Another thread has been oponed on this topic therefore asking the mods to close this one out. Thanks.
There have been some serious problems with google's search engine and now this. Perhaps all female investors should dump their google stock tomorrow morning, eh!
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/06/technology/culture/google-diversity/inde...
Julian Assange has apparently never heard of, or probably more likely don't give shit, about community standards
His comments remind me of all the right-wing comments I hear about freedom of speech coming from the USA and here as well
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/julian-assange-offers-job-fir...
It seems to me that firing somebody for expressing an opinion you don't like is not necessarily the best way to encourage diversity.
It seems to me that firing somebody for expressing an opinion you don't like is not necessarily the best way to encourage diversity.
When the opinion is one attacking diversity then it works just fine.
From Sean in Ottawa:
When the opinion is one attacking diversity then it works just fine.
This is wrong on the face of it, but in addition, it's wrong based on what the memo said. The argument wasn't specifically against diversity, but against the basis for instituting diversity policies. It was a reasonably expressed opinion, which, although at least partially wrong, was deserving of refutation. Firing somebody is not refuting their argument, it is merely warning people that if they don't accept the given orthodoxy they will be punished. No leftist should ever accept that.
On the one hand, I can see why Google pretty much had to sack the guy.
On the other hand, if a construction worker boasts to his co-workers that no woman could do his job the way he can, I doubt anyone would say "Fire him! There's no place for an attitude like that in 2017!"
How is this relative to what is being discussed
Could we please continue this topic in smith's thread
tks
I don't know where 'smith's thread' is, so I'll post this here. This is the actual document that got the guy fired. I suggest posters read it before they comment further. It certainly surprised me, given the sort of publicity it received.
Googles Ideological Echo Chamber
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group...
Anti-diversity manifesto at google
please repost it there. Thanks rev
It seems to me that firing somebody for expressing an opinion you don't like is not necessarily the best way to encourage diversity.
When the opinion is one attacking diversity then it works just fine.
It's not a freedom of speech issue because a private company is involved, but c'mon. This is the sort of crap that feeds into the right-wing "political correctness" industry. Google could have, and should have, taken lesser steps than termination.
From NorthReport:
Anti-diversity manifesto at google
please repost it there. Thanks rev
Unlike you, I've actually read the document. While I don't agree with portions of it, there's nothing in it that requires somebody to be fired. And it most certainly is not 'anti-diversity'.
The writer does point out that the steps Google has taken to encourage diversity are not working, and suggests ways that might be more successful. At least the first part of that statement is correct, as evidenced by the lack of diversity in Google's workforce. Also true is the part about the 'shaming' culture at Google. The evidence is quite clear that if anyone disagrees with the company orthodoxy they will be fired.
This is some of what the memo said:
"We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our
internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans
> environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science
concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences). Thankfully,
climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the
overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates
enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social
constructionism and the gender wage gap9. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and
uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs."
It is good to have the words some here are trying to legitimize as fair comment in front of us.
What part of that statement do you find is 'unfair'?
What part of that statement do you find is 'unfair'?
Do you want to debate that the wage gap is a myth and the virtue of so called science like IQ differences between genders?
If you do then I assume other people will waste time on continuing this part of the discussion.
PZ Myers has given that memo the most thorough, scientific thrashing I've seen. He begins thus.
I’ve been getting two kinds of arguments from the people who support the Google Manifesto creep.
I keep getting told that James Damore loves diversity. It’s the first thing he says in his manifesto.
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.
Did you know that Ken Ham loves science?
Answers in Genesis (like other creationist groups) affirms and supports the teaching and use of scientific methodology, and we believe this supports the biblical account of origins.
So does Kent Hovind.
I, for one, love science and the thousands of advancements it has brought us.
I wonder if these people who keep trying to present Damore as some kind of champion of honest assessment of equality and diversity ever bother to think beyond the superficial claim that he makes as an opening gambit to consider what he actually writes? These are the kinds of people who read Lolita and think Humbert Humbert is the hero.
I also read that he tacked on that pro diversity boilerplate when he realized he had to cover his ass. Earlier versions did not include it.
Given everything else he wrote and what he's said since the memo came out, the caveats are disingenuous as fuck.
From Michael Moriarity:
PZ Myers wrote:
PZ Myers isn't much of a bioligist. In his article he argues against the idea that men are 'biologically disposable'. He obviously hasn't considered the fact that one man may have countless children, while one woman is probably limited to 25 or so. And then a source Myers cites says there isn't much adultery among humans. Must live on a different planet.
But even if everything Damore said was wrong, totally wrong, should he be fired? I don't think so. After all, it is the lefties who were always the first to be fired, to be black-balled, to be punished, for expressing ideas that the boss didn't want to hear. It is the left that has to defend freedom of speech.
What was it Voltaire said when he heard a book was being burnt, a book that he himself didn't think much of?
...the French philosopher Claude-Adrien Helvétius who in 1758 published a controversial work titled “De l’esprit” (“On the Mind”). The book was condemned in the Parlement of Paris and by the Collège de Sorbonne. Voltaire was unimpressed with the text, but he considered the attacks unjustified. After Voltaire learned that the book by Helvétius had been publicly incinerated he reacted as follows according to Hall:
‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that!
I suspect the reason Damore's 'manifesto' received the treatment it did from the company is that despite all the rhetoric, despite the claims of 'diversity', despite all the company's efforts to diversify their workforce, it hasn't worked.
So whatever else Damore had wrong, there is one thing he had absolutely right, that is, the methods Google is using to diversify the workforce are not working. Perhaps it's time to try something else.
PZ Myers isn't much of a bioligist.
I've been reading his blog for over 10 years, and my non-expert opinion is that he is a very good biologist, and also a committed humanist and feminist. Babblers can read the article for themselves, and decide who they agree with.
As to your other point, I couldn't disagree more. No one is infringing on Damore's freedom of speech. As an anarcho-syndicalist, I do not approve of the employer/employee relationship in general. However, for as long as it exists, employers will be free to determine that some particular employee's utterances are disruptive to their "corporate culture" and to dismiss such an employee. This is all Google has done.
Aside from the fact that it's chock full of reprehensible and questionable ideas, the way he disseminated them made it impossible for Google not to fire him. His actions were inappropriate.
Here is an opinion piece from a former manager at Google that lends some clarity to just what a mess this was. https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e377...
From Timebandit:
Aside from the fact that it's chock full of reprehensible and questionable ideas...
There are those who don't agree that it's 'chock full of reprehensible and questionable ideas'. For instance:
Debra Soh:
Debra holds a PhD in sexual neuroscience from York University and was awarded the Provost Dissertation Scholarship for her fMRI research on paraphilias and hypersexuality. She is a recipient of the prestigious Michael Smith Foreign Study Award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and has published in academic journals including Archives of Sexual Behavior and Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
No, the Google manifesto isn't sexist or anti-diversity, it's science
Danielle Brown, Google’s newly appointed vice-president for diversity, integrity and governance, accused the memo of advancing “incorrect assumptions about gender,” and Mr. Damore confirmed last night he was fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”
Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour.
...Many people, including a former Google employee, have attempted to refute the memo’s points, alleging that they contradict the latest research.
I’d love to know what “research done […] for decades” he’s referring to, because thousands of studies would suggest otherwise. A single study, published in 2015, did claim that male and female brains existed along a “mosaic” and that it isn’t possible to differentiate them by sex, but this has been refuted by four – yes, four – academic studies since.
...Of course, differences exist at the individual level, and this doesn’t mean environment plays no role in shaping us. But to claim that there are no differences between the sexes when looking at group averages, or that culture has greater influence than biology, simply isn’t true.
...Some intentionally deny the science because they are afraid it will be used to justify keeping women out of STEM. But sexism isn’t the result of knowing facts; it’s the result of what people choose to do with them.
Now, I'm willing to believe there is disagreement amongst scientists as to the various effects of biology and culture on humans, but it is clear that much of what Damore put in his memo was supported by science.
From Michael Moriarity:
I've been reading his blog for over 10 years, and my non-expert opinion is that he is a very good biologist,
And for all I know he is a great biologist. But when he makes a bloomer like he did, one does wonder whether he's letting his ideology get in the way of his science.
According to what I read, he disagreed with the statment that the male is biologically 'disposable'. Now I suppose we could argue about what 'disposable' means, but I took it to mean that men are much less important than women in the process of reproduction.
As I pointed out, a single male could have hundreds, indeed thousands, of offspring, while a woman would be limited to probably around twenty-five or so. So which would you think would be more important in propogating the species?
In fact there are mammalian species where single males are the sperm source for most of the females of the group. So in a group of roughly 50-50 male female ratio, many of those males are 'disposed' of. I find it hard to believe your biologist Myers would not have been aware of that.
It's also wise to remember we are animals, just like all the other animals. Culture is new, biology is very old. That's not to say culture has no effect, it is to say that you can dress us up, but you can't take us anywhere.
As far as Google's right to fire Damore, that may be so, but don't tell me it's justified because he wrote this anti-diversity, sexist manifesto. He was fired for saying the company policy was bullshit. As I pointed out above, those on the left should be very wary of defending that firing because they don't agree with what he said. What then will be the defence when someone is fired for saying something you do agree with?
In a memo to employees, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said the employee who penned a controversial memo that claimed that women had biological issues that prevented them from being as successful as men in tech had violated its Code of Conduct, and that the post had crossed “the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”
He added: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”
https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/16110696/firing-google-ceo-employee-penn...
https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-sundar-pichai/
Evidence of Google Blacklisting of Left and Progressive Sites Continue To Mount
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/08/goog-a08.html
Machines Know Better?
"YouTube and its parent company Google are being accused of stifling alternative viewpoints..."
This is all revealed in a YouTube video.
#irony
