensitivity,’ or ‘social justice,’ were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights.”[/quote] [url]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/09/576682765/james-damore-sues-google-alleging-discrimination-against-conservative-white-men[/url] [quote]When Damore's memo on Google's diversity efforts was made public, there was an immediate uproar — not, for the most part, because of his criticism of bias and silencing of viewpoints at Google, [b]but because of his repeated suggestion that women are biologically less suited for challenging tech jobs.[/b] In the memo, Damore asserts that innate differences between men and women "may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership." Specifically, he asserts that women are on average, because of biological factors, more cooperative, more neurotic and less driven for status, [b]making them less qualified[/b] for or interested in software engineering.[/quote] [url]https://www.wired.com/story/internal-messages-james-damore-google-memo/[/url] [quote]That memo, which Google employees first started tweeting about on Friday night and has since leaked in full (several times), attempts to make a case against the push for gender equality in tech and engineering, specifically because "men and women biologically differ in many ways." [b]Damore argues that women are more likely to have innate biological traits that make them inferior engineers.[/b] For instance, Damore writes that women "have more ... neuroticism," which "may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." (Googlegeist is the company's annual data-driven employee survey.)[/quote] [url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2018/01/09/james-damore-is-suing-google-over-its-treatment-of-conservative-white-men/#5e564f805123[/url] [quote]In August, Damore wrote and circulated a memo, entitled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," that went viral within the company and later on the wide web beyond. Known today as 'the Google Memo, the document criticized aspects of Google's corporate-directed culture and diversity practices and cited behavioral data and Damore's own experiences [b]to argue, among other things, that women are biologically unsuited for engineering work.[/b][/quote] [url]http://time.com/5093549/james-damore-diversity-memo-google-lawsuit/[/url] [quote]In August, Google employees spoke out against Damore‘s internal memo,[b] which said that biological gender differences make women less effective programmers[/b] and argued the company suppressed conservative voices. Google condemned Damore’s document, and he was subsequently fired.[/quote] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-damore-googles-sues-discrimination-white-conservative-men-sexist-memo-a8148856.html[/url] [quote]Mr Damore was sacked last August when his 10-page internal memo criticising the company’s diversity policies - [b]specifically questioning the biological capability of women to be in engineering roles[/b] - and has been unemployed since.[/quote] [url]http://fortune.com/2018/01/08/james-damore-google-memo-sue/[/url] [quote]James Damore, who was fired in August after circulating a memo within Google [b]arguing the company’s gender gap was the result of biological inferiority,[/b] said in a lawsuit filed in Santa Clara Superior Court on Monday that the company “singled out, mistreated, and systemically punished and terminated” employees that didn’t agree with Google’s stance on diversity, according to BuzzFeed News.[/quote] [url]https://www.dailywire.com/news/25537/fired-engineer-james-damore-sues-google-emily-zanotti#[/url] [quote]Damore lost his job after he published a letter [b]suggesting men make better engineers than women.[/b][/quote] [url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/01/08/ex-google-engineer-damore-sues-alleging-discrimination-against-white-conservative-men/1013024001/[/url] [quote]James Damore, the Google engineer fired after he penned a memo [b]suggesting women were less biologically capable of software engineering,[/b] has filed a lawsuit charging the company discriminates against white, conservative men.[/quote] [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/technology/silicon-valley-men-backlash-gender-scandals.html[/url] [quote]But those who privately thought things had gone too far were given a voice by James Damore, 28, a soft-spoken Google engineer. Mr. Damore, frustrated after another diversity training, wrote a memo that he posted to an internal Google message board. In it, he argued that maybe women were not equally represented in tech [b]because they were biologically less capable of engineering.[/b] Google fired him last month.[/quote] [url]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-engineer-fired-writing-manifesto-women-s-neuroticism-sues-company-n835836[/url] [quote][b]A former engineer who [u]wrote a sexist manifesto[/u] disparaging Google's efforts to close the gender gap is now suing,[/b] claiming the search giant discriminates against conservative white men.[/quote] These articles take the cake. The NBC news article above being a runner up. [url]http://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2018/01/08/tech-bro-fired-from-google-for-saying-women-are-biologically-unfit-to-be-engineers-will-speak-at-psu-next-month/[/url] [quote]The diversity-mocking tech bro Google fired last year for writing a 10-page [b]screed blaming women and their biologically-inferior brains[/b] for Google's diversity problems is bringing his conservative message to Portland next month.[/quote] [url]https://www.avclub.com/the-google-anti-diversity-memo-guy-has-now-unleashed-th-1818597081[/url] [quote]Please recall from your crowded memory the name James Damore, the mysterious Google employee who, it was later revealed, was behind the viral anti-diversity memo that made the rounds earlier this summer. The memo was a long, pedantically “logical” argument [b]that women were biologically incapable of doing the heavy rational work of being tech employees,[/b] thus justifying the massive hiring biases that’ve made Silicon Valley a bastion of institutional machismo. After Damore was fired, he was positioned by the typical cadre of dog-whistle enthusiasts as a civilized “critic of diversity,” a victim of our overly politically correct times. He became a cause célèbre for a “march on Google” and popped up on Twitter with the notably strident handle @Fired4truth.[/quote] The mis-characterization isn't limited to one side in the left/right divide. Also, there is a ton more out there, especially in video format, from when the "memo" became a hot topic in the media. It seems the main reason for this characterization is because of laziness. One outlet basically copies another but sensationalizes it a bit more. Then another outlet copies that one. And the truth gets lost in the copies. I basically just did a Google search for James Damore and looked at each article. Some articles could be considered trying to push the narrative that the memo was sexist, etc, by the way it included quotes from different sources. But I chose to just use the articles that just came out and blatantly said it. The comment section on [url=https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16098676]this Hacker News[/url] page is most interesting. This video provides Tim Pool's view on why there is such mis-characterization. Its insightful to me. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLI2KL92D2M[/media]

[QUOTE=Boaraes;53042227]Do people just not read things before they comment on them? Oh, wait, of course they do. [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGtsv1xUwAAcM_y.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] It should also be noted that the first reports on the memo cut out all images and links to sources backing his claims.

[QUOTE=01271;53039480]The memo is an overhyped reddit post with at least one of the scientists whose research he quoted saying "no my research doesn't prove that claim".[/QUOTE] Meanwhile [URL="http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/"]some scientists[/URL] actually support his claims, to varying degrees, or disagree in ways that aren't 'this is completely wrong and a misrepresentation of science'. The most vocal criticism I've seen hasn't come from scientists, but from people who consider his claims ideologically unacceptable. [QUOTE=01271;53039480]His propagating the memo in the way he did and his actions more than justified his firing, shitcanned by HR for making a hostile work environment.[/QUOTE] Just the fact that his politely-worded memo got him fired for 'creating a hostile work environment', while other Google employees are apparently free to openly suggest (in the same forum) that white men should be barred from speaking, does more to prove his point about Google being an ideological bubble than anything he actually said. [QUOTE=01271;53039480]Immediately after doing that he went around the table of the most disingenuous right-wing personalities and appeared on all their shows, sealing his credibility away for good and retroactively justifying his firing several times over by showing just how much he didn't want to be there.[/QUOTE] Kind of hard to tell your side on mainstream media when you're being blatantly misrepresented as a sexist alt-righter, with the citations and sources for your claims being deliberately cropped out by mainstream reporting, isn't it? And it's incredibly toxic to suggest that someone must be wrong if they agree to be interviewed by the 'wrong' people.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53042580]Meanwhile [URL="http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/"]some scientists[/URL] actually support his claims, to varying degrees, or disagree in ways that aren't 'this is completely wrong and a misrepresentation of science'. The most vocal criticism I've seen hasn't come from scientists, but from people who consider his claims ideologically unacceptable.[/QUOTE] "doesn't prove that claim" isn't "this is completely wrong and a misrepresentation of science". As a reddit post it works because it's on the reddit level. It's on my level. I'd have made similar research mistakes. I wouldn't have made the mistake of making that a big part of my memo that I'm about to launch to all my coworkers. In the high-stakes world of throwing your ideas about hiring practices at your coworkers you can't say things that are controversial at all. [QUOTE=catbarf;53042580]Just the fact that his politely-worded memo got him fired for 'creating a hostile work environment', while other Google employees are apparently free to openly suggest (in the same forum) that white men should be barred from speaking, does more to prove his point about Google being an ideological bubble than anything he actually said.[/QUOTE] I sympathize with cons who feel ostracized. There's a good way to write it and a bad way though. Rather than talk about hiring practices and female representation his first priority should have been to talk about how ostracized he felt. Here's an example imo of a good way of writing it: [url]http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/[/url] It'd be easy to make arguments based on things like intersectionalism about how you're being left in the dirt and that while the company in context of the USA as a nation is diverse the internal structure of the company has created a new power dynamic that's just as bad as the outside. [QUOTE=catbarf;53042580] Kind of hard to tell your side on mainstream media when you're being blatantly misrepresented as a sexist alt-righter, with the citations and sources for your claims being deliberately cropped out by mainstream reporting, isn't it? And it's incredibly toxic to suggest that someone must be wrong if they agree to be interviewed by the 'wrong' people.[/QUOTE] 1. This is me talking as if I had gone through the thing and it had gone well because I'd have done it better. 2. This isn't my personal viewpoint this is me stating that James Damore decided that moment that he was letting go of his credibility because his roundabout will come up as evidence in court. If you want extra opinions on this: -He harms the MRM overall by being a prolific negative example of equal right struggle. -He's not evil. -He should've gotten a lawyer asap to prevent his going on all those shows. -He's fucked his chances up and it's too much effort to pick him up again.

[QUOTE=01271;53042761] I sympathize with cons who feel ostracized. There's a good way to write it and a bad way though. Rather than talk about hiring practices and female representation his first priority should have been to talk about how ostracized he felt. Here's an example imo of a good way of writing it: [url]http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/[/url] It'd be easy to make arguments based on things like intersectionalism about how you're being left in the dirt and that while the company in context of the USA as a nation is diverse the internal structure of the company has created a new power dynamic that's just as bad as the outside.[/quote] But the suit mentions that he brought these issues up to HR multiple times and was dismissed. Who exactly is he supposed to talk to?

[QUOTE=01271;53042761][...] If you want extra opinions on this: -He harms the MRM overall by being a prolific negative example of equal right struggle. [...][/QUOTE] I'd say I tend to agree with you on the other points, but I don't think he's actually a negative example by any measure he can control. He was [I]made[/I] a negative example through blatant and widespread defamation, which as far as I know isn't rare at all in terms of related issues. Implying he should just shut up because 'he harms [the movement] overall' while he has legitimate cause and issue is so wrong on so many levels that I'm having trouble to describe it accurately right now. It just spits in the face of basic decency. That aside, I read the original memo and it came more across as feminist/pro-diversity? At least that's my relatively uninformed impression. I'm not sure where the MRM relation comes from, considering that what he wrote seemed to be all about getting more women to work at Google/getting rid of workplace issues that stand in the way of increased diversity.

after reading the actual memo it's really not that bad, if anything he comes off as a conscientious feminist it was a good argument backed up with sources and his main point was that arbitrary diversity quotas do nothing but demoralize those sectors that have trouble generating diversity the closest thing he said that got to that was a lot of relative speaking and he even prefaces that part of the doc with "note that this is in no way saying that these apply to all men and women, just that these are scientifically recorded results that give credence to the idea that hiring exclusively based on arbitrary reasoning of diversity in gender and race, rather than making the position you want PoC/Women in more attractive or tailor aimed to those groups" basically the document came off like someone frustrated with the system and that he wasn't being given the time of day because his views and suggestions were dismissed on the basis of "oh you're just a racist sexist white man trying to keep poc and women outta google!" when really it wasn't that at all that's the thing about hard diversity encouragement, like i get why they wanna be more diverse and why diversity is good but this guy doesn't really say much I don't agree with. Even in the context of the memo he states multiple times when quoting evidence that it obviously doesn't apply to all men and women and should only be taken in the context of forming guidelines for implementing diversity, AND HE EVEN SUGGESTS MULTIPLE WAYS IN DETAIL THAT THEY COULD BE DOING IT BETTER that being said, suing them for wrongful termination like this probably isn't the most prudent thing to do, especially since his case and the majority of the filed document comes off very petty

[QUOTE=Boaraes;53042227]Do people just not read things before they comment on them? Oh, wait, of course they do. [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGtsv1xUwAAcM_y.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I don't understand this as part of a greater piece. If there's significant population overlap here, then why isn't there near equal representation across sexes for IT and engineering? Like, he's arguing that this is the reason that you're not seeing precisely 50:50, but we're not seeing anywhere [I]near that[/I]. Silicon Valley has famously awful representation of minorities/women - so even if you accept that the above diagram is true, it doesn't reflect the actual ratios. so, in short, either he's arguing that the distribution is more divergent than the image above, in which case he [I]is saying [/I]that women are worse engineers, or there are problems beyond biological traits that are causing a gender divide (which is what diversity programs are typically in place to help fix)

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53043153](Which is what diversity programs are typically in place to help fix)[/QUOTE] But typically don't.