Community > Science and Technology
Google facing multiple lawsuits
Lana Reverse:
You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing a supposedly sexist memo (which can be read here). Turns out, he doesn't like being fired for his opinions, and he plans to sue:
http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google-memo-legal/
Now, this might not be that big a deal... but 60 women are also thinking about suing Google, claiming pay discrimination:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-women-discrimination-class-action-lawsuit
And over 250 people have joined a class action suit against Google for age discrimination:
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2017/08/nearly-300-have-joined-google-age-case.html?page=all
Combine all this with the investigations they're already dealing with, and I have to say I'm not envying Alphabet right now.
The_Queen:
--- Quote from: Lana Reverse on August 09, 2017, 09:05:49 pm ---You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing a supposedly sexist memo (which can be read here). Turns out, he doesn't like being fired for his opinions, and he plans to sue:
--- End quote ---
Fixed that for you
Lana Reverse:
--- Quote from: The_Queen on August 09, 2017, 09:54:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: Lana Reverse on August 09, 2017, 09:05:49 pm ---You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing a supposedly sexist memo (which can be read here). Turns out, he doesn't like being fired for his opinions, and he plans to sue:
--- End quote ---
Fixed that for you
--- End quote ---
I guess science is sexist now.
--- Quote ---The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. Its main points are that: 1. Neither the left nor the right gets diversity completely right; 2. The social science evidence on implicit and explicit bias has been wildly oversold and is far weaker than most people seem to realize; 3. Google has, perhaps unintentionally, created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot and instituted authoritarian policies of reverse discrimination; 4. The policies and atmosphere systematically ignore biological, cognitive, educational, and social science research on the nature and sources of individual and group differences. I cannot speak to the atmosphere at Google, but: 1. Give that the author gets everything else right, I am pretty confident he is right about that too; 2. It is a painfully familiar atmosphere, one that is a lot like academia.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence. In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong. For instance, sex differences in negative emotionality are universal across cultures; developmentally emerge across all cultures at exactly the same time; are linked to diagnosed (not just self-reported) mental health issues; appear rooted in sex differences in neurology, gene activation, and hormones; are larger in more gender egalitarian nations; and so forth (for a short review of this evidence, see here.)
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---An anonymous male software engineer recently distributed a memo titled ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber’. Within hours, this memo unleashed a firestorm of negative commentary, most of which ignored the memo’s evidence-based arguments. Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy rather than science: no gender feminist I’ve met has ever been able to give a coherent answer to the question ‘What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?’)
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership.
Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.
--- End quote ---
For something like this, the question we should ask ourselves is "how sound are his claims", not "do they agree with my ideology?" And it looks like his claims are sound. If you have evidence that he may not be right, I'm all ears.
Cloud3514:
A blatantly right wing source that has articles that call "leftists" hypocrites regarding Islam, rails against "SJWs," calls the gender pay gap a first world problem and argues against it with typical reductionism, full on denies the existence of white priveledge and takes the term "regressive left" seriously.
Hell, three of the four writers of the article you linked to are white men.
A quick look at Geoffrey Miller's Twitter account shows him regularly making typical alt-right statements about free speech, "western civilization" and "SJWs. He also agreed with comparing Damore's firing with being a victim of a terror attack and has shown pride in being featured on Breitbart. (So. Many. Links.)
David Schmitt didn't see a red flag from Damore being interviewed by Stephen Molyneux. He also accuses "the political left" of being anti-science in regards to evolution and regularly excuses regressive views on women as the result of evolution. He also retweeted this fucking meme.
Lee Jussim regularly writes blog posts repeating the claim that free speech is under attack on college campuses. He also regularly posts right wing blogs about gender gaps, feminism and liberal bias. He also used this image in multiple articles.
Debra Soh thinks gender neutral parenting is bad. She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses and has stated that she thinks "identity politics" is attacking science.
You're citing right wing sources instead of actually reading the fucking memo yourself and citing it directly.
Lana Reverse:
--- Quote from: Cloud3514 on August 10, 2017, 12:31:01 am ---A blatantly right wing source that has articles that call "leftists" hypocrites regarding Islam, rails against "SJWs," calls the gender pay gap a first world problem and argues against it with typical reductionism, full on denies the existence of white priveledge and takes the term "regressive left" seriously.
Hell, three of the four writers of the article you linked to are white men.
A quick look at Geoffrey Miller's Twitter account shows him regularly making typical alt-right statements about free speech, "western civilization" and "SJWs. He also agreed with comparing Damore's firing with being a victim of a terror attack and has shown pride in being featured on Breitbart. (So. Many. Links.)
David Schmitt didn't see a red flag from Damore being interviewed by Stephen Molyneux. He also accuses "the political left" of being anti-science in regards to evolution and regularly excuses regressive views on women as the result of evolution. He also retweeted this fucking meme.
Lee Jussim regularly writes blog posts repeating the claim that free speech is under attack on college campuses. He also regularly posts right wing blogs about gender gaps, feminism and liberal bias. He also used this image in multiple articles.
Debra Soh thinks gender neutral parenting is bad. She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses and has stated that she thinks "identity politics" is attacking science.
You're citing right wing sources instead of actually reading the fucking memo yourself.
--- End quote ---
(I was tempted to repeat the image four or five times, but I don't want to be redundant)
Is this really all you've got? You expect me to take you seriously when all you have is attempted character assassination? Don't make me laugh.
I couldn't help but notice a distinct lack of evidence in your post. If you want to attack my article, fine. I'd love to have a good debate based on science and logic. But that's not what you posted. You posted a whole bunch of links to irrelevant baloney, expecting me to try and counter your gish gallop of well poisoning. Hate to break it to you, but I'm not that kind of gal.
I'm not even angry, just disappointed. If you want to keep doing this, then go ahead. Keep making personal attacks. Keep talking about how accidents of birth determine truth and accuracy. Keep sidetracking everybody with unrelated topics. You're only digging your own grave.
If you want me to take you seriously, then base your arguments on science. You can apply labels and play politics all you want, but at the end of the day, if that's all you have, then you've already lost.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version