He does not, which is the problem and the topic regardless of what some others think or want this case to be. Are wo/men this or that? Oh stfu and go read a book about it or something.

I reiterate, his opinions are mediocre, dime in dozen. There is nothing special about them, nothing worthy of lengthy discussion simply because result of such discussion is known beforehand. There are two issues however here:

1. being fired because of lack of rights
2. being fired for stating diverging opinion by company allegedly promoting diversity

If he was covered my EU laws, he could not be fired for stating opinion, respectively he could be fired but could demand his rights in court. In such case, I guess, Google would not even fire him and we would not get to read about it.

Misunderstanding of what free speech is.

Free speech is the ability to say mosts things without the state prosecuting for breaking any criminal law.
It doesn't mean anyone else including the people you work for a living hell based on what you say, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

In practical terms you don't have freedom of speech in the workspace, try calling your boss and arsehole to test this out

tuco wrote:He does not, which is the problem and the topic regardless of what some others think or want this case to be. Are wo/men this or that? Oh stfu and go read a book about it or something.

Threads like this aren't about rights. If you want to talk about rights, go talk about mandated uniforms for folk working a supermarket checkout, or rules about how those folk have to talk to customers and limits on their speech such as suggesting better places to shop. Every adult soon learns that workplaces in the UK and US are controlled spaces, and you are expected to tow the line.

This Damore shit got attention, not because of free speech issues, but because of a backlash against political correctness and diversity awareness, which is why the little fuck is appearing on all these right wing talk shows.

/sigh

I will correct myself before some genius will call me on my bullshit. If he was covered by Czech labour law he could not be fired for stating opinion simply because labour law clearly defines conditions under which employee can be fried and stating opinion is not one of them. It has nothing to do with free speech but with worker protection from companies who would like to act like fucking cunts.

Tho I think similar laws are everywhere in the EU, not gonna study them.

VazScep wrote:

tuco wrote:He does not, which is the problem and the topic regardless of what some others think or want this case to be. Are wo/men this or that? Oh stfu and go read a book about it or something.

Threads like this aren't about rights. If you want to talk about rights, go talk about mandated uniforms for folk working a supermarket checkout, or rules about how those folk have to talk to customers and limits on their speech such as suggesting better places to shop. Every adult soon learns that workplaces in the UK and US are controlled spaces, and you are expected to tow the line.

This Damore shit got attention, not because of free speech issues, but because of a backlash against political correctness and diversity awareness, which is why the little fuck is appearing on all these right wing talk shows.

I do not pay attention to such shows. Have fun.

tuco wrote:I do not pay attention to such shows. Have fun.

You're already paying attention.

VazScep wrote:I'm up for a bit more diversity in my company. A few more women present, and I wouldn't have had to hear a joke two days ago that some sophisticated software with a poor UI was "like an ugly woman who cooks really well".

The concepts of beauty and ugly run deep and as a social mechanism, jokes appear to be a way to illuminate truths indirectly. The underlying issue appears to be that we care about appearances at all, secondary is whether we overtly state how we have judged peoples looks on the beauty/ugly scale. Jokes might simply highlight something we all know about someones appearance but political correctness prevents these from being stated overtly. For women beauty is far more important than for men, however it’s a common criticism of male looks to be too short by judging women, and just as women are judged for the size and appearance of their boobs, men are judged on the size of their equipment. It appears that judging both men and women on looks is not going to go away any time soon, but its possible to simply legislate that we don’t overtly state this uncomfortable fact and just work on making people more comfortable with the contradiction. This either then allows people to live in denial of the way their appearance is being judged by others or its just the friction caused when someone does state it – ie. Fat shaming etc is equivalent to being verbally assaulted. Its probably a mix of both.

VazScep wrote:I might suggest that a group that is comfortable with such jokes is a group that's contributing to creating a shit environment for women, but then, if women can't deal with these jokes, they shouldn't become software engineers. Same goes for blacks. If you're put off by our causal racism, you clearly weren't talented enough for our team.

Part of this is conflict with in and out groups, however its also the inherent individual conflict with society, an political correctness is used to dilute these conflicts at the cost of suppressing individuality. Evolution has not yet bred us to be entirely indoctrinated (and unaware) but it has come very close and lots of mechanisms are in place to help us overlook this fact.

TMB wrote:The concepts of beauty and ugly run deep and as a social mechanism, jokes appear to be a way to illuminate truths indirectly.

My problem with the joke is nothing to do with beauty standards. My problem is that it assumes woman are either to be ogled or, failing that, confined to meal preparation. It's a joke which the guy wouldn't have uttered had there been a female hacker around.

Part of this is conflict with in and out groups,

Spare me.

VazScep wrote:My problem is that it assumes woman are either to be ogled or, failing that, confined to meal preparation.

It's possible that the sort of technically-overdeveloped and socially-stunted individual who would make that assumption and then give voice to it under some circumstances doesn't really want women in the workplace confronting him with the socially-stunted condition he finds himself in.

Even if he doesn't really make that assumption and is just puffing out his chest in a way he thinks will impress his co-workers... If he's the Big Kahuna, he can say whatever he likes, even if everyone else in the shop thinks he's a jerk.

It's entirely possible that a few seconds later, it occurred to him "maybe that wasn't cool", and that the person laughing with the joke did so nervously. I'm not judging these guys, and I don't take uncomfortable jokes between two guys on different teams as evidence of a worldview. I just think he'd have checked himself more carefully if we weren't such a dickfest.

Nicko wrote:
I understand the emotional resistance to the idea that large chunks of our personalities - and thus our preferences - are genetically-determined. It's not something I'm jumping up and down for joy over myself. It suggests that there will continue to be inequalities and imbalances in society that may be impossible to fully remedy, which is a conclusion that I find extremely unwelcome. There comes a point, however, where I just had to admit that is what the relevant research is showing.

You are saying that resistance to some genetic determinism is because this will lead to social inequality and imbalances. If we assume that the rest of who and what we are is a result of the environment acting upon our genetic endowment, do you imagine that a world without any genetic determinism would then result in an equal and balanced society? I can imagine that an idea like this as well as the discomfort behind the partial genetic determinism is something that has been socially indoctrinated into whoever feels this way, and it happens as an inevitable outcome as the collective will of us all acts to suppress individual selfishness and probably includes individual thoughts. The best social outcome must surely be to end up with obedient, law abiding and productive citizens where any individual traits are carefully policed to make sure they don’t violate our complex and fickle social rules.

Are you not as uncomfortable with the idea that the alternative to having some genetic determinism is being social clones? Individuality, such as its possible, is a combination of our unique genetics and unique interactions with the environment. Since we have little or no control over either of these, are you uncomfortable with the idea that being a free willed autonomous individual is just another social sleight of hand to prevent anarchy? And by social, I mean the collective will of all people other than ourself.

Rumraket wrote:I'll just leave this here:

The issue I have is the social castration of the role that truth plays in these debates. It seems to me that certainly the media, and probably supporters both sides of the debate are not interested in the truth, they are just interested in winning and maintain and gaining power from which benefit can be derived. Pinker, despite his strongly social moral assumptions, seems to be taking his stance because of a genuine interest in reality. Spelke however has a political view, and given the possible fallout of backing down or being wrong is unlikely to ever step away from her current viewpoint. The loss of political position and personal power would be too great. Debates such as these are an insult to rationality. Even debates generated between people like Dawkins and ID are also an insult. They are not motivated by truth seeking, it has become a media sport to pit opponents against each other. Different religious groups get rolled into similar debates and we seem to lose sight of the fundamental differences between them, that are so great that any polite and inconclusive debate is wasting time and gives the illusion that we are rational and truth seeking.

Pinker could take either side of the argument without violating his political position as long as he did not violate a rational approach. Spelke dresses her side in rational clothing but few on her side of the fence are interested in the facts. As Pinker notes the ‘truth cannot be sexist’, and once they locked on this in Damores view he was never going to recover regardless of how factual his comments about male/female differences are. There are plenty of researchers who validate his comments, but no one wants this inconvenient truth.

See what I mean?

VazScep wrote:

TMB wrote:The concepts of beauty and ugly run deep and as a social mechanism, jokes appear to be a way to illuminate truths indirectly.

My problem with the joke is nothing to do with beauty standards. My problem is that it assumes woman are either to be ogled or, failing that, confined to meal preparation. It's a joke which the guy wouldn't have uttered had there been a female hacker around.

How can a joke about 'ugly' women not have anything to do with beauty standards? Women are ogled at because of their appearance, and womens endorsements of cosmetics and clothing is their contribution to this. Males are also judged as objects, tallness or shortness being a physical appearance one, or being judged as a celebrity object or some form of utility object to provide services to society. Not uttering your thoughts is political correctness and done to protect people from how they might feel about these thoughts. Women are sensitive to this, men far less so.

Spare me.

No spares for free here, here you are being judged as a rational object (or irrational). If you dont understand the point, then ask. If you discount the point then support your assertion.

tuco wrote:See what I mean?

I dont see what you mean. Should I have the same view of your thoughts as you do? Might be better and more rational to be specific. That is assuming that your comment was even meant as a response to mine. Was it?

TMB wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I'll just leave this here:

The issue I have is the social castration of the role that truth plays in these debates. It seems to me that certainly the media, and probably supporters both sides of the debate are not interested in the truth, they are just interested in winning and maintain and gaining power from which benefit can be derived. Pinker, despite his strongly social moral assumptions, seems to be taking his stance because of a genuine interest in reality. Spelke however has a political view, and given the possible fallout of backing down or being wrong is unlikely to ever step away from her current viewpoint. The loss of political position and personal power would be too great. Debates such as these are an insult to rationality. Even debates generated between people like Dawkins and ID are also an insult. They are not motivated by truth seeking, it has become a media sport to pit opponents against each other. Different religious groups get rolled into similar debates and we seem to lose sight of the fundamental differences between them, that are so great that any polite and inconclusive debate is wasting time and gives the illusion that we are rational and truth seeking.

Pinker could take either side of the argument without violating his political position as long as he did not violate a rational approach. Spelke dresses her side in rational clothing but few on her side of the fence are interested in the facts. As Pinker notes the ‘truth cannot be sexist’, and once they locked on this in Damores view he was never going to recover regardless of how factual his comments about male/female differences are. There are plenty of researchers who validate his comments, but no one wants this inconvenient truth.

'

I was almost ready to give you a thumb up until the last two sentences.

TMB wrote:

VazScep wrote:

TMB wrote:The concepts of beauty and ugly run deep and as a social mechanism, jokes appear to be a way to illuminate truths indirectly.

My problem with the joke is nothing to do with beauty standards. My problem is that it assumes woman are either to be ogled or, failing that, confined to meal preparation. It's a joke which the guy wouldn't have uttered had there been a female hacker around.

How can a joke about 'ugly' women not have anything to do with beauty standards? Women are ogled at because of their appearance, and womens endorsements of cosmetics and clothing is their contribution to this. Males are also judged as objects, tallness or shortness being a physical appearance one, or being judged as a celebrity object or some form of utility object to provide services to society. Not uttering your thoughts is political correctness and done to protect people from how they might feel about these thoughts. Women are sensitive to this, men far less so.

Spare me.

No spares for free here, here you are being judged as a rational object (or irrational). If you dont understand the point, then ask. If you discount the point then support your assertion.

Women are ogled because of their appearance. Interesting.

TMB wrote:

tuco wrote:See what I mean?

I dont see what you mean. Should I have the same view of your thoughts as you do? Might be better and more rational to be specific. That is assuming that your comment was even meant as a response to mine. Was it?

Yes.

More anecdotes.

A Silicon Valley CEO reveals her secret to getting ahead in business - dyeing her blonde hair brown, and ditching her heels and contact lenses.
Eileen Carey is a successful CEO, in her early 30s, with glasses and brown hair.
But she didn't always look the way she does now.
"The first time I dyed my hair was actually due to advice I was given by a woman in venture capital," she says.
Carey was told that the investors she was pitching to would feel more comfortable dealing with a brunette, rather than a blonde woman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-41082939

Yeah, amazing what people do for career, innit.

"I want to be seen as a business leader and not as a sexual object. Those lines are still crossed very often in this space," she explains.

That is very clever.