The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by danso on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @07:45PM (#14974865)

Or because they believed his manifesto to be both bullshit and a legal liability. Especially as the company -- which Damore accused of using its "money to water only one side of the lawn [i.e. women's]" -- fights off a possible class-action lawsuit [0] and an ongoing federal investigation [1] alleging discrimination against women.

Again, why should Google put the guy who lacks basic research skills (again, being ignorant of anti-discrimination cases brought by men) to be in charge of gathering and analyzing data?

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-wo...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by Chris2048 on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @09:11PM (#14975377)

What basic research skills does he lack?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by danso on Thursday August 10, 2017 @01:00AM (#14976567)

I pointed out an example earlier in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14974543

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by Chris2048 on Thursday August 10, 2017 @06:22AM (#14978236)

Ok. You throw around terms like "ignorant", "massive error" etc; but I don't think your own assertions are not founded.

What "basic facts and history" are you alluding to, and how do you think they are relevant?

Why do you feel justified saying the author is "ruled by his emotions"? You made blank assertions without explicitly backing them up ("Only someone ignorant..", "only someone ruled by his emotions..")

You say his premises are not "coherent in their arrangement" but can you give an demonstrate this? Just saying "clearly he's ignorant" etc isn't enough to convince me you are right about the quoted snippet, let alone the whole memo.

As was stated in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14974650 you are nit-picking a memo intended to invite discussion, but name calling ("ignorant") without providing at least a similar level of citation, or explanation, yourself is not constructive.

[ Parent | on HN ]