Google Engineer Fired

[Glacier]

And the Media Outlets Blatantly Lying About The Google Memo.

Here Are All The Media Outlets Blatantly Lying About The Google Memo

Media outlets are lying about a memo written by one of Google’s top scientists, which calls out the tech-giant’s illegal discrimination practices and blinding liberal biases.

Google has fired the author of the memo, James Damore, after the document received considerable backlash and was unfairly portrayed by many news outlets.

Here are some of the more blatant lies about the memo perpetuated by news media outlets.

[neilsimon]

Have you read the memo? It's not long and actually really easy to read, if painful at the same time.
It's full of misinformation, un-sourced yet generally unaccepted or at least contentious claims, and honestly a work which is embarrassing for Google not just because of intent, but also because of the quality of the content.

He should have gone through proper channels, or at least separated himself from Google before releasing this. Additionally, the content and his attitudes could make it rather difficult for him to work with "diverse" groups of people. It's a stupid mistake on his part and Google's response seems entirely justified.

By the way, the one thing he could have reasonably argued, the one thing he could have pushed for and actually had a point was that Google doesn't have the level of diversity of opinion it should have, but that got lost in the unsubstantiated claims and simply sexist and racist agenda he was pushing. Diversity of opinion is great, but not when it comes at the cost of respect for fellow workers.

[Glacier]

Are you justifying the media lying like your good buddy Donald Trump or are you denying that they are lying?

This is more of the same we've seen from Google, Youtube, Twitter, and the like. Diversity of opinion is not allowed. Just Ask Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syvI1JqQgOU

[neilsimon]

Are you justifying the media lying like your good buddy Donald Trump or are you denying that they are lying?

No to all of the above, I said nothing about how the media presented this.
Also, please do not defame me by associating me with Donald Trump.

[Glacier]

Ha, I was being sarcastic about that, although you seem tribal enough to care more about whose lying that if they're lying (we all do to a certain degree).

You seem to be saying he's racist, which is a very serious claim worse than saying Trump is your gay lover, so I assume you have proof of this?

Anyway, here's another one.

[neilsimon]

Ha, I was being sarcastic about that, although you seem tribal enough to care more about whose lying that if they're lying (we all do to a certain degree).

Who lies, how they lie and what the lie is matter as a whole. Bill Clinton telling Hillary that he loved the meal she cooked, when he didn't, is different to telling her that he didn't cheat on her, which is different to lying under oath that he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Similarly, a media outlet exaggerating or even misrepresenting for effect is bad, but different to intentionally misleading. I don't defend sensationalist headlines or such because they are by nature misleading.
But, where is the claim of tribal coming from?

You seem to be saying he's racist, which is a very serious claim worse than saying Trump is your gay lover, so I assume you have proof of this?

He wrote a memo which included some of his racist and sexist attitudes. If you feel that makes him racist, that's your call.

Anyway, here's another one.

Sorry, I have better things to do with my day than listen to some protracted rant by a right-wing commentator who loves to blame "leftists" for all the problems in the World.

[Glacier]

Okay, so you care about feelings over facts. I get it. That's what leftists do. You feel he is racist without any facts, and maybe your intuition is right, but myself, I like to see facts first before making serious allegations.

[neilsimon]

Okay, so you care about feelings over facts. I get it. That's what leftists do. You feel he is racist without any facts, and maybe your intuition is right, but myself, I like to see facts first before jumping to conclusions.

Where are you getting this? I stated a fact, the memo contains clearly racist content. I never called him a racist and never said that I feel he is a racist. Please stop trying to twist my words.

For someone who claims to like to see facts before jumping to conclusions, something I would never accuse the righties of doing, you obviously failed to read what I wrote and got the facts wrong on that. But please, feel free to point out where I have put feelings ahead of fact, but this time, please do it clearly and accurately and without twisting my words.

factsshapiro2.jpg

Ah yes, one of the smarter righties. I watched a few of his talks and he does make some good points at times, but it is clear that he deliberately ignores facts that don't agree with what he wants to be true, and justifies a lot by hand waving rather than logic, so it's kind of ironic that you post a picture of him with those words.

[Glacier]

Where are you getting this? I stated a fact, the memo contains clearly racist content.

Such as?

[neilsimon]

Where are you getting this? I stated a fact, the memo contains clearly racist content.

Such as?

Read the memo, it's clear as day.

[Omnitheo]

It's clear that the OP was emotionally charged from the start and not interested in facts or debate of the story contrary to the extreme bias presented from the beginning.

[Glacier]

It's clear that the OP was emotionally charged from the start and not interested in facts or debate of the story contrary to the extreme bias presented from the beginning.

You are wrong. I could care less if the guy is racist. Well, I don't really want anyone to be racist, but you know what I mean.

If Neilsmon is not taking things out of context, spit it out. If he has indeed read the memo, it can't be that hard to post a paragraph to back up his point. So far nothing, which tells me he never actually read it (which is okay, I haven't read it either), or his argument is so weak it's better to not even supply an excerpt than to supply actual supporting evidence.

[sobrohusfat]

excerpt:....

Suggestions

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 (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.

In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.
I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.

These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.

I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity

Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.

Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.
Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.

Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.

Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

full text: https://diversitymemo.com/

"shaming and misrepresentation" mmmyesss ... anyone else recognize this standard go-to response by the usual suspects found on this thread?

...simply sexist and racist agenda he was pushing.

HA !

[The Green Barbarian]

Read the memo, it's clear as day.

I did, and you're either reading something that isn't there, or blatantly misrepresenting what was stated, just like the news media. Total garbage behavior by the left. AGAIN.

[The Green Barbarian]