That's such an unfair way to paint your opposition.
This is how Damore does "evidence" and proves sources:
De-emphasize empathy - I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do,
relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on
anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases[0]. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about
the facts.
Right because Damore is so objective and the people he is trying to engage are emotional cripples. Here's his "source" for that:
I don't care if he was right or wrong, or objective. And I don't claim to have sufficient knowledge about the topic to disprove/approve his points. I care about the right to discuss things without the fear of being smeared. Discussions are essential for us to iron out or positions, learn something new or change our mind. If you simply ignore one side of the issue, people will retract into their bubble, which is the exact opposite of what we need right now.
It's an argument, not a phd thesis. You do not agree that "being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts"? Why is policy based on anecdotes more preferable to detached objective reasoning?
Damore seems to be wanting a policy based on anecdotes because his reasoning is neither objective nor convincing.
Not asking for a phd thesis, just asking for something better than a senior paper. That's not a high bar if your goal is to really change things, is it?
His argument is clearly stated right there and quoted by both of us, that was the point I asked about to which you just sidestepped... you are free to say you're unconvinced of the statement but what is your argument against?
You can ask him for more info and/or and do your own research too, but his paper is what it is. Why not debate it instead of saying that it's not good enough? How does that further anything?
Claiming your argument is objective doesn't make it so. He can state that his goal is objectivity through reduced empathy, but if you don't provide objective evidence (he does not), it doesn't mean anything.
I'm not sure if you're addressing me, OP, Damore, or just yelling into the aether. I certainly haven't said anything TO address regarding the content of Damore's original paper.
For the record, I found Damore's reasoning to be terribly flawed. However, I happen to also believe that squashing all public discussion in its wake is foolish, cowardly, and entirely counterproductive from a practical standpoint.
If you're afraid to pull bad reasoning out in the open and cleanse it with the sunshine of better reasoning, then it just festers and grows in the shadows.
The problem is you're implicitly assuming this (and other recent "culture war topics" is actually about reasoning and legitimate attempt at debate. It isn't. This is about controlling narratives and reframing offensive goals so they become a legitimate political opinion.
Most of these calls for a "debate" are not trying to actually debate anything. They are trying to make enough confusing noise and repeat their talking points as often as possible.
For a much better explanation of how this works - and why it's a trap which educated, well meaning, politically-interested people seem to be particularly vulnerable - see this short video essay:
The problem is you're implicitly saying that ANY discussion is a pointless waste. As there will always be people on one more sides who see any other views as illegitimate per se. And there will always be people on all sides using "clickbait"-style tactics to sway people who lack critical thinking skills.
I refuse to accept this premise. Even if some (or even most) discussion is disingenuous or low-quality, I refuse to believe that anything positive can come from declaring any discussion topic forbidden in the public square.
That's not something that you may simply unilaterally declare. I don't recall anyone appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are.
Remember "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? Authoritarian liberals are trying to grab the authority to dictate what we may and may not discuss and we mainstream liberals must prevent that at all costs, lest we lose the soul of the liberal movement itself.
I didn't "simply unilaterally declare" my point - I included a link to a video that provides a much better explanation than I can give in a short post.
> appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are.
I not claiming such authority. I'm a stranger on the side of the road who thought it would be a good idea to offer warn you the bridge you are about to9 drive over is unstable. You have the freedom to heed my warning and find another route, or you can ignore me and drive over the bridge. Maybe it's time to use Bayes' Theorem if you like that kind of inference?
> [general appeal to emotion using platitudes about free speech]
Is someone's speech being banned? Free speech does not mean you are guaranteed an audience.
This is a nice example of the reframing technique I was talking about. Nobody's speech is being restricted, but countering your points would mean arguing about the subtleties of free speech doctrine, instead of what my post was actually about: the current tactic of endlessly calling for "debate" that never actually becomes a debate.
No, I don't have a lot of evidence on hand at the moment. All I can offer right now is the conclusions from my firsthand observations of this technique over the last ~20 year. You have the freedom to use this information as you wish.
My point is that downvoting and flagging a dead horse based off of a months old discussion isn't evidence of cowardice. Maybe there's just not much useful there?
Thank you for this. I agree that they are cowards. Damore is completely right, certain members of our society are shaming others into silence for supposed psychological safety.
I also feel that money and political power are on the line too, which just heightens the needs for shaming others into silence, in their minds.
Let's see what happens to our posts.
EDIT: also Damore was attacked non-stop during his interview with Siliconbeat if I remember correctly.
I'm honestly not in the position to judge whether his sources were correct or not. If you read the memo and listen to him (e.g. on the Rubin Report) however you realise he doesn't want to hurt anybody, not even close. He is an extremely intelligent, introverted guy.
But I don't care about it being right or wrong. Google wanted all opinions to be on the table (in theory). Damore is just the latest example of someone (usually a little right wing) to get in trouble for his political opinions. I don't want this shit to come to Europe, I want to be able to have political discussions with my colleagues.
Speaking up for anyone who is unjustly attacked, no matter what political affiliation, is all we can do. I firmly believe Silicon Valley will eat itself. Silicon Valley is so big, because it cared about results, not diversity. Shifting their attention to diversity will increasingly bug investors and/or hurt profits so bad, that the next big tech hub will arise.
It's already arrived to Europe anyway. There is one mainstream view regarding (1) how to solve the immigration crisis, (2) whether or not different cultures and religions are equal, (3) whether or not a nation has the right to make a decision about its future.
If you don't agree about any of these, you're quickly denounced as alt-right, Nazi etc. In extreme cases, you can lose a job. It's not happening frequently though as people are not stupid and learned to keep a low profile. You can discuss things in a more open way with your friends, but you better avoid any online discussions if you can be identified, no matter how reasonable your argument is.
For an example of cowardice, take note when this thread is almost certainly flagged and buried within the next hour or two.