1. I don't recall him ever "asking for forgiveness," or doing anything besides doubling down on his memo.
2. The "outrage mob" isn't real. You know who got James Damore fired? Himself. It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually wrote the memo.
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you're denying the sheer amount of negative media attention, all the outrage Tweets, and the general sentiment in online discussions like this one that are happening years later?
We can discuss the extent of the outrage mob, but your idea that there's no outrage mob at all is baffling.
> You know who got James Damore fired? Himself.
No, he didn't get himself fired. His employer fired him.
> It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually wrote the memo.
"Zero fault"? Your telepathy is way off, because I didn't say once that Damore has no fault.
The outrage mob "isn't real", yet you are so quick to dismiss those who think that Damore is defensible.
1. Calling it an outrage "mob" is dishonest, and that's why I say it doesn't exist. It's not mob mentality. Did it occur to you that there are reasons that many people could have been outraged by what he wrote? Calling it a "mob" is just you dismissing that.
2. Yes, he got himself fired. Nobody made him write that, and even after writing it, nobody made him post it on a large mailing list where an entire workforce could read it.
3. You don't think his actions were what caused him to get fired. So whose fault was it, if not his? You're more intent on making a statement against the "outrage mob" than actually acknowledging why doing what Damore did might get you fired at any company.
Again, it's especially telling that you and the people who defend Damore attribute zero fault to the person who actually wrote the memo.
> Again, it's especially telling that you and the people who defend attribute zero fault to the person who actually wrote the memo.
I've been honest and I replied in good faith, and yet you just sidestep and lump me in with some made up group of people whom you say attribute "zero fault" to Damore. You didn't listen to me at all. You didn't even ask me what faults I would attribute to Damore after I denied your perception of what I'm thinking. Why should anyone have a conversation with you?
So they can just dismiss things I say and pretend they can read my mind, but I am supposed to either defend or apologize for it because someone says so?
EDIT: I mistakenly thought your comment was from the person I was having the conversation with.
Numerous employees take the stance that violence is acceptable, as long as it's directed towards hateful people. Numerous employees vowing to shun, ridicule and ignore anyone who remotely suggests support or agreement with any part of the memo. Numerous employees taking the stance that dissent is a violent act for which violence must be returned. Shamelessly of all, a senior Site Reliability Engineer vows to "keep hounding Damore" until one of them is fired.
This is not acceptable behavior for a group of people that are ostensibly at the top of their field. They are not faultless. They share, at minimum, some of the blame.
Of course, if you meant your statement to be hyperbolic, then you are being flippant, and needlessly so.
> It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually
It's funny that you and the people who attack him always seem to completely ignore everything the parent comment you're replying to said, and write a comment that basically amounts to "but, you're wrong!"
Damore's action was explicitly political. Its whole point was that Google was just too darned left, and foolish for being so.
One can't reasonably try to reach a large audience with something intentionally upsetting and then be surprised that those people are in fact upset. Freedom of speech cannot mean freedom from other people's speech.
Google is entirely full of vindictive people with blatantly political opinions - many who have acted with obvious malice towards others, so spare us the hypocrisy.
If this were truly a matter of 'opinion rocking the boat' - then there would be a bunch of other firings, policy changes etc. - but that is not the case at all.
Outrage mobs are by definition 'consequences for some behavior'.
But the implication that someone should be vilified globally for having an earnest and not entirely unreasonable intellectual opinion makes his responders an 'outrage mob'.
Damore had no malice, ill will, his opinion was made ostensibly for some positive will, among a relatively private group.
If he was beating his wife, then there'd be a legit consequence for his behavior right? And some outrage would be justified.
But that's obviously not the case.
The response is the most 'outrage mob imaginable', with people still 'outraging' themselves on HN years later.
Despite reasoning his point of view well, it does not mean it's right, healthy, or valid.
And while Sexism and Racism are not equal, there do parallel in many ways.
How different is his memo than writings that discuss how the Negroid is a lesser form of human species, and there for it's condition is justified?
Scientifically, there is very little, if anything, that differs between a man and woman performing a job in tech. Why then do women continually report about discriminatory behavior in the work place?
This is not about whether Damore was 'right or wrong' - it's about whether he was within his right to make a reasonable statement and not get publicly murdered for it.
Also - your comment has also demonstrated the intellectual dishonestly against him by misrepresenting the thrust of his argument.
There are considerable differences between genders, this is not a scientifically controversial position, and in an entire 24 years of general upbringing, imbued with gendered differences and possibly marginal - but material - biological differences, is going to yield very different outcomes.
There are many fields in society that have unequal gender ratios and it's not remotely specific to 'tech'.
It's obviously a thorny subject, which requires some dispassionate thinking. We don't need people screaming 'Nazi' at the first hint that they might think someone, somewhere committed a 'thought crime' against their personal and very narrow view of the world.
This is the kind of bigotry that is not 'right, healthy or valid'.
> It's obviously a thorny subject, which requires some dispassionate thinking. We don't need people screaming 'Nazi' at the first hint that they might think someone, somewhere committed a 'thought crime' against their personal and very narrow view of the world.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty...
"Women are just as equal as men" does not seem to be a very narrow view of the world.
> This is the kind of bigotry that is not 'right, healthy or valid'.
What bigotry is that--calling sexism for exactly what it is?
Domestic Violence is about power and control caused of the DV Perpetrator/Aggressor towards the survivor. DV perpetrators use a myriad of tactics to control the relationship with the "victim": financial, physical, emotional, children, and sex.
While the "victim" does bear some responsibility, it's usually with regards to how they are unable (or unwilling) to end a relationship with a DV perpetrator.
You're being reductive about my explanation about the role a survivor plays in a DV relationship.
Recognizing, understanding, and ultimately forgiving yourself for why a person was in a DV relationship is part of the process survivors go through in order to move past it.
It may well be. I looked it up on wikipedia now, assuming you're talking about "Non-agression principle". I'm not sure I understand. Anyway, have a nice day.
2. The "outrage mob" isn't real. You know who got James Damore fired? Himself. It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually wrote the memo.