The entire thing seems like a big nothing-burger from every side.
I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself.
Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't make us better or worse, just humans.
If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%2...
I don't work at Google, so I'm not.
The manifesto itself is controversial in that if you poll the plurality of the population or employees of Google on whether they agree with some or all of it, you won't have consensus, I'm sure of it.
>I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself.
Yeah, thanks for the condescension - just because I haven't reached the same conclusion must mean I haven't taken "time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself".
>Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it.
Uh huh.
>If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.
Why don't you try making an effort sometime.
If you're in a minority being questioned (women here, could be a racial group, age range, etc) people are directly questioning your ability and implying you aren't fit for your job. It looks like a much more personal attack.
So they're a lot more incentivised share/discuss it.
I know what he meant. I know what you mean as well. This isn't a substantive conversation on the issue. You and OP are not putting forward a cogent argument to support a position. You're making an appeal to emotion and valuing an opinion based on the skin color and gender of the person that argued it - not on its own merits.
>It looks like a much more personal attack.
And what does what you are doing look like to you?
> And what does what you are doing look like to you?
From your comment I thought you didn't understand the parent so I tried to help by trying to explain it differently. I was trying to help clear up possible confusion.
Does what I posted look like advocacy to you? I honestly didn't mean it that way.
I understand exactly what he's saying. I wasn't born yesterday. I reject the notion that policy is not up for debate if you're not the right gender or skin color. I reject the notion that if you don't have the right skin color or gender you cannot put forward good arguments for or against.
>From your comment I thought you didn't understand the parent so I tried to help by trying to explain it differently.
OP was simply patronizing when they wrote: "I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself".
That you don't see how condescending, narrow-minded, and patronizing that kind of statement is, is your blind-spot.
No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone, I can see that not only you completely misunderstood my post, but also was offended by it.
Not only that, you don't even seem to think that maybe you don't know, that there are different ways to voice and interpret messages.
I'm not making an appeal to emotion, I'm explaining that perhaps you can't comprehend why people act in a certain manner because you're not in their place. That is normal, we all do it. It has nothing to do with gender or skin color, just with not being in the place of the other person.
I even tried to make it very clear:
> Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't make us better or worse, just humans.
But you just chose to ignore it and believe in your own truth.
So not only you don't know what I meant, you intentionally ignored my clarification and decided to create your own reality. And I'm sure that no matter what I say, you'll continue to claim that I just mean to offend you.
Well, if the cap fits, wear it.
I responded to your patronizing and condescending tone. If you want a civil debate, make an rational argument.
When you write: "I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself." Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else? You're implying that because I don't share your opinion I must have not thought hard enough about the issue. "Please teach me your ways so that I too may be as enlightened as you".
>you don't even seem to think that maybe you don't know, that there are different ways to voice and interpret messages.
Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world?
Honestly, you're lecturing me but you cannot even fathom the idea that you may be completely wrong about this ... because you took time and effort to really really really think about it and you finally figured it all out.
Urgh.
>I'm explaining that perhaps you can't comprehend why people act in a certain manner because you're not in their place
Does a gay black woman know the experience of straight white man? Or a recent immigrant from China? Or a rural farmer? Or black executive from Wall Street?
Democracy is based on the idea that we collectively make decisions that then apply collectively. You're saying that a gay black woman cannot comprehend the experience of white, straight men so she shouldn't engage in policy debates that affect them? Are you seriously making that kind of an argument?
So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?
Wait, I'm admitting my own fault at being able to see the world through other's perspectives, and that's condescending?
> Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world?
There's is no right or wrong way to see the world per se. There are just different ways. And yes, I'm usually wrong, I never claimed not to be.
> you're lecturing me but you cannot even fathom the idea that you may be completely wrong about this
Do you disagree that people see the world from different perspectives and it is often hard to understand each other's actions without trying to see the world from their perspective? That's my only point so far, nothing more.
> So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?
It was actually neither. I was saying that when we don't understand someone else's actions, it is often because we haven't put enough work into seeing the world from their eyes.
> Does a gay black woman know the experience of straight white man? Or a recent immigrant from China? Or a rural farmer? Or black executive from Wall Street?
No, they don't necessarily know, and that's my point.
> You're saying that a gay black woman cannot comprehend the experience of white, straight men so she shouldn't engage in policy debates that affect them? Are you seriously making that kind of an argument?
No, I'm not, and I'm actually quite surprised that you're even considering that I'm saying that. So far I fail to see anything in all my comments resembling that, but I might be wrong.
> So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?
It was actually neither. I was saying that when we don't understand someone else's actions, it is often because we haven't put enough work into seeing the world from their eyes.
But you actually proved that not only you can't understand other's experiences (or even acknowledge that people have different experiences and base their actions on different perspectives), you also don't seem to have empathy or the ability to reason.
The cap keeps fitting better and better. But given the downvotes on your posts, I think I'll call an end to this subthread. Have a nice day :)
This is also nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
Imagine how surreal this must be for Damore.
In regards to the explosive nature of this episode, I think it is indicative of the people who seem to be going progressively more insane's realization that their little social engineering experiments curry no favor in the halls of reality and their misguided efforts are rapidly being washed out to the sea of history while the scattered sand from their tantrums is being transformed by the tide into a nice, orderly and peaceful beach for those of us in the reality-based community to enjoy.
I'm not 100% convinced that he didn't expect this. Some of the points he raised are valid and people should be able to agree to disagree. But the points about biological differences being responsible for women not being interested in STEM are controversial. I don't think Science is there on that - so raising them in this kind of a manifesto is inflammatory.
It is unfortunate that it took this memo to expose what a lot of people were previously afraid to say (from BOTH sides)
And Google has no choice but to clean up the mess with the right signals.
I don't think concern over diversity or sexism (which deserves its own calm debate) is what's driving this "nothing burger" story.
I've been seeing the stories from my software dev friends who happen to be women, and it's shocking that the same dumb shit is happening in 2017. "Wow, YOU'RE a developer?" "Hey, will she sit next to me?" etc etc etc etc.
So the memo strikes a nerve. That doesn't make it right or wrong, I'm not saying his being fired is this or that. What I'm saying is that it's not nothing: a lot of human beings who happen to be women and who happen to be software developers have been trying to fight these insane gender stereotypes that somehow are still being perpetuated.