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

[Shalcker]

Irrelevant the point of his lawsuit is that white males are being discriminated against, how so when about 70% of leadership the people who are promoted are white males?

Because in other companies leadership is 80%+ white male in average, duh.

That -10% difference with "industry average" in industry that is white-male dominated can be seen as result of "white male discrimination".

So Google would have to prove their difference in distribution is based on merit rather then discriminatory hiring/promotion practices as alleged by lawsuit.

[Machismo]

I suppose he meant "Affirmative Action".

- - - Updated - - -



Monopolies aren't welcome in a free-market.

They don't have a monopoly. If you don't like how Google operates, then use an alternative.

- - - Updated - - -

Because in other companies leadership is 80%+ white male in average, duh.

That -10% difference with "industry average" in industry that is white-male dominated can be seen as result of "white male discrimination".

So Google would have to prove their difference in distribution is based on merit rather then discriminatory hiring/promotion practices as alleged by lawsuit.

Actually, someone else is going to have to prove that the difference is because of discrimination.

[Shalcker]

If you don't understand why this argument is specious and wrong, you should consider why Asians, who are already over-represented in Ivy leagues, are suing Harvard.

There is discrimination against Asians, definitely - they are being pushed out to make way for less-performing hispanics/blacks "quotas".

They are underrepresented compared to their actual capability.

As do "white (conservative) males" in Google due to discriminatory hiring practices.

[rda]

I'm simply pushing for a free-market solution. If you don't like how Google operates, then use someone else. Don't give them your money.

I also want to make sure people are being logically consistent, which is why I want to make sure they also oppose the Electoral College, as it is also affirmative action.

(OK, I cooled down a bit and I want to apologize, I should have been more polite. Sorry. But I think it is better to stay on topic. If you are interested, I support your free-market solution, etc. I don't have an opinion on Electoral College.)

[h4rr0d]

Irrelevant the point of his lawsuit is that white males are being discriminated against, how so when about 70% of leadership the people who are promoted are white males?

Because in spite of all the attempts to make the company as diverse as possible, google is still based in country where majority of population is white and like it or not, they actually do have to keep the company running (though by now, that ship would take ages to sink), so they do have to hire people that can actually do the job. While you can easily get couple of scapegoats to meet women quotas in boards, it's much harder to get scapegoats for a job that requires actual work. Majority of the colourful, anything-but-male gendered software engineers are still in their early twenties, studying or fresh out of school, not really suitable for a job in google.
Majority of tech people are still white/asian males and it will continue to be that way for quite a while.

[Shalcker]

Actually, someone else is going to have to prove that the difference is because of discrimination.

As Damore lawsuit does; now Google has to argue against it.

We'll see how it goes.

[Draco-Onis]

Because in other companies leadership is 80%+ white male in average, duh.

That -10% difference with "industry average" in industry that is white-male dominated can be seen as result of "white male discrimination".

So Google would have to prove their difference in distribution is based on merit rather then discriminatory hiring/promotion practices as alleged by lawsuit.

Fortune 500 is not industry and you would have to compare that to other tech companies, good luck proving to a judge that a company so overwhelmingly white male is not hiring enough of them.

[Machismo]

OK, I cooled down a bit and I want to apologize, I should have been more polite. Sorry. But I think it is better to stay on topic. (If you are interested, I support your free-market solution, etc. I don't have an opinion on Electoral College.)

I'm interested in the free markets and logical consistency. This is an issue where we're going to see a great deal of hypocrisy from people, as we've already seen it.

- - - Updated - - -

As Damore lawsuit does; now Google has to argue against it.

We'll see how it goes.

No, that's not how due process works. The burden of proof still falls on the accuser. In this case, they do have some documentation, but it doesn't stray too far from standard hiring practices for many companies who try to be "inclusive." There is a free-market solution to all of this. If you don't like it, don't use Google.

[HumbleDuck]

No need to say it friend. The leaked documents scream it loud and clear. This is truly one that you guys finally can’t talk your way out of. Everything people said is true. We finally have come full circle and the system is trying to keep white men down. It really is funny. I guess you live long enough you eventually see everything.

I can't stop laughing. You've really made my day.

...

...

None of these are examples of systematic discrimination. These are merely suggestions made by individuals on how to behave. I don't agree with their suggestions here, however I am also sane enough to understand they are free to express their opinion.

[Shalcker]

Fortune 500 is not industry and you would have to compare that to other tech companies, good luck proving to a judge that a company so overwhelmingly white male is not hiring enough of them.

68% isn't "overwhelmingly white" at all.

Is it below population averages? Is it below averages for top university performers? As long as it's true (and all points out to it being true), there has to be discrimination against whites. Conscious or not.

Lawsuit obviously points out to quite conscious strategy in push for "diversity".

[rda]

None of these are examples of systematic discrimination. These are merely suggestions made by individuals on how to behave. I don't agree with their suggestions here, however I am also sane enough to understand they are free to express their opinion.

I think these are policies, not suggestions:

[Shalcker]

No, that's not how due process works. The burden of proof still falls on the accuser. In this case, they do have some documentation, but it doesn't stray too far from standard hiring practices for many companies who try to be "inclusive." There is a free-market solution to all of this. If you don't like it, don't use Google.

If Google doesn't like Californian laws that forbid such discrimination, they are free to vacate California too.

[rda]

68% isn't "overwhelmingly white" at all.

Is it below population averages? Is it below averages for top university performers? As long as it's true (and all points out to it being true), there has to be discrimination against whites. Conscious or not.

No. Don't overdo it. You are right regarding everything else on the last few pages, but percentages being above or below averages do not automatically mean discrimination (although yes, comparisons against averages make sense - as a starting point).

[Machismo]

If Google doesn't like Californian laws that forbid such discrimination, they are free to vacate California too.

We do not know if Google has broken California's laws, do we? Considering that state has long tried to enforce affirmative action (and was overruled in their efforts by the courts), then Google will likely have a sympathetic judge.

Nope, I'm going to go ahead and support the free markets on this one, thanks.

[HumbleDuck]

I think these are policies, not suggestions:

This is pro diversity policies not anti white male policies. If you are wondering why positive discrimination is not the same thing as discrimination, you can check some of my previous posts on these boards or even better, you can do a little bit of research on your own.

[Shalcker]

No. Don't overdo it. You are right regarding everything else on the last few pages, but percentages being above or below averages do not automatically mean discrimination (although yes, comparisons against averages make sense - as a starting point).

Okay, sometimes there are other factors that create "swings" in one direction or another.

I would expect such factors to "average out" on big enough workforce, and as Google has to be aiming for top performers i think difference from "average for top performers" would be fair estimate of bias. Not all of which has to be on Google part - it is quite possible that, for example, women do not find work at Google quite as compelling as men - problem which Damore memo tried to "fix" by suggesting environment changes that would change their view rather then discriminatory hiring practices that lead to them getting job then "burning out".

[rda]

This is pro diversity policies not anti white male policies. If you are wondering why positive discrimination is not the same thing as discrimination, you can check some of my previous posts on these boards or even better, you can do a little bit of research on your own.

I am sorry, but providing extra interviews to women or non-white/Asian is discrimination against white/Asian men. This is logic 101. I don't need to read an article telling me why it's not, it is, let's not go nuts.

[HumbleDuck]

I am sorry, but providing extra interviews to women or non-white/Asian is discrimination against white/Asian men. This is logic 101. I don't need to read an article telling me why it's not, it is, let's not go nuts.

Leaving out crucial parts of the definition of a word so it would fit your narrative is not logic 101, maybe logical fallacies 101.
In this context it is positive discrimination, which unlike discrimination is neither unjust nor prejudice.

[rda]

Leaving out crucial parts of the definition of a word so it would fit your narrative is not logic 101, maybe logical fallacies 101.
In this context it is positive discrimination, which unlike discrimination is neither unjust nor prejudice.

Define the word and present your logic then, because I know what positive discrimination is, and yes, it is discrimination, that's why it has "discrimination" as part of the name. If you want to substantiate why positive discrimination should be allowed, go right ahead. I doubt you will be able to. This always bombs right in the face of whoever tries to educate the unwashed masses on the inherently illogical construct.

[Deleted]

This is pro diversity policies not anti white male policies. If you are wondering why positive discrimination is not the same thing as discrimination, you can check some of my previous posts on these boards or even better, you can do a little bit of research on your own.

Just because you flap the word "positive" in front of discrimination doesn't make it all off a sudden not discrimination. Just because you and others deem this form of discrimination acceptable also doesn't make "positive discrimination" not discriminatory. Yes, it is exactly the same thing as "normal" discrimination, its just that you happen to support it.