> So you agree it was the content and not the presentation?
No... I don't agree.
Both Damore's content and the way it was communicated contain serious flaws. The content contained conclusions unsupported by evidence, and the communication (amongst other problems) contained pointlessly divisive and inflammatory comments that he really didn't need to make to address his concerns.
> At any rate, Damore didn't say that Google lowered the bar, he said that diversity policies can devolve into that, but some people are addicted to outrage and will hear what they want.
Oh please. Damore literally used those exact words.
He said Google policies "effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate".
The most generous interpretation of that statement is that a greater percentage of candidates from under-represented demographics are hired, but that bends the word "bar" to mean something other than its actual meaning... i.e. turns an otherwise weak point into inflammatory rhetoric.
> ... the people who feigned outrage to silence him.
I'm curious. So you think a large group of people is pretending to be outraged about something they're not actually outraged about? Does this behaviour require coordination or happen naturally? If it's coordinated, where is the evidence of collusion, is there an email list? If this collective outrage-feigning happens naturally then under what other human circumstances do humans exhibit this group mock-outrage behaviour, other than when the 'right' complaints about the 'left'? How do you know this outrage is "feigned" and not real?
Why should I believe this is more than just partisan bias on your part? Outgroup biases are well documented, after all, and your use of 'SJW' seem to put you in or near one of the right/alt-right/gamergate/white-supramacist camps, no idea which.
> Sorry, none of this remotely merits the response he received.
What do you mean by the response he received?
If you mean the loss of his job... then in no other context would someone be able to retain their job after undermining so many of their own colleagues or causing so many negative news headlines for their company... let alone both.
If you mean something else then I don't feel a need to be part of that discussion.
Yeah, the outrage is fake or they wouldn't have to invent statements he didn't make. Fake outrage is pervasive among progressives. It mostly spreads as ideology. It seems to be attractive to exaggerate one's hardships to amplify the perceptions of one's accomplishments while diminishing the accomplishments of those you hate.
Regarding the response received, I was talking about the firing and public flogging. And Google created the headlines for firing him so questionably.
The public flogging bit was figurative. You're mistaken about my claims, but since you're resorting to ad hominems, I feel pretty good about my case. I think you're more determined to have an unproductive conversation than I am to salvage it, so I'll let you have the last word, but I won't stick around to read it.
> You're mistaken about my claims, but since you're resorting to ad hominems
At no point have I "resorted to ad hominems", nor do I see anything that could have been misunderstood that way.
Perhaps you're referring to when I asked you to differentiate your position from partisan mud-slinging?
Note that I made that request after you'd written a diatribe about how the left manufactures feigned offence to silence its critics. And now you're upset that I'm using ad hominem attacks?
Fascinating.
> I feel pretty good about my case
You haven't made a case. A case involves making a point and then supporting it using evidence, which at no point have you done. Instead you've argued using rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims, which is a very different thing.
No... I don't agree.
Both Damore's content and the way it was communicated contain serious flaws. The content contained conclusions unsupported by evidence, and the communication (amongst other problems) contained pointlessly divisive and inflammatory comments that he really didn't need to make to address his concerns.
> At any rate, Damore didn't say that Google lowered the bar, he said that diversity policies can devolve into that, but some people are addicted to outrage and will hear what they want.
Oh please. Damore literally used those exact words.
He said Google policies "effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate".
The most generous interpretation of that statement is that a greater percentage of candidates from under-represented demographics are hired, but that bends the word "bar" to mean something other than its actual meaning... i.e. turns an otherwise weak point into inflammatory rhetoric.
> ... the people who feigned outrage to silence him.
I'm curious. So you think a large group of people is pretending to be outraged about something they're not actually outraged about? Does this behaviour require coordination or happen naturally? If it's coordinated, where is the evidence of collusion, is there an email list? If this collective outrage-feigning happens naturally then under what other human circumstances do humans exhibit this group mock-outrage behaviour, other than when the 'right' complaints about the 'left'? How do you know this outrage is "feigned" and not real?
Why should I believe this is more than just partisan bias on your part? Outgroup biases are well documented, after all, and your use of 'SJW' seem to put you in or near one of the right/alt-right/gamergate/white-supramacist camps, no idea which.
> Sorry, none of this remotely merits the response he received.
What do you mean by the response he received?
If you mean the loss of his job... then in no other context would someone be able to retain their job after undermining so many of their own colleagues or causing so many negative news headlines for their company... let alone both.
If you mean something else then I don't feel a need to be part of that discussion.