Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. I interviewed tons of candidates there. I was never told to benefit this person or the next because they were of a particular gender or ethnic background. In fact, there was mandatory training on how to not fall for your own biases.
> Women-only lectures, events and benefits.
So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take.
> Why does it matter. Thats not the point.
That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise?
You keep doing this in all the arguments you have in this thread: you ask a question, and then when you get a response you reframe the question. You are being either dishonest or a zealot.
> Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google.
You asked for example of extreme "feminists" opinions that are allowed in the workforce and I gave you some. Also Damore's argument is that google is propping the numbers in a way akin to quotas, by jigging the selection process. (Well, I heard people say that, i haven't read the essay).
> So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take.
Now you are reframing the question as in a constitutional matter. That was not the question you asked. You asked for examples of extreme feminist positions in the workplace and women-only events is an example of one. Man-only corporate events dont exist, and if you called it one, there would also be public outrage. Women-only is actively discriminatory. Some people are fine with that, some aren't. The standard is not the same for everyone.
> That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise?
So if a feminist had written the essay, you would agree with it and would find it enlightening?
Its a simple ad-hominem. It can be true and Damore be the worst person ever born at the same time. Its not an argument of anything.
> You keep doing this in all the arguments you have in this thread: you ask a question, and then when you get a response you reframe the question. You are being either dishonest or a zealot.
Or maybe I'm trying to consider the whole context of a nuanced and complex topic before reaching a conclusion. Dishonest, idiot me for not taking every discrete input as an absolute determinant in order to keep the argument "simple" for your benefit.
> Also Damore's argument is that google is propping the numbers in a way akin to quotas, by jigging the selection process.
Damore does not provide proof of anything like that happening. His biggest gripe is that Google is proactively reaching out to minority groups in order to try to get more candidates from that pool. He also mentions a "high priority queue for diversity hires", but I haven't found any evidence of that and he doesn't provide any.
> (Well, I heard people say that, i haven't read the essay).
So, let me get this straight: you are criticizing my analysis of a manifesto you haven't read (I have), written by someone working at the same company I used to work for (Google) on a topic I have researched quite a bit on my spare time (causes of gender disparity in Tech and other STEM industries). Your criticism is not based on published statistics, academic studies or any other kind of hard evidence, but rather hearsay and anecdata. Wow. That has to be the most Argentine behavior I've seen in a while. La Argentinidad al palo.
> Now you are reframing the question as in a constitutional matter
No I'm not. You cited things that are perfectly legal as examples of "extremist behavior". Damore's behavior was legal too, it was just stupid.
> Man-only corporate events dont exist, and if you called it one, there would also be public outrage. Women-only is actively discriminatory.
It's kind of bizarre that you are trying to paint males as some form of oppressed minority. Have you ever stopped to think why some of these events might want to avoid having males take the spotlight from people trying to discuss something? Maybe it's because they deal with that every day?
> So if a feminist had written the essay, you would agree with it and would find it enlightening? Its a simple ad-hominem.
You attack my supposed ad-hominem, by offering an ad-hominem based on a completely baseless assumption. Meanwhile you complain about me being dishonest. Again... wow.
> Or maybe I'm trying to consider the whole context of a nuanced and complex topic before reaching a conclusion. Dishonest, idiot me for not taking every discrete input as an absolute determinant in order to keep the argument "simple" for your benefit.
I'm still not sure if you do this on purpose or not, but you again answer a question that was not asked. I didnt make any conclusion in the previous post, so you are responding some question about conclusions that is not relevant to the context.
> Damore does not provide proof of anything like that happening. His biggest gripe is that Google is proactively reaching out to minority groups in order to try to get more candidates from that pool. He also mentions a "high priority queue for diversity hires", but I haven't found any evidence of that and he doesn't provide any.
I dont work at google, but i have never heard any of the rebuttals or official statements by google saying that it's not true they benefit minorities in their process. In any case, if Damore claimed that was happening and it isn't, then everyone can be happy, because Damore was asking precisely to stop doing that, and noone needs to feel attacked.
>So, let me get this straight: you are criticizing my analysis of a manifesto you haven't read
I think you haven't read my first post at all ,where i start by saying it haven't read it. Talk about accusing people of not reading the source!
> Your criticism is not based on published statistics, academic studies or any other kind of hard evidence, but rather hearsay and anecdata.
My criticism is based on the most classical anecdotal case, that Damore made an essay, there was a shitstorm and he got fired. That was my original topic. I have made no opinion on the contents of the essay , because i haven't read it nor its a topic I find interesting.
> That has to be the most Argentine behavior I've seen in a while.
Thats xenophobic. Bear in mind that if you had made this comment on twitter, you would run the risk of being fired and also become unemployable.
I think this last comment is enough. You sounded sour for a lot of your exchanges, but when you start insulting I lose interest. Hope you enjoyed the conversation.
> In any case, if Damore claimed that was happening and it isn't, then everyone can be happy, because Damore was asking precisely to stop doing that, and noone needs to feel attacked.
Damore claimed a lot of things in the manifesto, for example he claimed that conservatives are treated unfairly at Google. Had you read the text, you would know that the manifesto was more of an alt-right screed than a treaty on the biological determinants of behavior.
> My criticism is based on the most classical anecdotal case, that Damore made an essay, there was a shitstorm and he got fired. That was my original topic. I have made no opinion on the contents of the essay , because i haven't read it nor its a topic I find interesting.
So you are painting Damore as a martyr of PC culture, but haven't bothered to actually inform yourself on the subject.
> Thats xenophobic. Bear in mind that if you had made this comment on twitter, you would run the risk of being fired and also become unemployable.
That's cute. I lived most of my life in Argentina, my family is in Argentina, I am an Argentine citizen and an active member of the Argentine community in San Francisco. Nice of you to take a joke and try to make yourself a victim. For someone who decries PC culture, you are becoming really good at cry-bullying ;)
Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. I interviewed tons of candidates there. I was never told to benefit this person or the next because they were of a particular gender or ethnic background. In fact, there was mandatory training on how to not fall for your own biases.
> Women-only lectures, events and benefits.
So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take.
> Why does it matter. Thats not the point.
That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise?