But as I said, I'll make a thread devoted to the topic.

This thread is about the following sexy beast:

Looks like Damore filed a complaint with the NLRB. The role reversals on at will employment versus a strong NRLB should be fun to watch.

LOL

Plus, the "merit" of it's length was *totally* overlooked. I still haven't read it, but 10 pages?

You get 20 conservative tribe demerits in the name of trump.

Spoilers, dude. Some of us haven't seen the movie yet.

I want 50 liberty merits for possibly never reading it.

Have you heard about cliff notes?

Diversity Goons? Do they punch you when you act more supreme than anybody else?

if you count the citations and graphs and a lot of bullet points so it's not really that long.

LOL there is no chance FoldN or Jiggy actually read the memo and now they are mad other people did.

Also, like really think through what argument you imagine you're winning now. "Literally everyone who read the memo is lying about it for SJW conspiracy reasons!"


What the **** are you even talking about? Go cry about PewDiePew some more, hillbilly.

LOL nope. JiggyMac got that outrage off ****ing 4chan, dip****.

And you made up a story about Google having "diversity goons", don't run your mouth about "reasonable people". You aren't smart enough to be on "the Left" yourself, what the **** makes you think we want your advice on how not to offend the eternally offended racist snowflake community?

Yeah. It's like technically 10 pages, designed to look greater than 9 even. 10 gets more merits than 9, eh? Has the screeder been called a meritolitarian yet? Or was merit just the rumor? Maybe I'll look at it next week.

Love it when FondleDrunk puts on intellectual airs but then ****s up basic **** like "Evergreenesque."

Still waiting on Well Named and Original Position to weigh in here. This is exactly what I've been discussing with them for quite some time about what scholars like Haidt and DeBoer see as a growing credibility gap within the social sciences, and the fear it's being taken over by the social justice activists. It appears just about everything within that memo was scientifically accurate, according to four more scientists who have the balls to step forward here.

Of course, the rampant mischaracterizations of the memo and its author only perpetuate the ignorance and fury, and take away from any knowledge that could be gained from it and progress on this issue. Regardless of what side you think you're on regarding diversity in the workplace, it should be perfectly obvious by now there is only one side that dominates the discussion, achieving this status by pushing out all other opinions, naming, shaming, sometimes firing people in order to keep those opinions silent. Decisions regarding diversity, affirmative action, and social justice in general are increasingly not being made with any semblance of rational or scientific methodology, but are instead being lead by pure dogma and groupthink. Are either of you ready to admit this issue is much more far-reaching than just a few colleges?

I haven't read the guy's memo but it's pretty much a tautology that hiring for diversity lowers standards.

Doesn't this make you a racist then?

"Exactly" "right" "implications"


Hmmmmmmmmm...

Once again, Foldn, who is absolutely against "identity politics" presents us with someone who we're honour bound to listen to because they're female.

Man I knew foldn would be triggered by this one. How does it feel to be so depressingly predictable in the incredibly selective scope of your outrage?

Guy thinks a bunch of his collegues are inferior and his corporate company should change their policies so as not hire them. Guy records these thoughts and sends them to everyone in his corporate company. Guy gets fired. Final proof of lefitst authoritarian agenda or standard corporate hr procedure? You(tube) decide.

This is totally wrong though. Alloys are often stronger than their components. If you're hiring for a job that is 90% task A and 10% task B and you have a pool of people who are the best in the world at A but can't do B and a pool thst are very good at A and very good at B you should hire some of the second people even though in a vacuum they will never be "the best for the job". Hiring for diversity raises standards because it brings in people with widely different experiences and approaches to problems.

Think of 3 betting. You need to add some trash into your 3 betting range even though it's -EV in a vacuum because it improves the overall standard of your 3 betting range and makes you a better and more profitable player. Fortunately for companies it's even better because they can hire for diversity without losing much if any ev even in a vacuum.

Of course even it didnt pay to value diversity for its own sake in reality the whole idea of diversity vs meritocracy is a complete false dichotomy. No recruiter has any idea of the quality of candidates in front of them. Its all biases and guesswork. Hiring for diversity may well be +EV in a vacuum and good for your range all at once.

https://www.wired.com/story/james-da...emo-might-sue/

lol not quite!

@tom. Indeed. I've also wittered on before before on the problem of brittleness and how diversity makes for a more robust solution.

But it all pales into insignificance compared to the downside of prejudice in the work place. That results in more capable people (women, minorities etc) being passed over for less capable white men because people's biases make them think the white men are relatively more capable than they are. Maybe one day that wont be the primary concern.

Then it is agreed that there is differences between the genders, exactly as the memo suggested. Why should he be fired again?

You either agree with one of these statements:


A)
The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;

B)
The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink.

Care to pick?

I'm going with different experiences and approaches to the workplace. Nothing radical about ability.

Overcoming the bias that favours the less relatively less talented is the bigger issue.

LOL. Sorry to disappoint you dude but I wasn't trolling Jiggy.

My satire comment was tongue in cheek. I thought you got that. Maybe not.

Seems a bit absolutists.