White Women vs Free Speech: And Google is going to get sued.

Here is the problem, DrewDad. You are not here for an interesting discussion where you explore different sides of a difficult issue. In an intelligent discussion, you can take one side... but generally one accepts that there are difficulties with each side that need to be worked through.

You are here to silence the heretic (or infidel, or misogynist or whatever we are called these days). Every single post you make is an attack. You have never even tried to consider more than one point of view. You have never questioned someone who you consider on your side.

I am fine with that, this heretic can stand up for himself. As you can tell, I have no problem being in this role (if you suspect I enjoy this... you would not be wrong).

But I would prefer if there was someone here who would attempt an intelligent discussion. (I would again refer anyone to the Intellectual Echo Chamber thread for a discussion on what this means.)

1) Thanks for telling me what I am and am not here for.
2) The only one here who thinks this is a difficult issue is you. I'm sorry that you're struggling so much with it.


You first.


Employees Have No Rights: The Real Google Lesson

I am following my criteria for an intelligent discussion DrewDad. You can read the "Ideological Echo Chamber" to see a list of things that I think prevent intelligent discussion.

I have given ground on this discussion. I have discussed two different perspective, and what I think are the strengths and weaknesses of each. I haven't posted any cherry picked articles... and I have read the articles posted to see which points I agreed with, and which I didn't.

All I am asking of you DrewDad, is to accept that there is more than one valid point of view here... and that your perspective (like most other political points of view) comes with some difficult consequences.

I have done the same.

Very nice Googling DrewDad, but you are proving my point. You are fighting win an argument against the heretic rather than trying to understanding the issue.

The specific claim that Emmett made was that the the expression of sexist attitudes in a workplace violates the Bill of Rights. I don't know how your cherry picked google article (which talks about Google's right to fire employees) even speaks to this claim.

Firing off posts with links that you quickly google without any thought on whether they are relevant or not is part of what I am talking about.

Think before you post.

Ah, the old false equivalence fallacy.

Also, how do you know what viewpoints I've considered prior to posting, here?

This isn't a negotiation, where we need to find some middle ground. I have my view, I've stated it. I have no desire or need to convince you to change what you think. I have no desire or need to re-think my opinion; I'm comfortable that I've given sufficient weight and time to different viewpoints.

Your opinion of whether my thoughtfulness has been sufficient carries no weight with me. I'm simply amused to see you constantly try, and fail, to force me to argue with you.

You have made this very clear. This is the very definition of an Ideology. The only question is why you are here on this thread.

The goal here is to stamp out heresy, right?

Haha! This is the definition of narcissism... That you know better than I do how I've arrived at my views (ideology instead of reason) and what my purpose is (to uphold a cause!).

I'm here because it amuses me to be here. Nothing more, nothing less. I will leave when I'm no longer amused.

That you DrewDad, for your Physiological Evalation. Where do I send the check?

I am enjoying this conversation too DrewDad. I am glad that I amuse you.

It is very more difficult to lose an argument, then to win one. I have lost an argument to DrewDad (about Physics no less). He showed the evidence, I took time to see prove to myself that he was right, and I publicly admitted I was wrong.

I am very proud of that fact. I don't think very many other people have ever lost an argument on Able2Know (how is that for narcissism).

If you write a ten page dissertation on Trump documenting what you think are his shortcomings and on the tenth page, you call for his assassination, you have crossed a line. The first nine pages of free speech are completely irrelevant to the point where you broke the law.

In this case, we aren't talking about killing anyone or breaking a law, but we are talking about Google's ability (and legal responsibility) to enforce its "laws" in terms of its employee code of conduct. Damore did not make a "rather mild" assertion when he stated the women are biologically inferior programmers and managers, he grossly violated Google's employee conduct rules. If Damore had said that Google's diversity hiring program is resulting in Google not hiring the absolute best people, then I would disagree with him, but would agree with you that this opinion is one that could be discussed and debated. Damore went far further than that. He stated that women are biologically inferior programmers. While this is not explicitly stated in his post, he is also suggesting that Google should not hire women as programmers or promote them to management. (It's a tangent to the topic of free speech in a corporate environment, but there is no leap required in techy terms to say that an extremely selective company that only takes the top 5% of the programmer distribution would never hire any women given the way Damore structured his thesis and graphs.) This runs directly afoul of Google's code of conduct. We don't have to sit here as white men and try to guess how this would impact the work environment since plenty of women programmers have weighed in on various websites. (This is one of the recent ones I've read.) Google has a right and a legal responsibility to protect its employees from a hostile workplace.

Others have said "what if you substitute 'black' for women" and you've responded that is unfair. From a free speech point of view, it is completely fair and equivalent. If you belief that odious speech towards women is protected, why is odious speech towards minorities not protected? You could almost rewrite it line for line citing "research" that shows inherent differences between races. (Anyone remember The Bell Curve?)

At the end of the day, Google has a legal requirement to enforce equality in the workplace and provide a bias free (to the best of their ability) workplace for their employees. When Damore essentially said that no matter how hard they work, no matter the quality of their programming, that women are unsuitable for high end programming jobs and management, he crossed a line and forced Google's hand.

This is a key statement. If this is true, then I accept your argument. However, this seems like this is a subjective interpretation. Whether this is a "rather mild assertion" or a gross violation of employee conduct rules is a judgement that has been made by Google. Many Google employees, including women, disagree with this judgement.

But yes, I think that what you are saying here is the key to the issue.



I don't want to get into the position of arguing the science of this guy. My argument here is about freedom of expression... not about science.

That being said there are two reasons that I think that this

1) There is valid scientific research, being done by reputable scientists, that show statistically significant difference in cognitive abilities between men and women (that is cross-cultural). There is peer reviewed research. Neuroscience is not my expertise, but my impression is that gender differences in cognition are commonly accepted by science. (Incidentally, some of the cognitive abilities favor women not that this matters)

I am absolutely not saying that Damore was correct in his rather simplistic assertions.

But I am pointing out that there are no reputable scientists claiming the same sort of significant difference in cognitive abilities between races.


2) Secondly, as I pointed out in my other thread (which I created to avoid the tangent here)... race plays a completely different role in society than gender. This is true in any society... it is certainly true in ours.

I do think it is a problem that White women have eclipsed the needs of racial minority. One of the biggest political issues right now is that women make 83 cents on the dollar compared to White men. Do you even know what that number is for Black men? But this is my own political opinion... the political needs of White Women are important, but they don't deserve to monopolize the discussion of fairness at the cost of racial minority groups.

So... sexist apologist claiming not to be sexist apologist issues sexist apologia.

Gotcha.

I am very sorry for being such a sexist There, does that make you happy?

If you're going to make scientific claims, then providing references would be a good step.

So, is your title of this thread--"White Women vs Free Speech"--an admission of your sexism?

My response was to engineer, who is actually making thoughtful posts rather than just attacking anyone with whom he disagrees as "sexist". You can look them up for yourself. If I post them here, you will reject them out of hand anyway.

I am more interested in responding to Engineer's thoughtful posts, which actually challenge my ideas... then in this silly back and forth with you.

That's very funny, Firefly. Your goal is to root out "sexism".... what is this, an Inquisition? Hopefully you understand that labeling someone a "sexist" is not a valid way to win an argument. Even if I am a sexist, it doesn't mean that my points are not valid. It is a bogus (ad hominem) argument when you seek to discredit a person rather than discuss the actual issues at hand.

I wasn't expecting some kind of Spanish Inquisition....

In that case, I will consider what you posted to be your opinion since you are unable to provide any references for your assertions.

Let me think about whether your opinion is persuasive.... nope!

I am fine with that DrewDad, if you aren't interested in challenging your own beliefs, there isn't much I can do about. You seem to be more interested in fighting "sexism" then you are in engaging in a discussion about ideas.

I am much more interested in hearing what Engineer has to say on the topic. He seems to be interested in discussing this intelligently rather than this personal back and forth.

The link that DrewDad posted, that employees have no rights, completely eviserated your freedom of expression argument, yet you seemed to just ignore that article which was written by a very reputable source.

Your claim that you consider different sides of an issue is sheer hypocrisy. You are locked into your own ideological prejudices so deeply that you are blinded to their influence on your perceptions and thought.
You have not really considered the various positions, and explanations, which have been offered in this thread. You have largely simply ignored them.