- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Google Is Being Evil After All

Have you been following this insane story out of Google? James Damore, a senior engineer at the company, unwisely sent out on an internal forum a detailed memo criticizing what he calls the Party’s “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” [1] If you follow that link, you can read the entire memo. Here is the memo’s summary:

It’s a long memo, so read the whole thing if you have time. Here are some key passages:

Neither side [left or right] is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

More:

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ [8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap [9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner [10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness [11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Read the whole thing. [1]

Naturally Google’s CEO fired Damore, [2] a senior software engineer, while at the same time saying that Google ought to be a place where people feel free to speak their mind. He writes:

At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK.

Remember that this guy, Sundar Pichai, fired Damore. Incredible. But this is how diversocrats do it. They deny that they do what they’re obviously doing.

The Social Justice Warriors within the company are thrilled with this:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [6]

Note especially this tweet, since deleted:

Which just goes to validate a big chunk of James Damore’s complaint! Can you imagine working for a company whose managers comb through your e-mail traffic looking for signs of ideological crimethink, and blacklist you? Their word: “blacklist”. [UPDATE: Readers point out that Winter is not saying he goes through employee e-mails, but rather through public comments on Google’s internal communications platforms. Still, that’s cold comfort. — RD]

Who would want to work in a place where the management thinks its virtuous to empower commissars to denounce and punish those within who happen to say the “wrong” thing? Damore should consider himself lucky.

This person is not a Google employee, but it reveals a mindset on the Left:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [6]

It turns out that Damore is a really smart guy. [10] Before joining Google, he was working on (or perhaps had completed; it’s unclear) a PhD in biology at Harvard [11]. Clearly he must be sent to the rice paddies for re-education.

Earlier this year, when asked at the company’s shareholder meeting if Google was welcoming to conservatives in its employee ranks, Eric Schmidt, who heads Google’s parent company, Alphabet, said [12]:

“The company was founded on the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking. You will also find that all of the other companies in our industry agree with us.”

This is cant. If Google really believes in “science-based thinking,” it should take Damore’s argument seriously. Google’s own internal numbers, which it posts publicly, says that 80 percent of its tech staff is male [13] (and by the way, 92 percent is either white or Asian, as is 91 percent of the overall workforce). Is this a matter of systematic discrimination against women? If so, eliminate it. But is this actually a matter of men gravitating to this kind of work, and, in general, being more interested in it, and capable of it? If so, then the assumption that any and every disproportion in gender balance of a particular is evidence of unjust discrimination is itself unjust, because science says so. 

But you can’t ask that question at Google, according to James Damore. Who was fired for asking that question. So much for “science-based thinking” and “freedom of expression” at Google.

Maybe Lena Dunham should apply for a job at Google.  [14] She tweeted to American Airlines that she overheard two of the company’s employees making “transphobic” comments in an airline terminal the other day. AA could not confirm the tattletale allegations, and it emerged that Dunham wasn’t even in the American Airlines terminal. Yet she continues to stick by “my truth.” But see, Donald Trump is the one guilty of living in a “post-truth” world.

What’s happening at Google is an example of the workplace environment many conservative and religious people face every day at the hands of progressive bigots. “Diversity” is an Orwellian term that means “uniformity of progressive thought” — or else. It is now crystal clear that if you are a conservative, or a male of any political belief, you will be discriminated against at Google. Google is a hostile workplace to people like you — even though it depends on your labor for its success.

In The Benedict Option [15], I wrote about the consequences of this for orthodox Christians, and how these trends within corporate America will make many workplaces miserable for believers. In his forthcoming book The Once And Future Liberal [16], the Columbia University professor Mark Lilla, a self-described liberal, writes critically of “identity liberals”:

It got liberals into the habit of treating every issue as one of inviolable right, leaving no room for negotiation, and inevitably cast opponents as immoral monsters, rather than simply as fellow citizens with different views. And it also relieved liberals of the patient work of finding out where people stand, trying to persuade them, and building a social consensus, which is the most secure foundation for any social policy. Liberals’ legalistic approach created a large opening for the Republicans to claim that they were the true representatives of the demos, which the Democrats represented a caste of high priests. And the image remains in the public mind.

More:

Americans are a strange breed. we love to preach, and we hate being preached at. In one hemisphere of our brains the sermons of Cotton Mather run on an infinite loop; in the other we hear the echo of Mark Twain’s laughter. When the Twain side is napping the Mather side undergoes a Great Awakening. Surges of fevered fanaticism come over us, all sense of proportion is lost, and everything seems of an unbearable moral urgency. Repent, America, repent now! The country is undergoing such an Awakening at this very moment concerning race and gender, which is why the rhetoric being generated sounds evangelical rather than political. That one now hears the word woke everywhere is a giveaway that spiritual conversion, not political agreement, is the demand. Relentless speech surveillance, the protection of virgin ears, the inflation of venial sins into mortal ones, the banning of preachers of unclean ideas — all these campus identity follies have their precedents in American revivalist religion. Mr. Twain might have found it amusing but every opinion poll shows that the vast majority of Americans do not.

Lilla writes all this as part of an urgently felt need to shake his own side awake from what it’s doing to itself with identity politics. What Google did to James Damore, and why Google did it, no doubt made some new Trump voters, or at least Republicans. Why should men like Damore (and the women who are their wives, mothers, or siblings) vote for a party whose ideology justifies discrimination against people like them as virtue?

Look at what Google has done, and look at the reaction on social media from those who support Damore’s firing. It’s a heretic hunt. Consider what it must be like at Google this morning, knowing that managers can and do go through your e-mail and keep a blacklist blocking your advance within the company because they conclude that you hold the wrong opinions — and you never know about it. They make decisions affecting your career based on things they’ve read in your private e-mail, and never give you the opportunity to defend yourself. Anyone within the company who expressed sympathy for Damore on e-mail is now on notice that Collin Winter will not work with them. And anyone who wishes to curry favor with Collin Winter knows how to suck up now.

And a broader lesson here: if somebody within the company is blocking your advance within Google, you can get rid of them by denouncing them to Human Resources as “anti-diversity”.

Eventually reality will catch up with Google, as it caught up with the Soviet Union. An ideology based on a false view of the world, one that punishes capable people and rewards the ideologically pure, cannot succeed in the long run. But a lot of people’s careers will be ruined before this left-wing McCarthyism runs its course.

The reason I doubt that the political left will take Lilla’s commonsense advice is that identity politics is its religion. The left tells itself that it favors “science-minded thinking,” free speech, and fairness, but this debacle at Google shows what a sham that all is. But you know, it was right there in front of us all along. Google’s corporate slogan is, “Don’t be evil.” Just like a church. The James Damores of the world aren’t just wrong — they’re evil. You cannot reason with evil; you can only destroy it.

No one expected the Google Inquisition. The proles inside the company won’t make that mistake again.

UPDATE: Good grief!

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [6]

But this:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [6]

Makes you wonder if gender differences matter after all. But you can’t say that at Google without risking your job.

UPDATE.2: 

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [6]

217 Comments (Open | Close)

217 Comments To "Google Is Being Evil After All"

#1 Comment By Wesley On August 10, 2017 @ 1:05 pm

Odyss says:
August 9, 2017 at 12:25 pm
How come nobody asks why 90% of our prison inmates are male??? If there is no difference between men and women, then it must be due to sexism in our courts.

How come nobody asks why blacks are incarcerated 5 times the rate of whites?

[NFR: Because it’s easy to look at the Justice Department’s crime stats and see that violent crimes are committed disproportionately by black men. In other words, because there’s an answer. — RD]

#2 Comment By Anonne On August 10, 2017 @ 6:16 pm

Siarlys:

The more subtle fallacy in this paragraph is “Not all ideas are the same, and not all conversations about ideas even have basic legitimacy.”

The stumbling block is always, quies custodiet ipses custodes? Who will guard the guardians? Who will be empowered to decide which ideas are legitimate, and which conversations have basic legitimacy?

It’s very simple: It is socially stupid to insinuate something bad about your co-workers. These are people you have to see every day and work with them. His explicit statements seem to indicate that he was trying to convey that he’s really not sexist but the fact that he brought up biology put it on a different plane of discussion.

If he’d said, “For a number of reasons, many American women are not interested in STEM and we don’t have a lot of STEM majors so seeking to fill a full 50% of our employees is unrealistic and impractical at this juncture in time. What we should focus on is ensuring diversity of thought and perspectives, and what follows is how I think we can achieve that:” it would have been non-controversial.

It is purely incendiary to schmooze statistics that leave the insinuation that your co-workers are more neurotic and can’t handle stress. It is socially stupid to do so. As Yonatan Zunger wrote, “These views are fundamentally corrosive to any organization they show up in, drive people out, and I can’t think of any organization not specifically dedicated to those views that they would be welcome in.” That is the point.

People can go on about tolerating hateful views but if people expect to spout Nazi sympathies to their co-workers, for example, they should also expect the logical consequences of being shunned/unwelcome/fired to follow because that is a leadership problem. You cannot expect to insult large swaths of your co-workers and stay employed.

People will find out what is acceptable when they violate group norms, if they weren’t smart enough to figure out the norms to begin with.

#3 Comment By Brendan from Oz On August 10, 2017 @ 8:49 pm

“Now maybe you’re proud of putting citizens into that kind of straight-jacket, and I’m sure you do so skillfully, but I call it one of the small irritants that adds a little more pressure for some kind of uprising.”

What hysterical nonsense! Obeying the law and following the correct protocols to connect systems is a straight-jacket!

Can you even imagine the concept of a national border and sovereignty and that bits and bytes have to be in synch to for electronic communications to even occur at all? In an era of global terrorism?

It isn’t totalitarianism to obey the law in a free and democratic society. If the law changes, my systems change too.

#4 Comment By Gus Nelson On August 10, 2017 @ 9:39 pm

For all who are arguing that freedom of speech doesn’t apply here, you are legally correct, but factually wrong. Quote from Google officer: “The company was founded on the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking.” So this guy called Google to the mat on its own so-called principles and got canned. Apparently hypocrisy in the defense of diversity is no vice.

#5 Comment By Hound of Ulster On August 11, 2017 @ 12:13 am

[22]

…and the usual suspects then prove Damore’s critics right by acting like hateful dopes.

#6 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On August 11, 2017 @ 8:19 am

How come nobody asks why blacks are incarcerated 5 times the rate of whites?

Violent crime rates are a lot higher among African Americans than among whites. Murder rates for example around 9 times higher.

#7 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On August 11, 2017 @ 7:08 pm

I just looked at the article linked by Hound of Ulster. What precious snowflakes! I’m afraid someone will reveal what I said in a meeting. I might get bombarded on Twitter. Have these people NO courage of their convictions? Screw Twitter! Sticks and stones may break my bones, but cyber-denunciations of my avatar, or even my real name, can never hurt me.

To update John Prine, “Blow up your TV, cancel all your Twitter, go to the country, build you a home…”

Dopes never prove anyone else right. They only prove themselves wrong.

Brendan, you are proving my point beautifully. The fact that you are so evidently sincere just makes you a little more frightening. You remind me of a Solzhenitsyn short story, “We Never Make Mistakes.” The problem with your tight little software is that policy makers make mistakes, enforcers of perfectly good policy make mistakes, and software programs never account for all the variables. Thus, the need for human beings to interact face to face and make discretionary judgments.

I’m all for having digital technology process the large mass of data and do the boring hum-drum computations. But when the result comes out, a human being with judgment and discretion needs to review it. If someone says, “Hey, this isn’t right,” it needs to be referred, on the spot, to a human being, not posed back to a computer system which will simply affirm its own decisions, since that is all its softward allows or even enables it to do.

Violent crime rates are a lot higher among African Americans than among whites. Murder rates for example around 9 times higher.

Again, if we had complete confidence that our laws were enforced without racial bias, so what? Hector didn’t give numbers, but assuming arguendo that its one percent of whites and nine percent of African Americans, that would mean 91 percent of African Americans are NOT prone to commit murder.

#8 Comment By Michael On August 11, 2017 @ 10:41 pm

Why all this talk about Google?

This is an excerpt from Facebook’s job page (go to [23] and click the link “Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy”:
— excerpt begins —
Finally, we don’t tolerate statements or actions that could be experienced or perceived by others to create a discriminatory or harassing work environment.
— excerpt ends —

Not statements that create harassing work environment in HR’s view. Not even those that are perceived as such. No. Unacceptable are statements that COULD be experienced or PERCEIVED by others as creating discriminatory or harassing work environment. Even if nobody is offended. If you say something that maybe somebody can become upset about then face the consequences. But I guess people keep their mouths shut there.

#9 Comment By Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth On August 16, 2017 @ 2:31 pm

I’ve only worked my way through some of the posts so far, so maybe this has been dealt with, but if not, please note:

1) He never said female Engineers weren’t up to the job, at Google, or in general.

2) He never disparaged women at Google, or in general.

3) He never disparaged diversity issues in general (only the way they were currently being used).

4) He never disparaged empathy.

5) He posted the memo giving feedback on Google’s diversity initiatives AS REQUESTED BY GOOGLE.

6) He posted the diversity feedback memo as requested ON A FORUM SET UP BY GOOGLE FOR THE PURPOSE.

(And also on an INTERNAL “Skeptics” discussion forum for feedback for himself).

7) The memo was up on the forum for a month with no feedback from junior or senior Google management.

8) Someone (or several other) else posted it externally.

a) If he was sacked for harming the corporate brand, why weren’t the person or persons who broadcast it externally sacked.

b) If he was sacked for harming the corporate brand, why weren’t the managers who publicly broadcast that they and many other managers in Google, kept blacklists of people with conservative tendencies sacked?

c) If he was sacked for harming the corporate brand, why weren’t all the employees who publicly broadcast that they would physically attack colleagues whose political views they disagreed with sacked?

d) If he was sacked for harming the workplace environment/making it impossible for others to work with him, why weren’t the person or persons who broadcast it externally and ranted and raved against him and anyone else without a left wing viewpoint sacked for the same reason.

e) If he was sacked for harming the workplace environment/making it impossible for others to work with him, why weren’t the managers who publicly broadcast that they and many other managers in Google, kept blacklists of people with conservative tendencies sacked for the same reason?

f) If he was sacked for harming the workplace environment/making it impossible for others to work with him, why weren’t all the employees who publicly broadcast that they would physically attack colleagues whose political views they disagreed with sacked for the same reasons?

And:

g) Most of all, why weren’t the CEO and the Diversity VP sacked for:

i) Failing to deal with all the examples of corporately damaging action above.

ii) Broadcasting their corrosive political, non-inclusive, exclusionary, divisive, threatening, totalitarian, “anti”-fascist toxic views externally.

iii) Not just blacklisting, but sacking, someone for admitting non left-wing views in feedback on its diversity policies requested by Google.

iv) Harming the workplace environment/making it impossible for others to work with them by attacking then sacking the engineer in particular, but then attacking and threatening anyone who supported him or shared his views.

v) Brazenly and publicly bringing ridicule and scorn on the company, and breaching data protection and privacy laws, by saying they couldn’t discuss individual cases, and then emailing the world about the same individual case they swore blind they couldn’t discuss publicly?!?!?!

#10 Comment By Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth On August 16, 2017 @ 3:03 pm

Kevin says (August 8, 2017 at 11:04am):
>> >> “Nor does he explain why — even assuming it is true — women’s low tolerance for stress is relevant in software engineering but not in other fields in which women predominate.”

>> ‘Yeah, that one caught my eye too. The notion that being a software developer is more stress-inducing than being, say, a clinical social worker, a psychiatrist, or an operating room nurse is rather hillarious.’

No one said it was.

Ever stopped to think……?!

That a nerd might be more prepared to put up with the stress of doing IT in exchange for the opportunity to work in IT, and less prepared to put up with the stress of doing clinical social work, psychiatry, or as an operating room nurse in exchange for the opportunity to work in those fields where you have to spend all day talking to non nerds, and not being able to interact with your beloved IT for a whole shift plus commute time?!

And that women might be more likely to put up with the stress of clinical social worker, a psychiatrist, or an operating room nurse, in exchange for the opportunity to interact with, and help, real, live human beings, and especially, quite often, children!

Oh, and you might want to check out the salaries (plus overtime where applicable) of clinical social workers, a psychiatrists, and operating room nurses, compared to your average coder!

#11 Comment By Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth On August 16, 2017 @ 3:30 pm

And another:

>> >> Mark says (August 8, 2017 at 11:16am)
>> >> As Roger II says, “Why should he be allowed to act in this manner without consequence?”
>> >> Conservatives, stop asserting First Amendment privileges are violated when private individuals, groups, or employers take action based on someone’s speech…….

Who mentioned the First Amendment?!

Are you saying no one has any right to freedom of speech except under the First Amendment?!

Second are you saying that if a company asserts in its general advertising, it’s self promotion in its hiring advertising, in its company policies, and IN ITS REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK ON ITS DIVERSITY POLICIES that it believes in, promotes, protects, welcomes in general, and in its request for feedback, freedom of speech.

And then when someone speaks freely in giving the requested feedback they don’t just sack them, but attack them first, and threaten anybody who sides with or supports them?!?!

#12 Comment By Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth On August 16, 2017 @ 6:13 pm

mua’dib says (August 8, 2017 at 11:57am)

>> >> “I hope Damore takes Google to the cleaners in court.2

>> ‘Does the phrase ‘Employment At Will’ sound vaguely familiar?’

mua’dib, Does the phrase ‘Employment Contract At Google’ sound vaguely familiar?

You do realise that Damore was responding to a Google request for feedback regarding its diversity policies and was responding on an intranet forum that Google set up for employees to give such feedback on?!

#13 Comment By Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth On August 16, 2017 @ 6:37 pm

Steve says (August 8, 2017 at 12:12 pm):

>> “Rod, I would submit that you don’t really know much about the numerous ways women are kept down and kept out of the tech field, or discouraged from even showing an interest in STEM in the first place while in school, and thus you are lacking a lot of the context for Damore’s rant, or Google’s response. (the same could be said for the Twitter cheerleaders) This has nothing to do with “conservative” views, unless you think “conservative” means women must be kept away from the hard work of sitting at a computer and solving problems.”

Steve, I would submit that you really know even less about the numerous ways women are kept down and kept out of the tech field, or discouraged from even showing an interest in STEM in the first place while in school, and thus you are lacking a lot of the context for your rant, ditto Google’s response. (the same could be said for the Twitter cheerleaders)

Yes, this has nothing to do with “conservative” views, unless you think “conservative” means women must be kept away from the hard work of sitting at a computer and solving problems.

Damore never said that women couldn’t, or shouldn’t code.

He never said that they shouldn’t be welcomed and even helped into coding.

He never said that we shouldn’t empathise with women nor that there shouldn’t be diversity programs.

But I digress:

Could you please explain the about the numerous ways women are kept down and kept out of the tech field of, say, medicine, or veterinarians, or psychology, or even the non STEM law where they are something like 60 to 90% of graduates and new entrants and have for a long time formed a significant part, if not the bulk, of the profession?

Could it be that, unlike IT, girls were never discouraged from pursing these careers at school?

And never discouraged from even showing an interest in them in the first place while in school?

Could it be all the well know role models in law and psychiatry and veterinary science and medicine?!

The way there were never any sexist, misogynistic, Neanderthal vets or doctors or lawyers or psychologists?!

Maybe it was those famous female psychologists, Carla Jung and Sissy Freud, prancing around in corsets and hooped dresses, their hair beribboned, pontificating on how women were hysterical neurotics that need to have a lie down and be kept away from anything that might make them swoon that attracted so many women into psychiatry and psychology?!?!

Do please clarify and expand on your thinking for us?!

#14 Comment By Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth On August 17, 2017 @ 6:15 am

grumpy realist says (August 8, 2017 at 9:57pm):

>> >> So what if he’s on the autism spectrum? ….Being an Aspie doesn’t mean you have a free card to be stinkingly rude and not think about how you come across to other people. In fact, you had better think MORE about it, because you are more likely to stumble over your own feet.

So who gave females and SJWs in general and feminists in particular free card to be stinkingly rude and not think about how they come across to normal people?!

How come they have a free card to actively and deliberately “stumble over [their] own feet” and not just insult and vilify normal people, not just blacklist them, not just get them sacked, but, oops, sorry, I seem to have accidentally punched you in the nose?!?!?!

#15 Comment By Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth On August 18, 2017 @ 9:22 am

Alex Curbelo says (August 8, 2017 at 1:21pm)
>> “….The left does not get its power from shaming. It gets it from taking away livelihoods.”
>> “Accordingly, there needs to be shift in this debate away from the idea that left “shames” and towards the idea that the left supports taking away people’s ability to provide for their families and children….”
>> “Social shaming is not always bad. Often, it is necessary….”

The trouble is that the “liberals” have banned traditional, beneficial, society enhancing shaming (and judging, and sterotyping, “bigotry”…..).

But have made their own kinds compulsory (eg children shaming their parents into stopping smoking, not driving them to school, voting trump, silencing non “liberal” arguments with shaming attacks….).

And OF COURSE “the left supports taking away people’s ability to provide for their families and children”, it’s complementary to shaming people who shame (deliberate, by choice) single mothers.

The left wants to break up “patriarchal” families supported by a male breadwinner.

And replace them with single parent and orphan children supported by “the (progressive feminised) state”.

ie male taxpayers and fathers forced to pay for children they have no rights over, access to, or even prove of paternal links to!

#16 Comment By Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth On August 18, 2017 @ 9:40 am

Anonne says (August 8, 2017 at 5:18pm)

>> >> “It is obviously not safe to share your opinions at Google unless they the right kind of opinions, or the guy who wrote this would not have been fired.”

>> ‘Since when is it tolerable to be an a**hole to your co-workers? Last time I checked, that usually gets people fired.’

So is that what was happening while the Google requested diversity feedback Memo was sitting on Google’s Google requested diversity feedback Memo forum for a month without comment, never mind complaint, from management?!

So were they busy sacking every employee, and especially manager, who had ever been an a**hole to Damore, ever made him feel attacked, oppressed, discriminated against, unwelcome……?!

#17 Comment By Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth On August 18, 2017 @ 9:56 am

A lot of people ask what would the reaction have been if he had replaced “women” with “blacks”.

I ask what would the reaction have been if he had replaced “women” with “men”.

No one running, sobbing, to HR, or the (“liberal”) press.

No one quaking with fear.

No one taking time off sick.

No one being terrified to return to work.

No one locking themselves in their panic rooms.

No one ringing home to mum crying to be rescued and taken home because there’s a nasty man on campus.

And certainly no one feeling the urge to punch anyone on the nose!

Now, what was the Memo saying again?

In fact, what were people claiming the memo said again.

Looks like not only was everything he said scientifically correct:

But so was everything he never said, but those attacking him claimed he said nevertheless!!!!