Woke is white arrogance

[southernhybrid]

I'm a big girl! I've never put anyone on ignore! Whooopee! Besides, if I find someone's posts boring or obnoxious, it's really easy to scroll down and not read the entire post. I honestly don't understand why people can't simply agree to disagree without being insulting and obnoxious.

Oh wait. What are we supposed to be discussing in this endless thread?

 

[KeepTalking]

Oh wait. What are we supposed to be discussing in this endless thread?

How woke is white arrogance. Which makes this discussion of why I have B20 on ignore not so much of a derail.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And no, Damore did not "jump on" anyone. He merely took his lying employers at their word when they claimed they wanted a conversation even though what they evidently actually wanted was more along the lines of a revival meeting.

A conversation?

○ 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).

It appeared that Damore was more trying to provide a lecture on white mansplaining. The quote above is telling management all about his worst qualities as an employee.

 

[laughing dog]

And no, Damore did not "jump on" anyone. He merely took his lying employers at their word when they claimed they wanted a conversation even though what they evidently actually wanted was more along the lines of a revival meeting.

Do you have any evidence that his employers were lying or did you pull that out right out of your ass?

 

[TomC]

And no, Damore did not "jump on" anyone. He merely took his lying employers at their word when they claimed they wanted a conversation even though what they evidently actually wanted was more along the lines of a revival meeting.

Do you have any evidence that his employers were lying or did you pull that out right out of your ass?

Lying might have been a strong word, but maybe not.

If Google management had encouraged employees to be honest, and present opinions for improvement to corporate efficiency, but fired the guy for being more honest than politically correct, referring to Google as lying isn't wrong.

I'm not saying that's what happened. But it sure looks that way to me.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

And no, Damore did not "jump on" anyone. He merely took his lying employers at their word when they claimed they wanted a conversation even though what they evidently actually wanted was more along the lines of a revival meeting.

Do you have any evidence that his employers were lying or did you pull that out right out of your ass?

Lying might have been a strong word, but maybe not.

If Google management had encouraged employees to be honest, and present opinions for improvement to corporate efficiency, but fired the guy for being more honest than politically correct, referring to Google as lying isn't wrong.

Really, because in your view, honesty trumps the truth? For example, if he had written "Those fucking faggots cannot concentrate on their job because they are always on Tinder, and they spread HIV in the workplace?", you'd expect management to engage in a polite conversation and disregard any policy about employee behavior?

 

[TomC]

Lying might have been a strong word, but maybe not.

If Google management had encouraged employees to be honest, and present opinions for improvement to corporate efficiency, but fired the guy for being more honest than politically correct, referring to Google as lying isn't wrong.

Really, because in your view, honesty trumps the truth? For example, if he had written "Those fucking faggots cannot concentrate on their job because they are always on Tinder, and they spread HIV in the workplace?", you'd expect management to engage in a polite conversation and disregard any policy about employee behavior?

If you think that's comparable to what Damore wrote I don't see how we can have a conversation.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

Except 'don't hire women because they're women' isn't just being 'not politically correct', it's discriminatory. Even if this guy is completely accurate AND the company adopts his suggestions, they cannot have a paper trail showing that they intend to discriminate.

They'd get slaughtered in court.

So they cannot have him around, not because of what he said, but because they'll get sued based on what they did or did not do after he said it. He really left them no alternative.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The guy could have honestly believed it, but that doesn't make it true, and it certainly exposed flaws as an employee and collaborator among peers. Stereotypes are "much more accurate" than alleged?

His response to a call for more hiring diversity was 'Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?'

 

[laughing dog]

Lying might have been a strong word, but maybe not.

If Google management had encouraged employees to be honest, and present opinions for improvement to corporate efficiency, but fired the guy for being more honest than politically correct, referring to Google as lying isn't wrong.

Really, because in your view, honesty trumps the truth? For example, if he had written "Those fucking faggots cannot concentrate on their job because they are always on Tinder, and they spread HIV in the workplace?", you'd expect management to engage in a polite conversation and disregard any policy about employee behavior?

If you think that's comparable to what Damore wrote I don't see how we can have a conversation.
Tom

The principle is exactly the same, so apparently you do see how an honest opinion that is not politically correct can be obnoxious enough to get one fired.

 

[TomC]

Except 'don't hire women because they're women' isn't just being 'not politically correct', it's discriminatory.

Did he actually say that?

I don't care enough about one geek losing his cushy job or Google's internal affairs to read his whole thing. So I'm asking, "Did he actually say that, exactly, or are you misrepresenting what he said?"

Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Except 'don't hire women because they're women' isn't just being 'not politically correct', it's discriminatory. Even if this guy is completely accurate AND the company adopts his suggestions, they cannot have a paper trail showing that they intend to discriminate.

They'd get slaughtered in court.

So they cannot have him around, not because of what he said, but because they'll get sued based on what they did or did not do after he said it. He really left them no alternative.

Can you point out where in his manifesto he said "don't hire women because they're women"?

 

[Bomb#20]

The guy could have honestly believed it, but that doesn't make it true, and it certainly exposed flaws as an employee and collaborator among peers. Stereotypes are "much more accurate" than alleged?

His response to a call for more hiring diversity was 'Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?'

Funny how all the Google apologetics involve either putting words in Damore's mouth or putting hypothetical words in Damore's mouth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The guy could have honestly believed it, but that doesn't make it true, and it certainly exposed flaws as an employee and collaborator among peers. Stereotypes are "much more accurate" than alleged?

His response to a call for more hiring diversity was 'Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?'

Funny how all the Google apologetics involve either putting words in Damore's mouth or putting hypothetical words in Damore's mouth.

○ 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).

His memo.

 

[TomC]

The guy could have honestly believed it, but that doesn't make it true, and it certainly exposed flaws as an employee and collaborator among peers. Stereotypes are "much more accurate" than alleged?

His response to a call for more hiring diversity was 'Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?'

Funny how all the Google apologetics involve either putting words in Damore's mouth or putting hypothetical words in Damore's mouth.

I wouldn't use the word "funny".
I'd use "woke".
Tomorrow

 

[Bomb#20]

The guy could have honestly believed it, but that doesn't make it true, and it certainly exposed flaws as an employee and collaborator among peers. Stereotypes are "much more accurate" than alleged?

His response to a call for more hiring diversity was 'Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?'

Funny how all the Google apologetics involve either putting words in Damore's mouth or putting hypothetical words in Damore's mouth.

○ 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).

His memo.

Are you under the impression that that's a quotation of Damore saying "Why not woah is me as a white male conservative? When will Google coddle people like me?"?

(Incidentally, can you explain how 'Stereotypes are "much more accurate" than alleged?' was supposed to qualify as evidence of 'flaws as an employee and collaborator among peers', when you didn't supply any information on how accurate stereotypes had been alleged to be?)

 

[Emily Lake]

I will concur that at least some women do tend to avoid careers and workplaces where they are surrounded by misogynistic assholes who expect them to make the coffee and do the scutwork and are criticized for taking time to care for non-work related tasks while men are praised for showing team work by joining the work unit's gym/sports team/bar drinking regime/golf game. Because the men have women at home to do the home stuff.

It is preposterously silly to maintain that over millions of years of sexually dimorphic evolution and selection human males and females developed different behaviors and interests. Unless the lie that humans are animals is believed. But you'll never make a monkey out of me!

Trausti, why don't you look through the animal kingdom some time? You'll be VERY surprised.

Like among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the male sex and not the female sex. A big violation of human stereotypes.

The "flashy male" element is somewhat less common among mammals than among birds. That said, it frequently seems to depend on the relative commonality of the sexes, how much competition for reproduction there is, and the burden of reproduction. In species that have a lower reproductive burden (shorter gestation, faster maturation of young, shared parenting) there frequently tends to be less in the way of displays aimed at sexual selection. That doesn't mean there's not a fair amount of dimorphism in looks and shape, but less "flashy" competition.

 

[Emily Lake]

So what? Trausti, you have to concede that this is contrary to common stereotypes in our species.

No shit. And if we recognize this, why the push back when sexual dimorphism of interests and behaviors is pointed out in humans?

Gender identification is in the mind.

Not based on phenotype.

Except that gender identification is related to socially imposed signaling and presentation elements.

Also, other species use sexual mimicry as well, for a variety of reasons ranging from status-gaining to "sneaky" mating.

 

[Emily Lake]

Hang on a sec. Are you telling us that among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the one with a double dose of the same sex chromosome, rather than the one who has one of each type and whose gamete therefore determines the sex of the offspring?

It actually has a lot more to do with how much competition (and how aggressive the competition) there is for mating. Given that in many species males are significantly more aggressive toward each other, there ends up being more reproductive competition among males. In humans, given our social developments, the competitive angles aren't analogous. There's still competition - men still peacock... but women still try to be attractive to a "high quality" mate. The meaning of "quality", however, is influenced by social pressures, so it changes over time.

 

[Emily Lake]

Something that seems universal in our species is that the two sexes like to sort themselves out into two social castes.

We "like" to? I'm not all that convinced that this caste-sorting is something that all of us are enamored of. I tend to think that one sex is a bit more enamored of that sort of caste-sorting than the other.