James Damore interview, Google controversy

Post Reply New Topic

I would like to point out that you are editing my comments in a way that misrepresents them. In the futue, please qoute the entire comment. I have posted below my entire comment with the part you omitted in bold. What had actually been said was...



So no, I did not speak to a man's experiences. I acknowledged experiences men claim to have that they are sometimes wrongfully disregarded by other men, and this is not the same thing as women being disregarded for the fact that they are women, nor does stating so speak to a man's experience, because men are not women and thus men can not be disregarded by for being women, with the exception of when another person thinks that man is a woman but the context here is a work place where that is unlikely to happen.

According to your own logic, you don't know if it's the same thing or not the same - because you can't experience both and compare.
And by they way, it seems that you don't know what is circular reasoning?

If you keep taking my words out of context, yes, it may seem like circular reason to yourself.

Perhaps you had best run this by a logistician or philosophy professor and they can explain to you why it's not circular reasoning, as I have no reason to believe anything I say here can appease you regardless of it's integrity, and to be honest, I have no desire or need to appease. You may continue to be of the opinions that you are of but it does not change the reality of what women have to contend with in the world nor does it negate my experiences or the experiences of other women (though it would be quite nice if it did). Additionally, it does not serve you well to continue to harbor such perspectives but for reasons I've not yet fully understood, evolution continues to make men such as yourself who fail to heed words from the source. It's not really any of my concern to be honest with respect to Damore and the Google issue. Google made the right decision.

And once again, you're using emotional "arguments" instead of facts and logic.

If that is what you see in it then that is what you see in it. Perhaps I see your arguments in the same light.

What?!?!

How on Earth can a view be violently offensive? Beliefs and states of mind are, by definition, non-physical, and therefore cannot in any way, shape or form be "violent".

I know, I'm thinking too much like an "Aspie", but this whole business is just sickening. No one - EVER - should lose their job simply because they do not accept certain beliefs about the nature of reality that those who employed him hold as true. There ARE fundamental differences between males and females! Who in their right mind can deny this obvious FACT?!

He should sue the rotten, politically-correct, SJW, special-snowflake, easily triggered, utterly ret*d bastards!

Isn't there some aspect of social justice and political correctness in your own ideologies though in the belief that an employer should be tolerant of the the expression of thought of their employees regardless of any potential negative impact to the company and investors? And don't you think you yourself might come across as a triggered snowflake in your expression of anger that employees are not entitled to freely express themselves without being fired?

It's not "what I see". It's what is. The truth is not relative.

Last edited by XenoMind on 16 Jan 2018, 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gosh. I'm new to this forum and this debate was quite a fun read. So much tension and many opposing stances yet everyone remains civil (no emotional explosions or name-calling).

I was trying to find a safe place to voice my own opinions on this topic. I tried to on reddit and I was called sexist and misogynist (oops). I do admit my language can be a bit coarse at times. If so, I don't mind being called out on it, I just don't feel it's right to bully others just because they disagree.

Anyway, this community looks great!

No emotional explosions.

So you're saying that comments such as “You’re a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. f**k you.” and “I intend to silence these views. They are violently offensive.” are perfectly acceptable to Google and its investors?

Is that in general? Or only when directed against people you personally don't like?

Oops. I meant calling other forum-users names. XD

If I were saying that, I would have said that. Please do not imply I have said things that I didn't say. I recommend including the entire conversation chain when easily feasible so as to avoid taking someone's words out of context rather than going out of your way to edit the context out.

As for the above comment that you seem to have attributed to me, that was not my comment and I have made no comment on it other than this very comment I am making now.

It may or may not be depending on the "truth" one is speaking of but if it were not, what cedes you the authority to determine what is truth, over someone else, and by what means does a man who has been a man all of his life determine that he has more authority on the female experience and female perspectives than an actual female?

Seriously? You're just going to flat out lie?
You do realise that people can just scroll up and see the quoted comment with you as the poster.


I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Lots of people — you among them — defend Google's decision to fire Damore because he said something "offensive", but pass over these other comments in complete silence. There are no reports that the people who made them have been fired. But none of these people are calling for them to be fired or even disciplined for much more blatantly violating Google's stated policy of promoting "a culture of 'psychological safety' among its staff, believing it imperative that employees feel empowered to voice ideas without feeling embarrassed or judged."

It's a rather blatant double standard.

I'm sure there's a word to describe such an immunity or advantage that sets a few above the rules applied to everyone else.

Indeed they can scroll up, at which point, if they understand the syntax of the quotation boxes, will see that my comments are in reply to the comment directly above, which in this case, was to the comment made by Lintar, and not your comment.



In this very post I am now replying to, you have just accused me of lying when I had said I had not commented on your specific comment and now you are calling hypocrisy for my silence on your comment.

Which is it? Did I or did I not comment on it?

I did not. I am not obliged to read every post in a thread or reply to every post or comment on them, and may choose not to for a variety of reasons. I believe that claiming that my silence on a post or comment represents one view point or another, particularly when you conclude on a view point negative in light, or attempts to wage personal attacks on me or my character to goad me in to commenting on an issue constitues a form of defamation, and bullying and I will report such behavior to the moderators.

If you would like my viewpoint on a particular issue, you may ask it, and I may or may not choose to share it.



And if I read reports of Google firing them for such behavior, I may have likewise voiced my support for Google's decision....or not. As I said, I am not obliged to read or comment on anything.