Fascinating reading this again. It is great he raised these issues. Although it cost him his job.
I'd have to say as time wears on I realize the futility of such gestures. It had zero effect. More striking when reading it I'm aware how much Damore concedes the high ground. Diversity is good etc. No it isn't. That is the real argument. Superficial diversity is irrelevant; great teamwork is generally by homogeneous teams that are similar in ways that matter eg everyone on the surgical team is a first rate expert in their field. If I'm on the table being operated I could care less about fulfilling quotas. I want the best of the best only.
Diversity is social science clowns trying to wrap their obsession with race in something that sounds aspirational and scientific. It is not. It is horror at reality, that equality can never exist and to impose it means mass terror. They cannot face these realities so they embrace DEI and bring us that bit closer to a massive backlash.
This poor bastard. How DARE he say that conservative thought could be considered "diverse" to these sycophants. I'm surprised he was allowed to even live after that. As for the idea that women are equal to men, well (and I say this as a woman) I'd rather work in a room full of men than a room full of women, given the choice. But it's been my experience that both sexes are as equally capable of being useless co-workers (or assholes) and I prefer to work with those chosen for their abilities rather than some immutable fact about them (like sex or skin color). But that's just me.
Google encouraged him to give his opinion and then fired him for doing so. This is a technique pioneered by Lenin with the NEP whereby the protocapitalists were encouraged to engage in private enterprise thus identifying themselves for later liquidation. Mao did the same thing with Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom.
I was there when this went down. The virtue signaling displays of disgust with Damore were off the charts. Not too long after this I had my own confrontation with the progessive ideology there - somehow i didn’t get fired for questioning the statement “the problem is that it’s a white male.” In fact, my colleague forced an apology from the woman that made it. That was pre-George Floyd, of course, and I most likely would have been fired post 2020.
I stopped using Google awhile ago. Delete delete delete Better search engines out there that limit spam. Their search engine was whack. A monopoly I do not need nor want. Its hard to recognize history the way it appears on Google. They are the IT/AI of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” only now its “Invasion of the (un)truth-tellers”
Mad as hell, ain’t gonna take anymore. And I’m not the only one.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), once co-opted by David Rockefeller and his ilk (double the workforce, halve labor costs), was primarily concerned with trivializing traditional women’s roles. “Just a housewife” became the attitude. It wasn’t fair that women had to stay home with the kids and cook and clean. They should be able to sit at a desk all day, too!
When Damore was fired I initially sided with Google. I felt that women were being unfairly discriminated against. My daughter’s own experiences (and those of her colleagues) showed this was nowhere near the case
Great!! Isn't DEI a diversion from the wealth held by the owners/founders of companies like Google (and the subsidies provided by governments) compared to the wealth held by the everyday person. The wealth transfer to big tech from the pandemic is quite frightening. Shouldn't we be advocating for the breaking down the monopoly held by big tech? I am Australian and not au fait with US history. US had this problem before. People had to push break the strong hold of robber barron's to avoid a feudalistic society.
Well thought out and written, though I do have one hedge about professional distance.
"De-emphasize empathy.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts."
Maybe it is just a question of semantics, but then again, I'm a proponent of the strong version of linguistic relativity (logic and language as provisional social constructs). Though it is a constant game of chicken-or-egg-coming-first, from my experience, disengaging empathy (professional distance) may provide more of an ease of action through the illusion of clarity rather than revealing biased-free facts, especially when we get down to the philosophical nitty-gritty of what, exactly, is a 'fact'. To avoid the danger of relying solely on affective empathy, perhaps a deeper engagement of empathy is needed for a more salient set of facts to emerge.
Indeed, my thoughts are merely anecdotal ... but what is anecdotal to one, is a life to others. I am a permanent resident of Japan, 41 years now, and some 10 years ago, I effectively ended my career by resigning in protest from a rare tenured position for foreigners.
On 'focussing on the anecdotal' ...
"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour ... "
— Auguries of Innocence", William Blake
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." – attributed to Josef Stalin
On "favoring individuals similar to us" ...
About 15 years ago, colleges and universities in Japan were mandated to form a committee to counter Power Harassment / Academic Harassment from those higher in the institutional hierarchy. As the often marginalized, lone tenured foreigner, I thought to myself ... well that is at least one new committee to which I would be meaningfully included. Wrong. According to the letter of the law, the Dean formed the committee, and contrary to the spirit of the law, staffed it with those already in positions of authority and who were most responsible for the mandate to begin with. Business as usual.
On "harboring irrational and dangerous biases" ...
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". — Samuel Johnson.
If elected, he’d always "follow the science." — President Biden.
Collective narcissism is a thing. And narcissists are just clever enough to justify any dehumanizing atrocity, post-hoc. "Love of country"? "Just follow the science"? "Dedicated to the corporation"?
I would argue that there are higher values than "rationality", for example the Platonic ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness ... the courage to pursue them, hope in the face of despair.
When we reach a point where empathy does not seem to be up to the task, do we address that task the quicker and easier way, by de-empasizing empathy? Or do we go for that Robert Browning thingy — "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
Just some anecdotal thoughts from an anecdotal man.
Fascinating reading this again. It is great he raised these issues. Although it cost him his job.
I'd have to say as time wears on I realize the futility of such gestures. It had zero effect. More striking when reading it I'm aware how much Damore concedes the high ground. Diversity is good etc. No it isn't. That is the real argument. Superficial diversity is irrelevant; great teamwork is generally by homogeneous teams that are similar in ways that matter eg everyone on the surgical team is a first rate expert in their field. If I'm on the table being operated I could care less about fulfilling quotas. I want the best of the best only.
Diversity is social science clowns trying to wrap their obsession with race in something that sounds aspirational and scientific. It is not. It is horror at reality, that equality can never exist and to impose it means mass terror. They cannot face these realities so they embrace DEI and bring us that bit closer to a massive backlash.
Amazingly clear analysis. They are introducing authoritarianism using empathy as the ramrod. Kind of funny, when you think about it.
This poor bastard. How DARE he say that conservative thought could be considered "diverse" to these sycophants. I'm surprised he was allowed to even live after that. As for the idea that women are equal to men, well (and I say this as a woman) I'd rather work in a room full of men than a room full of women, given the choice. But it's been my experience that both sexes are as equally capable of being useless co-workers (or assholes) and I prefer to work with those chosen for their abilities rather than some immutable fact about them (like sex or skin color). But that's just me.
Never mind the memo, did you notice his shirt! It says GOOLAG😉
Google encouraged him to give his opinion and then fired him for doing so. This is a technique pioneered by Lenin with the NEP whereby the protocapitalists were encouraged to engage in private enterprise thus identifying themselves for later liquidation. Mao did the same thing with Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom.
Love the evolutionary grounding and then the observational data built on top.
This is how the fight is won.
War against nature isn't wise - it always wins in the end.
I was there when this went down. The virtue signaling displays of disgust with Damore were off the charts. Not too long after this I had my own confrontation with the progessive ideology there - somehow i didn’t get fired for questioning the statement “the problem is that it’s a white male.” In fact, my colleague forced an apology from the woman that made it. That was pre-George Floyd, of course, and I most likely would have been fired post 2020.
I stopped using Google awhile ago. Delete delete delete Better search engines out there that limit spam. Their search engine was whack. A monopoly I do not need nor want. Its hard to recognize history the way it appears on Google. They are the IT/AI of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” only now its “Invasion of the (un)truth-tellers”
Mad as hell, ain’t gonna take anymore. And I’m not the only one.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), once co-opted by David Rockefeller and his ilk (double the workforce, halve labor costs), was primarily concerned with trivializing traditional women’s roles. “Just a housewife” became the attitude. It wasn’t fair that women had to stay home with the kids and cook and clean. They should be able to sit at a desk all day, too!
What is James Damore doing now.
When Damore was fired I initially sided with Google. I felt that women were being unfairly discriminated against. My daughter’s own experiences (and those of her colleagues) showed this was nowhere near the case
This guy should have a cabinet position in a new government if we can get one
Great!! Isn't DEI a diversion from the wealth held by the owners/founders of companies like Google (and the subsidies provided by governments) compared to the wealth held by the everyday person. The wealth transfer to big tech from the pandemic is quite frightening. Shouldn't we be advocating for the breaking down the monopoly held by big tech? I am Australian and not au fait with US history. US had this problem before. People had to push break the strong hold of robber barron's to avoid a feudalistic society.
Well thought out and written, though I do have one hedge about professional distance.
"De-emphasize empathy.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts."
Maybe it is just a question of semantics, but then again, I'm a proponent of the strong version of linguistic relativity (logic and language as provisional social constructs). Though it is a constant game of chicken-or-egg-coming-first, from my experience, disengaging empathy (professional distance) may provide more of an ease of action through the illusion of clarity rather than revealing biased-free facts, especially when we get down to the philosophical nitty-gritty of what, exactly, is a 'fact'. To avoid the danger of relying solely on affective empathy, perhaps a deeper engagement of empathy is needed for a more salient set of facts to emerge.
Indeed, my thoughts are merely anecdotal ... but what is anecdotal to one, is a life to others. I am a permanent resident of Japan, 41 years now, and some 10 years ago, I effectively ended my career by resigning in protest from a rare tenured position for foreigners.
On 'focussing on the anecdotal' ...
"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour ... "
— Auguries of Innocence", William Blake
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." – attributed to Josef Stalin
On "favoring individuals similar to us" ...
About 15 years ago, colleges and universities in Japan were mandated to form a committee to counter Power Harassment / Academic Harassment from those higher in the institutional hierarchy. As the often marginalized, lone tenured foreigner, I thought to myself ... well that is at least one new committee to which I would be meaningfully included. Wrong. According to the letter of the law, the Dean formed the committee, and contrary to the spirit of the law, staffed it with those already in positions of authority and who were most responsible for the mandate to begin with. Business as usual.
On "harboring irrational and dangerous biases" ...
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". — Samuel Johnson.
If elected, he’d always "follow the science." — President Biden.
Collective narcissism is a thing. And narcissists are just clever enough to justify any dehumanizing atrocity, post-hoc. "Love of country"? "Just follow the science"? "Dedicated to the corporation"?
I would argue that there are higher values than "rationality", for example the Platonic ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness ... the courage to pursue them, hope in the face of despair.
When we reach a point where empathy does not seem to be up to the task, do we address that task the quicker and easier way, by de-empasizing empathy? Or do we go for that Robert Browning thingy — "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
Just some anecdotal thoughts from an anecdotal man.
Cheers from Japan
Dude’s a legend. Thinks for himself without fear.
Bravo James Damore.
Google should be ashamed, however, THEY ARE VIOLENTLY SELF-DELUDED.