Talk:James Damore

heads up -- this is a terrible article for a place called "RationalWiki" and a very poor reflection on the site as a whole
Neutral passerby here. I stopped in because I stumbled upon this page and was aghast at its blatant lack of objectivity. It reads like a poorly-written farce. The bias is so excessive that I doubted its sincerity before I even finished the first paragraph. Unfortunately, it appears that this article is not intended to be a joke.
 * That's RationalWiki for you. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To both BoNs Just because you don't like something and can't adequately criticize it beyond "This makes me unhappy" dosen't make it untrue, nor your criticisms (if you can call them that) any less inadequate. In short, if you can't be bothered to actually address something beyond a mere statement of disagreement, your opinion means jack shit.  04:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not saying RW's slant is a bad thing, but it's definitely a blatant thing. (Though the hit-piece quality of some articles could use some toning down.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Important missing point
The memo makes roughly the following argument:


 * Here are some gender differences that might be biological
 * These differences clearly make men better suited to software engineering
 * Therefore, women are bad programmers

Most people want to argue the first point, but a much better response to the memo is to observe that the second step in this argument has zero supporting evidence. --Tweenk (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The memo never concludes that "women are bad programmers". This is an invention.--Greenrd (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like you are missing the point and are reacting on a non-issue in the argument (the argument starts with "makes roughly", so it's expected that the rought idea of the logic of the memo is not accurate). If you don't like the third point, I guess you can rephrase it in your mind ("Therefore, the job of programmer favorizes a bigger proportion of men because they are naturally more suited for this job of programmer"?), but it does not change the message of initial comment: the majority of people reacted on the first step, which is the biological difference, but a missing point (I would not say "important", because the pseudoscience of the first step is IMHO more characteristic of the problem, but maybe "worth mentioning") is to react to the second step. I think the idea is: who cares about those hypothetical biological differences: as long as they don't imply that a female programmer is naturally badly designed for a job of programmer, then it is normal and legitimate to reduce obstacles to carreer opportunities, even if these obstacles are not the result of some kind of social oppression. 84.70.37.35 (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and James Damore agrees with that in the memo, and suggests that Google should do exactly that, but in different ways to the ways it is currently trying to do it. Mind blown, I know.--Greenrd (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, he doesn't propose any solution to reducing obstacles besides attacking the minority outreach stuff. 21:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with what? I don't even understand what you are talking about. Damore talks about "natural differences that can explain why it's therefore normal to see a gender gap" ("normal", not "legitimate"). The author of this comment says that a lot of people reacted on "natural differences" rather than "explain why it's therefore normal". If your point is that Damore agrees that the "natural differences" are irrelevant because what should matters is the fact to be a competent programmer and that those natural differences don't matter on this subject, then why does he even bring the natural differences to the discussion? If your point is not that, then the inital comment is legitimate: there is indeed a logical link with "current situation" and "naturel differences", that can also be questioned. 84.70.37.35 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is functionally uneditable
All of the edits from this year have been users trying to fix this article by clarifying points and removing unsubstantiated claims and then immediately getting reverted without explanation. This is a serious problem. RBJSandwich (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Been there. Today, in fact. Truth be told, I wasn't paying attention and thought I was on Wikipedia. Not my finest moment, I admit. I'm not familiar with this site nor those those who administer it, whom I can't help but suspect were responsible. They are, of course, entitled. They (as applicable) also appear to perhaps suffer from marked deficits of intellect. (3... 2... 1... ::poof::)
 * The talk page you just posted on is an indication of why the page is what it is today. "Without explanation" is... not accurate.
 * I must have missed the explanation for the removal of the following, and for the reversal of my related edits. "The following elements are neither remotely neutral nor can they rationally be regarded as substantive. They are nothing more than overt derisive sarcasm, with an obvious and frankly hostile point of view -- regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the sentiments. I am not logged in but will attempt to edit it in good faith. 'While his initial attitude was questionable ... his subsequent actions just further cast him as just another poor white dude who cries, 'Come see the violence Inherent in the System! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!''"
 * You know BoN, I'm just going to point this out (call it a learning experience), for someone who so casually drops pejoratives about other people's intelligence, it would behoove you to learn the basics of a web browser's UI. Just saying. 02:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in haste I failed to note a tab's URL. If your argument is that evinces dearth of intellect, then you make my case for me. Thanks.
 * OOoooh BoN use big word! Big! Big! 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Before you proceed, BoN, it does help to read our Newcomers Guide especially after you admitted to not being familiar with how the wiki works and before accusing others of having "marked deficits of intellect". We actually get a lot of criticism that it's not "neutral" or "rationally regarded as substantive" (that comment isn't meaningful to me), or that there's snark and a clear point of view, and, well, they usually aren't enough to improve an article because they're far from constructive. If you want to point out flaws, be specific, assume good faith, and make a good case why a hostile tone isn't appropriate. It helps to also at least try to review or get an idea how this article is from that glut of text in this talk page if you have spare time, because we've went over this so many times with kinda the sameish arguments being put forward to us so it'll save everyone time in the end. 02:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That's...a lot of text above this one
I feel sorry for all of the people who argued so much over one guy who used to work for Google. Just...damn. If learned anything from scanning all of that, it's that it's time to just turn off the internet, go outside and play. Wow. 96.32.155.15 (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Asperger's
I'm going to delete the recently-added sentence about his Damore's Asperger's. It seems like it's only there to be an excuse for his actions and beliefs, which is obviously is not. 18:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It also trivializes the disorder, boiling the entire complex set of problems to "he says things he doesn't mean". Mental health disorders are a really sensitive line to tread, this isn't tact. 18:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's only to provide context. First off, I'd include it for anyone with it; the syndrome affects a lot of things, so it'd be impossible to separate someone from the disorder. Secondly, those of us so afflicted are notorious for sounding tone-deaf. It does not say "he says things he doesn't mean", rather the opposite; more like "he says things way too bluntly and obviously". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 18:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * People with this syndrome do imply things they don't mean to say. That is one of the affects of "difficulty with social interaction". Their conversation can be laced with all sorts of awkward items that are not the social cues with which most of us are familiar. What do you people mean by "excuse?" It is speculative to claim Damore's disorder accounts for his situation, though there is no doubt in my mind. It is instructive to note that Wikipedia does not mention Damore's Asperger's in its article about James Damare. That is probably because they don't have an article about James Damore. Their article is about "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." Make up your mind will you? If this article is about Damore, then it is dishonest to leave out reference to his condition, which is public knowledge by his own admission. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to mention his Asperger's then, but I also think it should be emphasized that it does not excuse any of his questionable actions. 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that I could go for too. I bolloxed it up on my attempt, so probably best for a better writer than me to work it in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 20:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm autistic. I got it. I moved it to a later section (since it's not the most important thing about him) and emphasized that autism doesn't cause sexism.QuietLuna (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent edit,  22:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)