Categories
dude you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about misogyny racism

The Federalist has the worst take yet on the Google Manifesto and James Damore. It involves NWA

N.W.A. is not impressed with your argument, The Federalist. Or wouldn’t be, probably, if the group still existed.

By David Futrelle

The good folks at The Federalist — the clickbaity tradcon site known for its nuclear-level hot takes — have done it again: They have managed to come up with what may be the dumbest possible take on the Google Manifesto and its author, James Damore.

And somehow, it involves N.W.A.

Yes, N.W.A., the rap group that broke up more than a quarter century ago, but which is apparently the only rap group or rap artist that anyone at The Federalist can name off the top of their head.

In a post titled “What James Damore, Formerly Of Google, Can Learn From N.W.A,” the Federalist’s Rich Cromwell notes that the aforementioned rap group managed to survive criticism over the misogyny in the lyrics of its 1988 debut album “Straight Outta Compton.” Even though N.W.A. used words like “bitch.”

And if N.W.A., nearly 30 years ago, got away with calling women “bitches,” Cromwell suggests, then surely Damore should be able to get away with suggesting that women are biologically less suited for tech than men.

At least I think that’s what he’s arguing. Cromwell’s article is so clotted with inexpertly wielded sarcasm it’s sort of hard to tell exactly what he’s arguing.

Here’s what seems to be Cromwell’s thesis:

Damore, in the spirit of N.W.A., had the temerity to suggest, in the most foul-mouthed way possible, that there’s an inclusion problem at Google. Except actually he was very measured in the infamous memo that 99 percent of people upset about it didn’t read. …

Whereas N.W.A. created a whole lot of outrage with “Straight Outta Compton,” some of it was warranted. They were not nuanced in how they discussed the differences between men and women, but brutal and ruthless. But it was harder to take them down in August 1988 because people had to actually type letters and make phone calls and that’s a whole lot more work than a status update. People did the work, though, and N.W.A. persevered.

Damore should do the same, particularly as he wasn’t calling women b-tches or proclaiming their only use is as sex objects. He may be facing the Internet lynch mob, but he doesn’t have to do it sitting down. …

Stand up, Damore, and don’t let this … take you down and bite your tongue, but rather let it serve as a launch-pad, much as it did for N.W.A.

That is some Scott-Adams-level “persuasion” right there. My head hurts.

Oh, and did I mention that the picture of N.W.A. that The Federalist uses to illustrate the article is not actually a picture of N.W.A at all? Nope! It’s a picture of the actors who portrayed N.W.A. in the 2015 movie “Straight Outta Compton.”

But I guess all rappers and people portraying rappers look the same, huh?

98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
epronovost
epronovost
4 years ago

In my opinion, the ”Google Manifesto” present correctly strong scientifical evidences for major important difference between men and women in neurobiology which indeed has a strong impact in development, interests and socialisation. That’s pretty much the uncontestable side of this manifesto. The problem is that the author derives stupid conclusion from them and overextand the scientific conclusion to meet ideological needs. In other words, science demonstrate that the neural development of men and women differs and this might impact in a significant fashion their respective interests.

Where science and political opinion diverge is where you draw the line. The author of this manifesto basically use this very demonstrable truth to establish the fact that STEM domain is dominated by men, should be dominated by men and that it’s unreasonnable, wasteful or even dangerous to try to make the STEM domain gender equal. The only problem with that is that working in the STEM domain is much more than having an interest in those discipline. You can like programming, that doesn’t mean you will like to be a professionnal programmer. How the STEM domain is perceived might also make it more interesting depending on people core motivation. If you are motivated by the idea of helping people, creating strong relationship with them, one might think you would not like many STEM domain, but depending of your work environment, methods and objectives, you might be attracted to them.

We have always founded biological and scientifical reasons to explain differences between men and women to support a social status quo. Even when they are technically correct, we have historically overextanded their conclusion far too often. I don’t think there is only one way to be an engineer or a programmer. That the skills and interests to become one of them can be reduced so easily to few ones. What this manifesto seems to rail against the most is that women might redefined how enginners and programmers work and think to achieve the same objective than their masculine peers and all of this, maybe, for different reasons.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

I wonder how many people who are cheering this guy’s firing because “speech has consequences” are simultaneously protesting on behalf of poor Colin Kaepernick because speech shouldn’t have consequences.

These are two completely different situations. My employer shouldn’t be allowed to force me to say something I don’t believe, nor should I have to work in a hostile work environment.

Edit: to clarify, something unrelated to my work. As a former CSR I’ve said plenty of things I don’t personally believe.

Edit x2:

In my opinion, the ”Google Manifesto” present correctly strong scientifical evidences for major important difference between men and women in neurobiology which indeed has a strong impact in development, interests and socialisation. That’s pretty much the uncontestable side of this manifesto.

Your opinion is factually wrong. Ask an actual neuroscientist, not a software engineer.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
4 years ago

I wonder how many people who are cheering this guy’s firing because “speech has consequences” are simultaneously protesting on behalf of poor Colin Kaepernick because speech shouldn’t have consequences.

That would be most people with some capacity for discernment.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Steven
comment image

History Nerd
History Nerd
4 years ago

@Steven

I think it’s not good to fire someone simply for having an opinion. But if you run off, accuse your employers of intentional discrimination, get into some trollin’ for controversy’s sake, and create a hostile environment, people start to notice you. When people notice you, you might be more trouble than you’re worth from a fiscal perspective.

epronovost
epronovost
4 years ago

@Viscaria the Cheese Hog

You can foward that link to your father. Its the same kind of study with the same kind of methodology and it gives the exact opposite result by a landslide.

https://www.cnet.com/news/when-tech-firms-judge-on-skills-alone-women-land-more-job-interviews/

SinisterPigeon: Sombrero Golem
SinisterPigeon: Sombrero Golem
4 years ago

…. is that John and Jerry again? Cause it reads like John and Jerry.

One is trying to co-opt a civil rights protester to defend misogyny and the other is spouting random engineer nonsense though I am not sure exactly where the argument is because I feel the Google manifesto was pretty clear on tying it’s conclusions together.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

@SinisterPigeon
Steven Dutch has been around a while. He oscillates between ashole and reasonable. I guess today is an asshole day.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
4 years ago

In my opinion, the ”Google Manifesto” present correctly strong scientifical evidences for major important difference between men and women in neurobiology which indeed has a strong impact in development, interests and socialisation. … science demonstrate that the neural development of men and women differs and this might impact in a significant fashion their respective interests.

Does a viking gotta roll up on this, @epronovost? Because neurobio says no.

I mean, there’s nuance to be had here. But neurobio says no.

PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
4 years ago

Ah, Dutch lays another non-sequiter egg whilst flying by.

Pumpernickel sounds good, right about now.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@epronovost
How does the fact that both male and female people with Tourette’s Syndrome display the same aggression and dominance behaviors compare with your link?

You can deposit knowledge, but can you work with it? Why does it make what the manifesto said suddenly a good thing? Why does he get to write off half of people as a cause?

I still get to challenge that even now.

Bina
4 years ago

I wonder how many people who are cheering this guy’s firing because “speech has consequences” are simultaneously protesting on behalf of poor Colin Kaepernick because speech shouldn’t have consequences.

Kaepernick is factually correct and yet is being punished for protesting, very respectfully and with tremendous dignity, on that basis.

Damore is factually incorrect and got fired for laying a right-wing ideological turd, long on his own fragile white-guy feelings and pseudoscience geared toward supporting them, and pitifully short on actual proven scientific fact, in the Google punchbowl.

Yes, speech has consequences, but the consequences differ based on things like the color of the speaker, and the content of the speech. A black guy being right = BAD SPEECH. A white guy being more than wrong = OH COME ON, DON’T PUNISH HIM FOR SPEAKING!

Now do you get it?

Paradoxical Intention - Leader of the Deathclaw Damsels

Steven Dutch | August 9, 2017 at 6:26 pm
I wonder how many people who are cheering this guy’s firing because “speech has consequences” are simultaneously protesting on behalf of poor Colin Kaepernick because speech shouldn’t have consequences.

Most likely none because these two choices don’t exist in a fucking vacuum and context is still a thing.

Damore said some nasty, sexist shit about his fellow coworkers and Google decided they didn’t want him representing them.

Kaepernick was kneeling to show support for Black Lives Matter and was doing a very peaceful protest, the kind that some of us White People said they wanted, and now he’s being avoided by the NFL like the damn plague and they’re making up all kinds of excuses, while they continue to support players like Michael Vick (who got convicted of dogfighting), and Rice (who was convicted of beating his wife).

Sure, the NFL (and the individual teams thereof) have a right to say “We don’t want Kaepernick representing us”.

However, when someone says “I don’t want to associate with this person”, it says a lot about who they are.

Google says “We don’t believe in this man’s sexism and we’re not going to tolerate it.”

NFL says “We don’t want to support Black Lives Matter or people who openly support it because our bottom line and views are more important.”

Austin Loomis
4 years ago

@Bina

Now do you get it?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair

ETA @PI:

Google says “We don’t believe in this man’s sexism and we’re not going to tolerate it.”

NFL says “We don’t want to support Black Lives Matter or people who openly support it because our bottom line and views are more important.”

Say it louder for the people in the back.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I’ve plugged it before here and will probably plug it again at some point. Everyone should read Delusions of Gender by neuroscientist Cordelia Fine.

Viscaria the Cheese Hog
Viscaria the Cheese Hog
4 years ago

Thanks, epronovost. I probably won’t send it to him, because then I would be starting a whole thing, but it will do me good to read it.

Bina
4 years ago

Google says “We don’t believe in this man’s sexism and we’re not going to tolerate it.”

NFL says “We don’t want to support Black Lives Matter or people who openly support it because our bottom line and views are more important.”

Bingo. Black lives only matter to the NFL as long as they can make money off them colliding with one another’s helmets.

Of course, Google’s decision could also have an element of businessy self-interest, too: They don’t want to lose capable female team members because some sexist turd poisoned the well against them, AND of course, there’s the whole bad-for-the-general-image-of-the-company bit, too. None of this is blameworthy on Google’s part, mind you. If they want to hold their leading position in the industry, they have to make the workplace environment comfortable for everyone, not just some white guy who thinks he’s smart because (a) he’s white, and (b) he’s a guy. Otherwise, that non-white and/or non-male talent is just going to keep on trickling away to the competition.

The NFL, on the other hand, is THE pro-football monopoly, so they’re well situated not to really care about black lives except insofar as they can turn a profit off them.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@epronovost

Well shit. I made a mistake somewhere and that reply was totally uncalled for. I missed some context. I’m sorry for the tone and mistaken use of a link.

Jesalin
Jesalin
4 years ago

@Haise

As someone having recently graduated with a cis degree

You can get a degree in being Cis? *shocked*

JS
JS
4 years ago

@Jesalin
I was about to ask whether a trans degree changed over time, but wasn’t sure if that’s offensive, or just a terrible joke.

Jarnsaxa
Jarnsaxa
4 years ago

That’s gotta be the easiest degree in the world. I mean, you get delivered, they say “it’s a girl/boy,” and then later on, you find out for sure and just say “Yep, I sure am!” and get a degree?

Seems like a scammy diploma mill to me. 😉

SinisterPigeon: Sombrero Golem
SinisterPigeon: Sombrero Golem
4 years ago

@Kupo Meep! Sorry. Thought it was the same old asshole. Did not know it was a new one. My apologies Steven. I will try to judge your assholery on it’s own merits.

@Paradoxical: YES! Exactly yes. And just like the whiny man-bros have the right to say google is being unfair, I have the right to never give the NFL a single dime of my money again. Work-Speech has work consequences that can only be remedied through Economic Remedy. You just have to be ready to both commit (Any dude-bro who uses google has proven their concerns don’t matter that much to them.) and to let their economic speech stand for them. Who you march for says as much about you as it does about them. (Still haven’t forgiven my city for passing on Kaepernick. We had no reason not to)

epronovost
epronovost
4 years ago

@Scildfreja Unnyðnes

Do you happen to have serious sources that debunk the google Manifesto science based claim (not its politics based claim). When I was researching it, I found a lot of people defending those claims. This is what I found so far…

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

I found this link as a form of debunking of the science claims of the google manifesto, but it lacks the full strength of a scientific study in the domain of biology, but it does weaken it in my opinion. There also excellent arguments to be made against the idea that women ”naturaly” lack ambition or aggressivity and numerous research seems to be completly debunked to.

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/08/the-ugly-pseudoscientific-history-behind-that-sexist-google-manifesto/

The conclusion that a homogenous group is more efficient and productive has been debunked severely though.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter

What concerns me and that seems to be completly supported by science as far as I am aware is that there is a lot of neurological difference between men and women. That’s perhapse the only thing that the google manifesto might have gotten right and it’s the foundation of his entire argument (the conclusion was completly wrong of course). Is that foundation correct or is it false?

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
4 years ago

Sigh.

Sorry @epronovost. Just tired of defending this point. Have been dealing with trolls in the old Cassie Jaye thread on this exact point for a few days now.

Joel, Daphna, et al. “Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112.50 (2015): 15468-15473.

The question is far from settled – brains are super complicated as it turns out. But the null hypothesis is “no, there’s no standardized difference in brains between sexes” needs to be carried until the evidence is clear, especially on such a socially important topic.

I’ll admit that I didn’t read your articles, it’s late here – I don’t even necessarily contest them. I’ll try to look tomorrow.

Here’s the deal though. Articles on science from magazines or on websites aren’t trying to communicate truth – they’re trying to sell magazines or advertisements. So – well, let me start from the beginning.

Research labs have various goals. Some labs have good funding and can pursue work without worrying about money; most have to be concerned about where their funding is coming from. Many labs have a shotgun approach – just publish as many papers as possible, regardless of quality. Doctors will shepherd flocks of undergraduates into making studies filled with holes – and this is fine, generally, because those papers have to admit their flaws to get published. So you’ll see papers saying outrageous stuff getting published, because the paper itself says that the study only examined a handful of undergraduate students and it suggests that the results should not be accepted until a larger and more comprehensive study is done.

Then the Science Journalist skims through their journals, sees the outrageous title, and thinks “This’ll sell magazines” or whatever they’re working on. They skim, make a bold title about some new discovery, and push the publish button. And then you have legions of MRA’s clawing at the walls about the feminists, because some undergrads at Berkeley wrote a paper about asking dudes whether they think these pictures of hot women are hot or not.

Short form: Science journalism is largely misleading bullshit when it comes to contentious topics. This certainly applies whenever sex, gender, race, religion, social status, or education is the topic of the study. If you want to know what’s actually going on in those fields, you have to either look into the literature itself (not the science journos) or develop an extremely finely tuned bullshit detector.

Sorry for snapping earlier! I’m on a short fuse today.

%d bloggers like this: