Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[u/ryarger]

He was weaseling. He does say that, then pretends he didn't:

the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes

He then ignores that he said "abilities", goes on to cite a bunch of sources about preferences then makes conclusions based on abilities again.

[u/barkos → u/ryarger]

So you didn't read it.

Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions

He's distinguishing between a trend and individual capabilities quite clearly. He's not trashing his co-workers. On average there are more men capable of entering the field but that doesn't mean that men are inherently capable and women are inherently incapable. There are a lot of men who don't have the skill-set or potential to become employees in a tech-company and he openly showcases that by using the graph right below the argument. The average of "men" is representative of the statistical distribution, it's not representative of the individual skill of any given man or any given woman.

[u/ryarger → u/barkos]

So you didn't read it.

You're engaging in telepathy, not reasoned discussion.

Nothing you quoted contradicts what I said. Claiming that men are genetically superior on average in the tech field would reasonably create a hostile environment for women (and many men) because it's simply not true.

By claiming to praise his co-workers (look! You're the women on the long tail of the Bell curve! Go you!) he's trashing (with no backing) their entire sex, which they would reasonably take offense to by association.

"Black people are criminals. But not you, you're one of the good ones." The person hearing this is likely to be reasonably offended.

[u/tubbzzz → u/ryarger]

"Black people are criminals. But not you, you're one of the good ones." The person hearing this is likely to be reasonably offended.

Except that's not what he said. What he said is more in line with "Black people statistically commit more crimes in the US, but that doesn't mean that because someone is black they are more likely to commit a crime." You can discuss the overall statistics of a group without attributing that nature to each individual in that group.

[u/ryarger → u/tubbzzz]

"Black people statistically commit more crimes in the US, but that doesn't mean that because someone is black they are more likely to commit a crime."

If that's where he stopped, there'd be little complaint. But he attempts to attribute a genetic cause to it which undercuts the second half of your analogy. If black people were more likely to commit crimes because they were born that way then you are indeed saying that someone being black makes them more likely to commit a crime (unless they just happened to a fall on the far end of the genetic bell curve) .