James Damore Suing Google, do you think he has a case?

[Floopa]

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-...eed-1797564320

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. "

I'm not even sure you ever bothered to read it, now.

that's true though. just actually true.

it might be unfortunate, and it might be shameful it's the way it is, but it's true.

[Dextroden]

Whats precious is you not understanding what at will employment is.

And you can be sued for wrongful termination. Fun, right?

[Elegiac]

Hmm. Nothing saying they are worse.

But, you did try to justify it with the word paraphrase. (Read: lie)

"Distribution of abilities differ in part due to biological causes".

Pretty clear cut if you can, you know, read English.

[Dextroden]

This is a dishonest dodge. His claim is that an 80/20 discrepancy in favor of men can in part be explained by biological differences in women's abilities. You don't get points because he doesn't actually use the word "worse"--he didn't have to.

Don't white knight for Endus. He put himself in the liars pit.

[Deleted]

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-...eed-1797564320

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. "

I'm not even sure you ever bothered to read it, now.

That's a far cry from "less suited to STEM work".

[Endus]

Hmm. Nothing saying they are worse.

But, you did try to justify it with the word paraphrase. (Read: lie)

Paraphrasing isn't lying.

And look at the quote. He specifically stated that women's "abilities" and "preferences", that are at least "in part ... biological", led to lower representations in tech and leadership. I'm not stretching his wording at all.

You seem overly angry about this. Are you James Damore?

[Orange Joe]

And you can be sued for wrongful termination. Fun, right?

Being sued =/= losing said lawsuit.

[Floopa]

"Distribution of abilities differ in part due to biological causes".

Pretty clear cut if you can, you know, read English.

so it's misogyny to say women aren't as strong as men at peak physical performance? or that on average a man is stronger than a woman?

these are basic facts. they aren't misogyny. misogyny would be "women are more likely to moan about the weather" or "women deserve to be paid less because some may take time off work due to pregnancy."

[Elegiac]

That's a far cry from "less suited to STEM work".

"Women aren't as frequently represented in tech or leadership in part due to biological differences regarding their preferences and abilities."

I.e. women are less well equipped for technology and leadership positions by virtue of being women.

It's not hard.

[Dextroden]

Paraphrasing isn't lying.

And look at the quote. He specifically stated that women's "abilities" and "preferences", that are at least "in part ... biological", led to lower representations in tech and leadership. I'm not stretching his wording at all.

Except the part where you flat out admit you paraphrased. And the lack of calling women worse.

You know what preferences mean, right?

[ro9ue]

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-...eed-1797564320

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. "

I'm not even sure you ever bothered to read it, now.

Yeah he's just talking about statistical distribution. Again this is the problem. There are people who don't understand how statistics work drawing misinformation from what he said.

[Dextroden]

Being sued =/= losing said lawsuit.

I never said they lost. But I'm not the one desperately hoping he can't sue.

[Elegiac]

so it's misogyny to say women aren't as strong as men at peak physical performance? or that on average a man is stronger than a woman?

these are basic facts. they aren't misogyny. misogyny would be "women are more likely to moan about the weather" or "women deserve to be paid less because some may take time off work due to pregnancy."

Man, imagine if there was actually statistical evidence regarding the discrepancy in physical strength but nothing indicating as such for intellectual faculties in certain fields beyond the impacts of sociocultural bias.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the part where you flat out admit you paraphrased. And the lack of calling women worse.

You know what preferences mean, right?

Do you know what "abilities" means?

[Levelfive]

And what about the millions of white people born poor? Honestly you are racist as hell and you don't even realize it. I guess we should lump all people of the same color into the same boat eh? I seem to remember what we call that, oh thats right RACISM.

- - - Updated - - -



Shouldn't diversity of experience matter more than skin color? A black and white guy who have both been rich their whole lives are going to have more similar life experiences than say a "born rich" black guy and a white person who was raised poor.

I'd say that white men of all backgrounds have benefited for so long from de facto affirmative action that their perspectives are more than adequately represented. I'm sure that anything that seeks to take the thumb off the scales for white men feels threatening, but, as has been said elsewhere, there's a difference between feeling sorry for yourself and actually being a victim.

[Dextroden]

Man, imagine if there was actually statistical evidence regarding the discrepancy in physical strength but nothing indicating as such for intellectual faculties in certain fields beyond the impacts of sociocultural bias.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you know what "abilities" means?

Differ=/=worse

But keep trying.

[ro9ue]

"Women aren't as frequently represented in tech or leadership in part due to biological differences regarding their preferences and abilities."

I.e. women are less well equipped for technology and leadership positions by virtue of being women.

It's not hard.

You pulled that out of an area where he talks about distribution of stats. He doesn't say women are bad, men are good. He's saying by biological design it's more likely a man will have the characteristics suited for that field than a woman will. Doesn't mean there aren't women engineers who are good. Doesn't mean there aren't shitty male engineers.

Lots of people can't seem to grasp how statistics work...

[Dextroden]

You pulled that out of an area where he talks about distribution of stats. He doesn't say women are bad, men are good. He's saying by biological design it's more likely a man will have the characteristics suited for that field than a woman will. Doesn't mean there aren't women engineers who are good. Doesn't mean there aren't shitty male engineers.

Lots of people can't seem to grasp how statistics work...

It's easier to say misogyny instead of think.

[Levelfive]

What I read of the memo seems fairly reasonable, even the sources are well cited. I think it's basically all things we deeply know are true, but it brushes up against the idealism of the the far left where you can be anything you want if you just believe it hard enough. Truth is we are all not created equal. We're going to have certain dispositions based on our genetics, gender, etc.

It's only doing us harm to ignore those facts and assume everyone is just a blank slate when they come into the world.

Yes because all the best scientific work *feels* true. That's how we know the sun revolves around the earth.

[Endus]

Except the part where you flat out admit you paraphrased. And the lack of calling women worse.

You know what preferences mean, right?

I also can read English and can easily see he was talking about biological ability, too. Since he said so. Using the words "biological" and "ability", before you make up more nonsense about how paraphrasing is "lying", which is wackadoodle nonsensery.

Yeah he's just talking about statistical distribution. Again this is the problem. There are people who don't understand how statistics work drawing misinformation from what he said.

The issue isn't that he's talking about "statistical distributions". It's that he had no credible evidence to back his assertions of of why a weighted distribution is a natural outcome.

[pionock]

Yeah he's just talking about statistical distribution. Again this is the problem. There are people who don't understand how statistics work drawing misinformation from what he said.

What's even worse is that not only did he just draw from statistics, but he even tried to offer solutions to help encourage more women to join STEM fields based on biological preferences. It's not like he just said, "Women can't STEM very well (which he didn't even remotely say)." and just leave it at that. He tried to offer possible solutions, and was still mocked for it.