White Male James Damore Goes After Google

[The Derp]

I have a longtime good friend who is a female with a PhD in Mathematics. She is a minority in her field still today, Dufus.

Yeah, no one's denying that. But you all said "women don't go into the mathematical fields". That absolutism, informed by prejudice and bias, is exactly why Demore was shit-canned from Google. That behavior clearly violates Google's Code of Conduct.

We know you can’t grasp the concept of generalizations. You don’t need to drive the point further.

A generalization would be saying "all Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement".

Your generalization was wrong. Flat out wrong. Then you've spent the last few posts walking back that wrongness by pretending it's a "generalization"...one clearly not informed by the facts, and instead informed by your prejudice and bias.

Women most definitely do go into mathematics fields, with a little less than half of all mathematics bachelor's and master's grads being women.

So your generalization is flat out wrong. The irony is that what misinformed that position is exactly what led to Demore being canned.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Dude...I told you I was speaking in generalities.

Generalities not informed by facts, but rather informed by your prejudice and bias, like Damore's were.

Which are observable fact. The fact you want to play semantic games proves you are arguing in bad faith and know you lost the debate from the gate. Stop spazing out, you may actually win a debate some day.

NO! "Observable fact" is called "empirical evidence" and the empirical evidence shows that women make up a little less than half of all Bachelor's and Master's mathematics graduates.

So what happened here is that you said something stupid and uninformed, then tried to walk that back by expanding the parameters of what you meant. Well, why didn't you just say what you meant the first time? Because you did say what you meant, you just didn't know you were wrong about it.

It is an empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields. Are you retarded? The whole reason why you are up in arms is because what I said is fact. You want more women in STEM....they just aren't interested by and large, idiot. They are more inclined to go into "social sciences" and other soft science fields. This is an observable and documented FACT, regardless of how much you protest.

As a woman I can think of nothing more boring than having a job in mathematics etc, it's NOT sexy enough sorry. Unlike my career which is attending Cocktail parties which IS sexy

 

[The Derp]

If somebody has already voiced "opinions" that consist of attacks on the identities of his or her potential team mates, chances are that this person would be viewed as someone who is not ready to be a team player

100% spot-on. Conservatives think they can just say whatever bullshit they want and not face consequences for doing so. That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Dude...I told you I was speaking in generalities.

Generalities not informed by facts, but rather informed by your prejudice and bias, like Damore's were.

Which are observable fact. The fact you want to play semantic games proves you are arguing in bad faith and know you lost the debate from the gate. Stop spazing out, you may actually win a debate some day.

NO! "Observable fact" is called "empirical evidence" and the empirical evidence shows that women make up a little less than half of all Bachelor's and Master's mathematics graduates.

So what happened here is that you said something stupid and uninformed, then tried to walk that back by expanding the parameters of what you meant. Well, why didn't you just say what you meant the first time? Because you did say what you meant, you just didn't know you were wrong about it.

It is an empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields. Are you retarded? The whole reason why you are up in arms is because what I said is fact. You want more women in STEM....they just aren't interested by and large, idiot. They are more inclined to go into "social sciences" and other soft science fields. This is an observable and documented FACT, regardless of how much you protest.

Yep. My career was in engineering. Very few females in that field too. Just not their thing.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If somebody has already voiced "opinions" that consist of attacks on the identities of his or her potential team mates, chances are that this person would be viewed as someone who is not ready to be a team player

100% spot-on. Conservatives think they can just say whatever bullshit they want and not face consequences for doing so. That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement.

How dare he say men and women are different! What’s next, people can’t change sex on a whim? OH THE HUMANITY!!

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

If somebody has already voiced "opinions" that consist of attacks on the identities of his or her potential team mates, chances are that this person would be viewed as someone who is not ready to be a team player

100% spot-on. Conservatives think they can just say whatever bullshit they want and not face consequences for doing so. That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement.

How dare he say men and women are different! What’s next, people can’t change sex on a whim? OH THE HUMANITY!!

Normal sane peoples know that men and women are different, only Leftist Maniacs think that there is no difference between men and women, but who cares what that crowd think they cannot even decide which bathroom they should be using

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Dude...I told you I was speaking in generalities.

Generalities not informed by facts, but rather informed by your prejudice and bias, like Damore's were.

Which are observable fact. The fact you want to play semantic games proves you are arguing in bad faith and know you lost the debate from the gate. Stop spazing out, you may actually win a debate some day.

NO! "Observable fact" is called "empirical evidence" and the empirical evidence shows that women make up a little less than half of all Bachelor's and Master's mathematics graduates.

So what happened here is that you said something stupid and uninformed, then tried to walk that back by expanding the parameters of what you meant. Well, why didn't you just say what you meant the first time? Because you did say what you meant, you just didn't know you were wrong about it.

It is an empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields. Are you retarded? The whole reason why you are up in arms is because what I said is fact. You want more women in STEM....they just aren't interested by and large, idiot. They are more inclined to go into "social sciences" and other soft science fields. This is an observable and documented FACT, regardless of how much you protest.

As a woman I can think of nothing more boring than having a job in mathematics etc, it's NOT sexy enough sorry. Unlike my career which is attending Cocktail parties which IS sexy

And I am not saying there are zero women interested in those fields, Im just pointing out that it is rare compared to males.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

If somebody has already voiced "opinions" that consist of attacks on the identities of his or her potential team mates, chances are that this person would be viewed as someone who is not ready to be a team player

100% spot-on. Conservatives think they can just say whatever bullshit they want and not face consequences for doing so. That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement.

"That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement."

Blacks have an unearned sense of entitlement, eg. Gibs Me Dat. You have no problem with that though do you you brain fried Meth Head, although we are all enjoying your MEGA chimpout in this thread.

 

[martybegan]

It has nothing to do with corporations. It is basic work ethic. You can't bad mouth your employer in an email and then send it to everyone at work. You also can't spread your social and political ideologies. It's unprofessional.

Yes, and is in clear violation of the Google Employee Handbook and the Code of Conduct.

“Google has long promoted a culture of openness, with employees allowed to question senior executives and even mock its strategy in internal forums. ”

Keep showing us how you always lie.

Which isn't the same thing as disparagement.

Hilarious the stupid lies you make up to support mega corporations.

LOL! So you think you can try triangulating me here because your position is bullshit and you don't want to admit it?

How about this; GO FUCK YOURSELF

Then his attorneys will ask google to disclose any other firings for violating said policy, and will provide internal emails showing political views being espoused during working hours by other employees.

They can ask that, but only a judge can order them to do it. And a company as large as Google, you can bet there have been plenty of instances of employees being terminated for violating the Code of Conduct.

Dig dig dig deeper deeper deeper you dumbass dumbass dumbass.

Sounds like you're the ones who have to do the digging here, if you're going to prove that this guy's firing was purely motivated by politics and nothing more. That's going to be difficult to prove in court, and why this lawsuit will never make it to trial.

All he has to show is some people didn't get fired for political talk and show it is due to the content and he wins.

 

[The Derp]

It is an empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields.

THIS IS THE THIRD TIME you've had to redefine what you meant.

No, it's not empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields. In fact:

They comprise 39 percent of chemists and material scientists, 28 percent of environmental scientists and geoscientists, 16 percent of chemical engineers and just 12 percent of civil engineers.​

So yeah, they do go into STEM fields. Maybe not at as high a rate as men, but they are going and their share is only growing. So your post was informed by prejudice and bias, just like Damore's was.

The whole reason why you are up in arms is because what I said is fact. .

No, what you said was absolutist; "women don't go into these fields".

You didn't say "generally", you didn't say "at a lower rate than men"...you just very plainly said "women don't go into these fields"...then you've spent the last dozen posts walking back that absolutist statement, first by (laughably) saying it was a "generalization" then by saying it's "observable fact" (despite stats I posted that tell a different story). So you've redefined the parameters three times in this one argument, and each time you did, you ended up worse off because of it.

You want more women in STEM....they just aren't interested by and large, idiot. They are more inclined to go into "social sciences" and other soft science fields. This is an observable and documented FACT, regardless of how much you protest.

Not interested or there are prejudicial roadblocks in their path like "women aren't genetically predisposed to math"?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

It is an empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields.

THIS IS THE THIRD TIME you've had to redefine what you meant.

No, it's not empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields. In fact:

They comprise 39 percent of chemists and material scientists, 28 percent of environmental scientists and geoscientists, 16 percent of chemical engineers and just 12 percent of civil engineers.​

So yeah, they do go into STEM fields. Maybe not at as high a rate as men, but they are going and their share is only growing. So your post was informed by prejudice and bias, just like Damore's was.

The whole reason why you are up in arms is because what I said is fact. .

No, what you said was absolutist; "women don't go into these fields".

You didn't say "generally", you didn't say "at a lower rate than men"...you just very plainly said "women don't go into these fields"...then you've spent the last dozen posts walking back that absolutist statement, first by (laughably) saying it was a "generalization" then by saying it's "observable fact" (despite stats I posted that tell a different story). So you've redefined the parameters three times in this one argument, and each time you did, you ended up worse off because of it.

You want more women in STEM....they just aren't interested by and large, idiot. They are more inclined to go into "social sciences" and other soft science fields. This is an observable and documented FACT, regardless of how much you protest.

Not interested or there are prejudicial roadblocks in their path like "women aren't genetically predisposed to math"?

I can smell your desperation from here...

You are still playing silly semantic games after I clarified what I meant. You lose, give up.

 

[The Derp]

If somebody has already voiced "opinions" that consist of attacks on the identities of his or her potential team mates, chances are that this person would be viewed as someone who is not ready to be a team player

100% spot-on. Conservatives think they can just say whatever bullshit they want and not face consequences for doing so. That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement.

How dare he say men and women are different! What’s next, people can’t change sex on a whim? OH THE HUMANITY!!

He didn't simply say men and women are different, and pretending he did is sophistry.

 

[martybegan]

Dude...I told you I was speaking in generalities.

Generalities not informed by facts, but rather informed by your prejudice and bias, like Damore's were.

Which are observable fact. The fact you want to play semantic games proves you are arguing in bad faith and know you lost the debate from the gate. Stop spazing out, you may actually win a debate some day.

NO! "Observable fact" is called "empirical evidence" and the empirical evidence shows that women make up a little less than half of all Bachelor's and Master's mathematics graduates.

So what happened here is that you said something stupid and uninformed, then tried to walk that back by expanding the parameters of what you meant. Well, why didn't you just say what you meant the first time? Because you did say what you meant, you just didn't know you were wrong about it.

It is an empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields. Are you retarded? The whole reason why you are up in arms is because what I said is fact. You want more women in STEM....they just aren't interested by and large, idiot. They are more inclined to go into "social sciences" and other soft science fields. This is an observable and documented FACT, regardless of how much you protest.

Yep. My career was in engineering. Very few females in that field too. Just not their thing.

My ChemE class was actually 50% women, but it was the exception. The Environmental engineering class was also about half.

On the other hand Electrical has 2 women out of 50 or so, Civil had 5 out of 100 or so, and Mechanical had like 1 out of 20.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Apparently Gimpy thinks being verbose means he is right.

 

[The Derp]

Dude...I told you I was speaking in generalities.

Generalities not informed by facts, but rather informed by your prejudice and bias, like Damore's were.

Which are observable fact. The fact you want to play semantic games proves you are arguing in bad faith and know you lost the debate from the gate. Stop spazing out, you may actually win a debate some day.

NO! "Observable fact" is called "empirical evidence" and the empirical evidence shows that women make up a little less than half of all Bachelor's and Master's mathematics graduates.

So what happened here is that you said something stupid and uninformed, then tried to walk that back by expanding the parameters of what you meant. Well, why didn't you just say what you meant the first time? Because you did say what you meant, you just didn't know you were wrong about it.

It is an empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields. Are you retarded? The whole reason why you are up in arms is because what I said is fact. You want more women in STEM....they just aren't interested by and large, idiot. They are more inclined to go into "social sciences" and other soft science fields. This is an observable and documented FACT, regardless of how much you protest.

As a woman I can think of nothing more boring than having a job in mathematics etc, it's NOT sexy enough sorry. Unlike my career which is attending Cocktail parties which IS sexy

And I am not saying there are zero women interested in those fields, Im just pointing out that it is rare compared to males.

WHAT YOU SAID WAS: "women don't go into these fields"

That was your statement. You've spent the last dozen or so posts walking that back and adding in qualifier after qualifier.

Why not just admit you spoke from a place of prejudice and bias?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

If somebody has already voiced "opinions" that consist of attacks on the identities of his or her potential team mates, chances are that this person would be viewed as someone who is not ready to be a team player

100% spot-on. Conservatives think they can just say whatever bullshit they want and not face consequences for doing so. That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement.

^^^^ You are a Beta Cuck Faggot triggered by the thought of a WHITE MAN standing up for his RIGHT not to be fired for having a different political opinion than the insane SJWs.

 

[The Derp]

If somebody has already voiced "opinions" that consist of attacks on the identities of his or her potential team mates, chances are that this person would be viewed as someone who is not ready to be a team player

100% spot-on. Conservatives think they can just say whatever bullshit they want and not face consequences for doing so. That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement.

"That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement."

Blacks have an unearned sense of entitlement, eg. Gibs Me Dat. You have no problem with that though do you you brain fried Meth Head, although we are all enjoying your MEGA chimpout in this thread.

After suffering 350 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, and 50 years of Rockefeller Drug Laws, black people have most definitely earned their entitlement.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Dude...I told you I was speaking in generalities.

Generalities not informed by facts, but rather informed by your prejudice and bias, like Damore's were.

Which are observable fact. The fact you want to play semantic games proves you are arguing in bad faith and know you lost the debate from the gate. Stop spazing out, you may actually win a debate some day.

NO! "Observable fact" is called "empirical evidence" and the empirical evidence shows that women make up a little less than half of all Bachelor's and Master's mathematics graduates.

So what happened here is that you said something stupid and uninformed, then tried to walk that back by expanding the parameters of what you meant. Well, why didn't you just say what you meant the first time? Because you did say what you meant, you just didn't know you were wrong about it.

It is an empirical fact that women do not tend to go into STEM fields. Are you retarded? The whole reason why you are up in arms is because what I said is fact. You want more women in STEM....they just aren't interested by and large, idiot. They are more inclined to go into "social sciences" and other soft science fields. This is an observable and documented FACT, regardless of how much you protest.

As a woman I can think of nothing more boring than having a job in mathematics etc, it's NOT sexy enough sorry. Unlike my career which is attending Cocktail parties which IS sexy

And I am not saying there are zero women interested in those fields, Im just pointing out that it is rare compared to males.

WHAT YOU SAID WAS: "women don't go into these fields"

That was your statement. You've spent the last dozen or so posts walking that back and adding in qualifier after qualifier.

Why not just admit you spoke from a place of prejudice and bias?

Good God...you are autistic in reality, aren't you?

 

[The Derp]

All he has to show is some people didn't get fired for political talk and show it is due to the content and he wins.

A tall task. One he won't be able to prove.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If somebody has already voiced "opinions" that consist of attacks on the identities of his or her potential team mates, chances are that this person would be viewed as someone who is not ready to be a team player

100% spot-on. Conservatives think they can just say whatever bullshit they want and not face consequences for doing so. That's because Conservatives have an unearned sense of entitlement.

How dare he say men and women are different! What’s next, people can’t change sex on a whim? OH THE HUMANITY!!

He didn't simply say men and women are different, and pretending he did is sophistry.

Make your case. Quote his exact snowflake melting words for us.

Googles Ideological Echo Chamber