Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber/Archive1

Bit of a biased article
Went ahead and made this thing a lot more balanced with how some of the studies originally cited in support of the memo outright say the gender gaps are overall pretty minute which dash a good many of the memo's more outlandish conclusions, as well as added in Damore's more...questionable activities, to say the least. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * and everybody who is interested to the page improvement:


 * I listed below the changes I disagree with and I have reverted or edited. For each of them I wrote my motivation. If you disagree, please reply to each of them with your specific motivation. Do not write a big rebuttal for everything which do not address my motivations one by one, because doing so it is impossible to have a conversation. I numbered them to make things easier. Here's the changes:


 * (0) At the beginning of the section "The memo" there was an invitation to the reader to read the memo before making his own opinion. It has been deleted and I restored it. I think that this is a Wiki of skeptics, and pushing people to read 10 pages, instead of making their opinions based only of what others said on those 10 pages, is something skeptics should encourage.


 * (1) "Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety" <- Instead of the page "psychology" I linked the page "safe spaces", because I think it is perfect with the concept of "psychological safety".


 * (2) "that reaching equal representation through trying to get more women in traditionally men's roles such as leadership in tech is discrimination (link to bullshit)" <- I think the link to "bullshit" is plainly biased, I removed it.


 * (3) In particular, it asserts that women are more prone to neuroticism (higher anxiety and lower stress tolerance) and agreeableness (sympatheticness, cooperativeness) than men. <- The links to the scientific papers supporting the claim have been moved much later, after a long criticism of how Damore used this claim. I moved the link previously, saying that the claim is indeed scientifically supported. I leaf the criticism to how Damore used such claim.


 * - "While Damore makes token appeals that these differences [...] in which the results between white and Asian respondents differed dramatically." This is only a suggestion: Several claims are made and then 6 papers are cited all together. It would be better if each paper is cited just after the claim it supports.


 * (4) "However, much ado was made about how he was overemphasizing the supposed genetic traits found in women that would presumably keep them from attaining higher roles in tech and leadership. [...] In addition to implying that women were less skilled at their jobs at others" <- This is plainly false: Damore never spoke of genetic traits (see also my changes later) and he never said women are less skilled. I have removed it.


 * (5) ""there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is [...] not OK. (link to balance fallacy)" <- This is not an instance of the "balance fallacy". Sundar Pichai did not say that both sides (against/pro memo) have equal values, he said that workers should not be afraid of express their views regardless of being pro or against the memo. I removed the link.


 * (6) From the section Google and its employees it has been removed my irony about "neuroticism prone women" leaving Google because of the memo. Irony or not, women employees' reactions to the memo are important. I restored it.


 * (7) "The coverage of the memo by the media was rather poor, as if him being fired for it wasn't enough proof already." <- Proof for what? I restored the previous sentence.


 * (8) Some facts on media bad coverage has been removed from the section "The media". Precisely:


 * "ABC News,[31] the BBC,[32] CNN,[33] Fox News,[34] NBC News,[35] The Huffington Post,[36] Time,[37] and PBS,[38] characterized the memo as "anti-diversity", although the memo itself begins with "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes."
 * " The Washington Post wrote that "The memo said that “genetic differences” may explain “why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership”"[18] but the parts they quoted are not in the memo. In fact, the word "genetic" alone do not appear in the memo."
 * "CNN wrote that Damore "argued that women are not biologically fit for tech roles",[39] while no such strong claim as women's not biologically fitness for tech is present in the memo"
 * "Slate even asserted that Damore aligns with "white supremacists",[40] although the memo did no comparison whatever about races, neither claimed whites are superior. In fact, the memo pushes against race discrimination, asking to "Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races"


 * I restored them.


 * (9) The section "The American people" has been removed. I think that the survey is really interesting, showing that Americans are quite split on the memo, regardless of political views and sexes. If anything the section could be integrated with other polls. I restored it.


 * EDITED later: I was forgetting:


 * (10) "Although it has been claimed that much of the data in the memo is "suspect, outdated or has other problems",[15] all but 2 of the scientific articles cited in the memo belong to journals ranked in the first quartile of their fields,[12] and on average they have been published less than 10.4 years before the memo." This whole sentence has been removed from the section "The memo". I restored it. Since it has been claimed that the cited data are "suspect and outdated" I think it is really important to point out that data comes from reputable journals (not pseudojournals et similia) and that it is not old.

-McLaghing (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sakes, your rationale for ignoring my debating points earlier re:Molyneux and basic income is that they're not numbered? No buddy, a debate can happen either way. And anyone who can't sift throguh a wall of text and make an argument is being disingenuous. But hey, let's try it your way.


 * Asking the people to read the thing is redundant and takes up unnecessary space, to say nothing that for trying to advocate a skeptics' point of view, you are far more supportive of the thing than it deserves. It's like criticizing people for haven't having actually read or watched anything from Molyneux, but you don't need to do any of that to know the man is full of shit. PS. A list of number points starts with 1, not 0.


 * Safe spaces have absolutely nothing to do with not being an asshole at work. If anyone needs a safe space, it's fuckin Damore of all people.


 * No, trying to reach equal opportunity for underprivileged genders and races is not discrimination and anyone who thinks the likes of affirmative action is racist is high off their ass. The bullshit moniker is accurate.


 * In the hands of someone like Damore, that is an incredibly specious claim to say it's scientifically accurate. You are ignoring the negative implication and underpinnings of what he's trying to say. And it's a sexist claim as well as insulting to our female userbase. Doesn't matter if it's scientifically accurate, especially when some of the studies you linked have outright said that biological gender gap and what accounts for gender differences are negligible at best.


 * Don't care, next one.


 * Yes he did say genetic differences keep women from equal footing. He didn't actually use those words, but you'd have to be an idiot to not see that's what he meant! Why the hell else would he go out of his way to ignore an actual way to eliminate systemic discrimination, all the while focusing on what is apparently female nature across all cultures and time periods? It's like that stupid HBD bullshit that claims it ain't racist.


 * Yes it is an instance of the balance fallacy. He placates to the banal notion that conservatives are equally afraid to speak out is as valid as women and minorities' fears of being discriminated against in order to save face from criticism of the more batshit conservative wingnuts out there, when the truth is that most conservatives should be afraid to speak out is because they have shitty views, all the while lapping in privilege. Look at the chart at the bottom of the article. White conservatives are not discriminated against in the slightest. They only have minority viewpoints in that their viewpoints are rightfully condemned by most people. Ditch this both sides bullshit.


 * As long as it gets rid of that dumb bit about neurotic women, fine. Didn't stop you from including that unsavory irony bit though as some sort of joke about how women are neurotic. Man oh man. You don't disappoint.


 * Proof that the reception was poor. Him being fired was proof the reception was poor.


 * More stupid whiny bullshit. His meaning is clear, and when he asks for people to stop restricting certain programs to women and races, he means to undercut diversity programs altogether because anything specifically designed to give underprivileged people a say is interpreted by conservative whites as discrimination. Ditch this bullshit. Doesn't help that he's aligned with the alt-right as of late and defended the KKK. Yes mang, the message is clear.


 * The polls are fucking bullshit. The one comes from a website run by David Horowitz of all people, and the only thing I could find on the Harvard-Harris poll is that it was endorsed by Newsmax of all places, not that it's actually affiliated with Harvard University. This was like when you linked to a study from the Center for Immigration studies and people appropriately got on your case.


 * Doesn't matter when much of the science is bunk. Shit, you link to an article that criticizes the memo based on its science and ignore listing any of its criticisms to make some other weird random point about how the science comes from decent journals. Great! Doesn't change that he's misusing their findings to the core. In light of how unsavory this memo is, you are making platitudes that are far more supportive than Damore or his "Kick me!" note he slammed in Google's face deserves.


 * As a final note, I don't think you belong on this site mate. Our personal differences aside and even speaking as a new sysop that had his coop case archived posthaste, this site is pretty left-leaning, and you trying to advocate for "intellectual" conservative views all the while underplaying some of the more unpleasant aspects of contemporary conservatism or outright parroting their vile talking points does you no favors. James Earl Cash (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with some of McLaghing's changes (the jab at how ironic it is for a woman to be offended by the memo that labels her as neurotic is dumb, a gross simplification of the neurotic personality and building upon the sexist assumption that women are emotional and dramatic; it should have been removed), Jame Earl Cash, you have to stop conjuring bad assumptions about McLaghing. It's out if control here and is simply not good style to the argument. You also need to refrain from the seething condenscion, like, dude, chill out. Examples: "buddy", "p.s. you enumerated your argument wrong","only an idiot can't see past x statement" and your entire last paragraph is completely unacceptable to say to anyone in this community regardless of ideological differences and what mainly prompted a response from me. Harp on conservatism, but don't label people who disagree with you as one (that's not how labels work, and yes, I am aware that politicians do this, but it doesn't make it right) and especially do not suggest anyone "doesn't belong". 18:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Good. Summarizing:
 * I created the page "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber".
 * James Earl Cash did a lot of edits. He removed factual information, see (6), (8), (9), (10) above; He added bias (2) and plain falsity (4). In particular, he did so without giving any explanation for his edits, as it can be seen in the fossil record (18:08, 27 February 2018 - 09:04, 28 February 2018‎), except for "(I don't think we should rely on stats from Front Page, the brainchild of David Horowitz, and the Harvard-Harris poll, which has been endorsed by the likes of Newsmax.)" At least, he wrote few lines in the Talk Page.
 * I reverted some (not all) of James Earl Cash edits, giving a detailed list of each of them and my motivations in the Talk Page.
 * James Earl Cash went essentially ape shit, and reverted everything back. You can read his motivations above, and how he is "open" to a constructive conversation. I do not think that they need a lot of comments, just highlighting some "pearls": "fuckin Damore of all people", "Doesn't matter if it's scientifically accurate", "you'd have to be an idiot to not see", "More stupid whiny bullshit", "The polls are fucking bullshit", "I don't think you belong on this site mate"
 * Now I have a question for the moderators, , , , , : Is the behavior of James Earl Cash (who is even a sysop) tolerated on RationalWiki, or will be taken serious measures?
 * If "Yes, it is tollerated", then good to know. I say adiós to RW, since I do not see any reason why I should waste my time trying to improving and/or adding contents - motivating everything point by point - if somebody else is allowed to do whatever edit/reversion he wants, to act like a kid, to move insults, and to oppose any rational conversation. -McLaghing (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I made my position clear. But this applies to both of you: whatever either of you doing: stop edit warring. I have noticed that right after this comment, you again reverted James Earl Cash's edits. The proper action is to continue discussing in the talk page and no more reverting. If neither if you can reach an agreement, I can provide another opinion and maybe get others on board, but otherwise, the page stays put and even locked for a little while to help calm down and avoid impulsive reverting. 18:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to pretend that McLaghing and I don't have a history, and I'm certainly not going to avoid treating a topic deserving of scorn with the hatred it deserves. For a topic like this? Sometimes you can't be nice. Sometimes you have to outright call a spade a spade. Because wanting "rational conversation" while advocating for shitty ideas all the while and pretending they're saying something else is the way that alt-right shitheads like Damore operate. The only thing I'll concede is telling McLaghing that he might not belong here but at the same time, I don't think people who try and promote racist sexist bullshit (this ain't the first time McLaghing has done this either. He tried linking to a study from the Center of Immigration Studies for fuck's sakes, and when a mod called him out on linking to a hate site, said it doesn't matter if the info is good) should be afforded any leniency.


 * And I know I'm not the only hot-blooded guy here. From skimming some of the saloon topics, ikanreed is passionate for lack of a better word (then again Ariel will bring that out of anyone), but he's pretty high up there. Getting sick of McLaghing whining to the mods every single fuckin time we have a disagreement too. Does he need a safe space?


 * EDIT: At the first sign of trouble, McLaghing immediately edit wars again even though I provided rebuttals, my incendiary language be damned. Respond to the points or don't dude, but the only one avoiding a rational conversation right now is you. At least have the decency not to edit the fuck out of this thing. And for anyone who still thinks I'm the only asshole here, McLaghing's main userpage is flat out fucking troll bait. He blatantly insults left wingers and relies on asinine cliches about being triggered and safe spaces.

James Earl Cash (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "I think I made my position clear" <- I read your message now. By coincide, I posted exactly one minute after you so I was not able to read you before. Anyway, I'll stop to do any edit to this page until the thing is settled. Could you please, as a moderator, answer to the question I wrote in bold in my last message? -McLaghing (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * McLaghing: The user got blocked for the behavior, so I believe that's a message the community sent to him. I would've blocked him too if he made one more comment like that again. But you also have to keep a cool head and don't call him a vandal, just call him "uncooperative". You did the right thing by rallying moderators to settle the dispute though. That's our job!
 * James Earl Cash: That doesn't excuse your behavior whatsoever. It doesn't matter the quality of the sources McLaghing cited or whatever implications he has behind his posts, you're still conjuring assumptions especially the flimsy accusation he's some apologia for alt-right, which again, is not good argument and there is no excuse to act condescending and mean. Which again, is unacceptable conduct when dealing with users that disagree. And I have called out ikanreed for the vitrol before, and just because he does it, doesn't give you the green light to treat "with scorn and hatred" it seemingly "deserves". If you're going to point to user's past actions, provide a link please to back up what you say so I can get my own interpretation rather than 100% relying on your interpretation (this applies for anyone who ever tries to talk about a specific action in the past and is more important if you trying to Chicken Coop; if you need to say "this user did this before", provide a link where the edit was made if you can). Thanks. 19:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "But you also have to keep a cool head and don't call him a vandal" <- OK, I checked and I was wrong on that vandalism thing, he deleted his own writing but I thought he deleted somebody else writing. Indeed, I have already admitted my mistake just before your message. So, now, can I fix the (0)-(10) edits? -McLaghing (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All right. But I've made commentary on the edits here. Some changes, I think, are a little suspect. They won't ruin the article, but I've explained how some of them are problematic. 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario's run-down
0: The memo itself can be placed in the external links of the article. I also think the emphasis to read the memo is unnecessary, especially with the duplicate. You're right, the memo needs to be available to show we're not misrepresenting what this guy's saying. Finally, maybe we should add quotes as references (e.g. the statement quoted in (2) can be supported by a direct quote as a reference).

1:I have no qualms about this change.

2: I don't think it matters one way or the other, but I don't disagree with the link to bullshit because this sounds like a baseless anti-affirmative action trope. The entire memo reminds me of the typical "ideological" diversity crap and blanket generalizations of the "left".

3: I don't like the part that says "a claim which is well-established in scientific literature". James Earl Cash points out that the differences aren't significant enough to affect women in the workplace, so I think that statement needs explanation and qualifying, for more nuance rather leaving readers up for interpretation of the degree of difference between men and women and their neurotic/agreeable levels. While this claim may be well-established, I don't know if it's a significant difference and if it's attributed to biology or societal expectations and experiences. On the other hand, I don't see James Earl Cash's willingness to give a weight to that claim, the weight being that it may has "negative underpinning" or "it's sexist" especially when the factors behind the claim are so complex, it's a little hasty to characterize the claims as sexist. Finally, the memo does at least try to help women out, it just has a very flawed premise. In my opinion.

The citation changes just for the sake of access is fine for me.

4: I have to take your claim at face value, though James Earl Cash disputes it, but isn't very helpful. This is James Earl Cash's quote, "Yes he did say genetic differences keep women from equal footing. He didn't actually use those words, but you'd have to be an idiot to not see that's what he meant!". Nothing useful here. A quote from a page of the memo, even if it's just one specific example, helps wonders. Overall, though, the paper is vague.

5: I have to disagree with this one. I don't think viewpoints guised as "conservative" have equal footing to minorities feeling they are under threat and need to voice how uncomfortable they are. I'd like to see examples of what viewpoints people like him are uncomfortable to express though before I make any more judgement, but that's my impression. The memo itself doesn't even specify what the "conservative" viewpoints are, just that he assumes they're automatically "silenced" and also accuses the left of being "politically correct". That's fishy.

6: This one should stay removed. Perhaps their reactions are important, but the "Ironically, displaying a high level of neuroticism, a female Google employee said she considered the memo as a personal attack" part is bad, relies on a stereotype ("all women are too emotional and sensitive"), overly simplifies neuroticism (taking potentially sexist claims, the memo can be interpreted as "women are biologically inferior to men", and treading the line of being either concerned or demeaning will provoke a defensive response; being sensitive is only one component of neuroticism).

7: I believe the statement about "proof" and the media was like, "he got fired for writing like a dick, so the media doesn't need to rub it in". It's not a well-written though, especially the word "proof" being misused here. Should be "evidence is clear enough", something along the lines, but again, simply asserting it's "proof" and "clear" and "obvious", that's not good argument.

8: The "anti-diversity" characterization can stay, and while I think we need to be fair to the memo, it also seems like the defense of the memo is an unchecked "argument by assertion", and so the statement weighs more in favor of the memo's claim. We need more than a "I'm not a sexist but"-like statement to dispute the "anti-diversity" characterization. My impression is that the characterization isn't wrong. The part on Washington Post can stay, seems about right. The CNN thing, I see "no strong claim", but there is no denying weaker claims. Is there weaker claims in there? And I still think the overall theme of the memo is "women are less biologically fit for tech roles", which means the statement is at least sort of correct? The Slate thing seems correct too, to a degree, though, but it also sounds like a stretch (especially when the memo does, again, give real suggestions to improve women in the workplace). The alt-right has endorsed the memo and there is no statement on if Damore denounced the claims or not. If he did not, then that would make him complacent and that's not good. Finally, the whole "memo pushes against discrimination", I'm not as convinced. I need to know the whole context of "Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races". What programs and classes? What genders and races? Is he talking about minority outreach programs by special groups? Is he talking about blatant discriminatory "men's only" classes which are already illegal anyway? From the memo, it seems the guy is against minority outreach programs, but he's vague either way. The vagueness of the demo is very suspicious to me.

9: I think the general poll can stay. I don't see a problem with it.

10: I think the statement can stay though, again, it needs to be qualified. James Earl Cash, again, has tried to say otherwise, but again, is unhelpful. "Doesn't matter when much of the science is bunk." "Doesn't change that he's misusing their findings to the core." No explaining, he just says, "you're wrong".

20:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would advise you to actually read the article in question before agreeing with any of McLaghing's suggestions to downplay Damore's dubious qualities. Look at the bottom half of the actual article. He has firmly aligned himself with the likes of Stefan Molyneux and Milo Yiannopoulous. He has defended the KKK. The polls McLaghing wants came from a fringe right-winger like David Horowitz and the other is from a source that has been endorsed by Newsmax. They don't belong here. Re: my statements about the science being bunk? Read the cited articles in question and the responses of actual scientists who took issue with him. Damore is blatantly misrepresenting them.


 * As for my other issues with McLaghing. Here is where he justified using data for a hate group,(scroll down to 21) where CowHouse called him out. Here is his inflammatory userpage. Here is him being chided for blocking another sysop on the grounds that he was afraid said sysop would revert his edits (go to section 3). Here he is deciding to ignore all my points and edit war with me no matter what I say (go to the Cleaning section). This ain't me making stuff up. For the record, I didn't even call him alt-right, I called Damore alt-right, which given some of his shady alignments immediately following his firing, he most certainly is. Even if for whatever reason McLaghing doesn't respond to my points, there is still no way my edits should be reverted, because that would involve giving credence to the likes of Damore, who doesn't deserve it. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the memo, and I think it's sleazy though I still write it off as misguided. It whines about "shaming to silence" but never specifies what those "conservative" viewpoints are that made people dismiss and fire them (one source is a shoddy NYPost article that thinks conservatives have it just as bad as gays and blacks (they're dense, are they) and think that research on reverse-discrimination against whites is being denied and act like that's a bad thing) and also an op-ed which also seems like junk (like suggesting that conservatives don't hate minorities, minorities just happen to be more liberal, which sounds wrong) despite my agreeing with the left's crap on GMOs. It also made blanket generalizations about the left and the right such as "the left wants to protect women because it likes weak people". Overall, I can see why the guy got fired but I don't agree with the firing; he should just be ignored. 21:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * S'yeah, overall, I think this memo is a bunch of crap and has never said ONCE that differences can be attributed to societal expectations (e.g. more women like social and art jobs, more men like coding and shit; it's way more complicated than mere innate personality differences). It implies that we don't ask "why are there so many men in jobs", and it makes claims like "men seek status" and imply that it's inherently biological. I think I said it a lot of times, but the memo is just generalization after generalization on simplistic understanding of the studies of differences between men and women. 22:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply to: LeftyGreenMario's run-down
I write in a new subsection for the sake of convenience. I made the changes on the things we agree, and below you find my replies to your comments:

0, 1: OK.

2: "because this sounds like a baseless anti-affirmative action trope" <- The point is that "this sounds" is essentially an opinion.

3: "I don't like the part that says "a claim which is well-established in scientific literature"" <- But it is. The claim is "women are more prone to neuroticism and agreeableness" and yes, it is well-established. The implications of this proneness on the workplace are another things, and can be discussed later.

4: "I have to take your claim at face value," <- I don't understand what you mean. Check the memo. Nothing is written about genetic traits, saying the opposite is falsity.

5:"I don't think viewpoints guised as "conservative" have equal footing to minorities feeling they are under threat and need to voice how uncomfortable they are." <- I don't what to reply, since Sundar Pichai did not said that.

6: "This one should stay removed. Perhaps their reactions are important, but the "Ironically, displaying a high level of neuroticism, a female Google employee said she considered the memo as a personal attack" part is bad, relies on a stereotype ("all women are too emotional and sensitive"), overly simplifies neuroticism" <- It does not relies on a stereotype since it does not say that all women reacted in such a way to the memo. The irony is that some women, horrified by a memo which the saw as calling them "neurotics", acted in a neurotic way. Of course that is not the exact definition of neuroticism, it is only one trait on neuroticism... Anyway, the information on those women's reaction should be written.

7: "I believe the statement about "proof" and the media was like, "he got fired for writing like a dick, so the media doesn't need to rub it in". It's not a well-written though" <- Anyway it is not a good argument: Company can fire people for unjust reasons, that somebody has been fired is not a proof of anything. Since you agree it is not well-written I reverted it.

8: "The CNN thing, I see "no strong claim", but there is no denying weaker claims. Is there weaker claims in there?" <- I don't no what you mean, the statement is on what is on the memo, not on what is not. "And I still think the overall theme of the memo is "women are less biologically fit for tech roles"" <- The fact is the on should judge the memo on what is written in it, what it seems to be the overall theme is a matter of opinion. I reverted the section "The media", do some changes eventually.

9: OK

10: I don't know what you mean by "qualified". Links to the cited articles and their journal ranking are written.

-McLaghing (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

2. Again, don't care either way, but you didn't really address my argument. It's not a baseless opinion I made up, it sounds exactly like people railing against affirmative action because they fear it'll put whites at an unfair disadvantage.

3. You haven't really read my entire argument. I didn't disagree that it was well-established, I said that it's odd that the statement was made with no further comment when there should be a comment on the degree of the differences (i.e. are the differences enough to hinder women in the workplace?)

4. My point was that he may not have literally said this, but there are implications of genetics here. He even said, while trying to address the "cultural norms" argument by saying the differences are highly heritable and are found throughout all cultures. This all implies genetic basis.

5. Oh, I thought this statement was from the memo, my bad. I don't have much of a comment beyond that, though, I think his view points should be there.

6. The statement is an implication that the woman just "confirmed" what the memo said about women being more neurotic and stuff, and IMO, that's still reliant on a stereotype; if you emphasize that it's just one woman, why the "ironic" remark? The issue was that she was offended by it and no need to imply credence to the memo with the "ironically" word choice.

8. I was referring to this: "CNN wrote that Damore "argued that women are not biologically fit for tech roles",[39] while no such strong claim as women's not biologically fitness for tech is present in the memo"; I don't see an explicit claim, but the memo does try to attribute women's underrepresentation in the tech roles to women's inherent "incompatibility and in turn, this means they are "not biologically fit for tech roles". I think the "women are not biologically fit for tech roles" statement is misleading though. The memo implies only that they're less fit.

9. Actually... I wonder why you cited FrongPageMag that quotes David Horowitz and looks overall like wingnut news and pretended that this source is credible. It's not.

10. By :"qualified" I mean, there needs to be additional comment as in "qualifying an argument". Maybe that wasn't the right word. I think it can stay though, actually, if the news media accuses him of using "dated" or "bad" sources, they have to be corrected. 23:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

2. "It's not a baseless opinion I made up, it sounds exactly like people railing against affirmative action because they fear it'll put whites at an unfair disadvantage." <- I have to repeat myself: "it sounds exactly like" is your opinion. How can you know what they fear? Can you read their minds? I can't. A serious commentary should be based on objective proofs, not subjective impressions.

3. "I said that it's odd that the statement was made with no further comment" <- You are free to add further comments (based on evidences I mean...)

4. "My point was that he may not have literally said this" <- OK, but then, it should be cited what exactly he said. The criticisms should be on the content of the memo, not on a personal interpretation of it.

6. "The issue was that she was offended by it and no need to imply credence to the memo with the "ironically" word choice." <- Why not? If a say "all muscle men are violent", I am saying a false thing. However, if a muscle man then come and says "How you dare call me violent!?" and then punch me... I said something false but still the situation is ironic.

9. "Actually... I wonder why you cited FrongPageMag that quotes David Horowitz" <- If this is a problem you can add a citation to "The Hill" http://thehill.com/policy/technology/348246-poll-google-was-wrong-to-fire-engineer-over-diversity-memo. Actually, what is matter are the data in the poll, not the news journal which I added just for redundancy.

10. "if the news media accuses him of using "dated" or "bad" sources, they have to be corrected." <- Exactly.

Anyway, I'm not going to edit the page soon. I made my points and already spent a lot of time on this thing, making very little because of James Earl Cash obstructionism. I guess soon of later most of the factual information I wrote would be deleted by James Earl Cash or somebody else with similar temperament; and that this would be tolerated to the extend which makes almost impossible to fix things without putting so much energy that at the end... it is not worth. -McLaghing (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a problem to cite Frontpage Magazine as if it were a credible source. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, they are an extreme right hate group. CowHouse (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Let's assume it's my opinion. Yes, it's subjective. But what's wrong with my reasoning? You haven't really addressed my argument, just writing it off as "an opinion".

4. Uh, no, interpretation isn't bad, especially if you can substantiate them with examples. This is focusing on the content of the memo and it can be rightfully interpreted as "it implies genetic basis" and I've even provided content on the memo that supports the interpretation. DO NOT clip out the extra words I said and then make an argument after it.

6. That's not a perfect analogy. IMO I think a better one would be "This memo more explicitly says that women are touchy sensitive overly emotional creatures and this hinders their work, and in response, there is a woman who ironically wants to resign from the memo because she feels it's an attack on her." The "ironically" part makes it seem like the resigning is unjustified and only proves the memo's point while ignoring the legit hurtful things the memo says. Even so if it's ironic or not, the article should let the reader come to her own interpretation. Either way, the "ironically" part is at worst, implying that the woman's choice to resign is mockable and at best, a "show and tell" style of writing as opposed to "show don't tell".

9. The data matters but we shouldn't lend credence to those sources AND the sources can interpret the data in a dishonest way. If the data's more important than the source, why did you cite the source and not the direct data? I don't even have to look at media bias fact check; the source has a nice quote from dingbat David Horowitz and dishonest headlines like "School Mass Shootings a Non-Issue Say... Gun Control Advocates" and derogatory language toward this collective hivemind "the left" who are, according to them "pro-crime and anti-2nd amendment". Quality journalism. 19:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

2. "Let's assume it's my opinion. Yes, it's subjective. But what's wrong with my reasoning? You haven't really addressed my argument," <- I addressed it: "it sounds exactly like people railing against affirmative action because they fear it'll put whites at an unfair disadvantage." -> How can you know what they fear? Can you read their minds? I could say that you sound like somebody who thinks/believes/feels like XYZ... that's just my personal impression, supported by no evidences.

4. "I've even provided content on the memo that supports the interpretation." <- My point is that if the memo do not speak of "genetic traits" but of "everything else that could be interpreted as genetic traits", then the commentary should not speak of "genetic traits" but it should speak of such "everything else that could be interpreted as genetic traits". Otherwise the commentary is just stating that in the memo it is written something which is not.

6. "That's not a perfect analogy. IMO I think a better one would be "..." <- That's not an analogy, that's the actual thing. Anyway, it is clear to me that the "irony" in RationalWiki is OK when belongs to certain narratives and it is not when it is against them. "the legit hurtful things the memo says" <- Which hurtful things does the memo say? Tell me (by quoting them). "Even so if it's ironic or not, the article should let the reader come to her own interpretation." <- While, accordingly to you, it is completely legit to call literally "bullshit" the content of the memo, instead of letting the reader come to his own interpretation... Well, that says a lot.

9. "why did you cite the source and not the direct data?" <- I don't know what you mean. I cited the direct data of the source as a PDF after "A Harvard-Harris poll survey". I had already said that I added a reference to a news journal just for redundancy and I have gave an alternative reference to "The Hill" which accordingly to MediaBiasFactCheck is slightly Left-Biased, I don't know what else to say about that. --McLaghing (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

2. No you haven't. You just written it off as "an opinion" when I've said it has parallels toward the racist critics of affirmative action and MRAs' and white supremacists' unjustified issues toward minority outreach programs. That's an argument, to refute it, you tell me why my reasoned inferred parallels are wrong, not bring up an entirely different argument and dismiss that argument as just me making up random assumptions / feelings out of my ass.

4. That's being pedantic. Also, the Washington Post article has corrected it to "biological traits" (if it has written "genetic traits" to begin with), but it's handy to write it as "biological traits" because the memo heavily implies it, including the "it is highly heritable" language and its utter dismissal of society expectations right in the beginning of the memo. We can't just say "these particular traits that he said isn't society-created because he said it is highly heritable and men castrated at birth and raised as women behave like men.

6. Hurtful things? Initially, the "hurtful things" was referring to the context of the analogy, where I exaggerated the bits about how "women are touchy sensitive hysterical freaks who can't get leadership positions because screw them". Again, that part was only for the analogy. The actual memo, however, was insulting to me, as a woman (even though I do suffer from anxiety and negotiating, I can say it's from my lack of self-confidence and my family upbringing with a touch of biology that may have contributed to either but I can still work on those unlike what the memo implies, and guess what, I'd highly value women's groups too, given my future career is also men-dominated, except the memo hates those groups for whatever reason rather than, you know, instead rallying for things like The Good Men Foundation or getting off his ass after being fired and getting help and collabing with people to make a genuine and inclusive men's support group). The memo itself, beyond the rank ignorance of evolutionary psychology, has these statements to make. You got me there with the interpretation thing, though, but the "ironically" part doesn't sit with me, and also, your analogy would work better if you punched muscle man, saying "why are muscle men so violent to people" and then he punches back and the retaliation is now considered "lol, irony, he's a muscle man and he did something violent".
 * "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership."
 * "In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females." <- note the language here, it makes an analogy toward "female" and "the weak", hence, it wants you to think "females are weak and need to be protected".
 * "Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts." <- this is a fucking disgusting analogy; if he thinks THIS is how you criticize those outreach groups, no wonder this person is "shamed into silence".
 * "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support." About those programs, yeah, he has a problem, but I wonder what his views on The Good Men Foundation. The biggest thing is that women are disadvantaged and they're disadvantaged historically and systematically and we're still recovering from those effects. The programs, I think, are meant to address it, but it doesn't mean things like The Good Men Foundation aren't acceptable either, unlike what he thinks. And I think those women's programs also encourage discussion and cooperation from men.

9. Well, I rewrote it and the poll doesn't seem sketchy but it also doesn't have that much attention beyond the hill and wingnut sources, so overall, it can be stated, though it's not notable. 19:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

CheeseburgerFace's run-down
I honestly don't have enough time right now to read this wall of text. McLaghing has a history of edit warring and being overtly combative. I do think this is a case of someone being in the "wrong neighborhood". If McLaghing keeps their attitude up, I wouldn't be surprised if they get their sysop removed. 02:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What's attitude? Argumenting my points with LeftyGreenMario on the Talk Page? You can see that I'm not edit warring with LeftyGreenMario, so your "sysop removal" reminder/threat is not needed. -McLaghing (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Random nonsense from James Earl Cash to anyone who still cares
For the record, and to anyone who's still reading this, I'm not going to insult anybody's intelligence and say I wasn't hostile, because, guess what, I was. However every single exchange I've had with McLaghing has involved me debating him and in the end, he throws his hands up and declaring he's not going to have any of what I say. Our first meeting on the Molyneux page, he as a sysop told me, a regular user, he was going to ignore all my future replies and edit war with me until the sun goes down. Even in the Basic Income page, the latest dumb dispute between us that was finally resolved started by him not being able to see eye-to-eye with several other users and I on the talk page. So I made an edit on the main page thinking all's fair in love and war since there's no solid consensus and he immediately rallies the mods around me based on that alone to have a mob based vote instead of actually judging the information's accuracy and relevance as it stands on its own. That's not even getting into how he rallied the mods at me on the Basic Income page in the first place because I reverted an unbelievably minor edit and he assumed it was because of our first spat on the Molyneux page without anything to base that on, ignoring that I left notes on the history section about how it was unsourced info. Not to mention he's apparently under some impression everyone has to get along perfectly on the talk page when I've seen many a counterexample where that didn't happen. In the end there will be heated moments where users lose their composure at each other, but at the end of the day, let the content speak for itself and put your ego to the side. Ariel and I have had moments like that, but in the end, the better content on the pages wins out, our history be damned. The first real time McLaghing and I have another conflict as two sysops instead of him facing a lowly regular user, he went at me and skipped the chain of command to get an edge over me before we even had a chance to debate and judge whose information actually belonged on the page in question, even trying to use a mod like Christoper's approval of his arguments to shut up my points on the talk page without actually bothering to go at them.

The only reason I started this topic on this talk page to begin was (and I did start the talk page this time, he didn't start any topics that asked for thoughts on his first draft of an article so I figured he might be okay with additional input, not to mention Fuzzy definitely had a lot of issues with how this article needed to be leveled out) that I figured McLaghing would start a scene with me if I didn't. I didn't need to be in anymore hot water with the mods thanks to him so I'd give him a chance to debate me this time before editing any of my points out if only to cover my own ass, because as much as he might feel otherwise, this page was barebones and needed a lot of meat to flesh it out. More to the point, you can't have a neutral opinion on a hot topic like Damore, and the facts about Damore need to be introduced, anyone's personal approval notwithstanding. The facts are the facts and personal ideological opinions, of which I believe McLaghing has if his obnoxious remark about women and his underplaying of how Damore explicitly wanted to remove programs for the undeprivileged (women and minorities) and tried to omit how Damore implied women weren't as biologically capable as men, can't interfere. I figure in the aftermath of it all, a debate is what he would want to decide what's right before making any hasty decisions. Lo and behold, come morning and I find a big chunk of my edits to his material specifically has been reverted without consultng me on the talk page first. He always used to give me grief for reverting material without seeing the talk page first, but he can't follow his own rules? Give me a break. His politeness here in lieu of that was insulting. He even outright said before I responded with my acerbic tone that he wouldn't respond to me if I dared to put my points as a wall of text or something equally asinine. That's the MO he used to disregard me on the Molyneux talk page and akin to when he tried to shut me up on the Basic Income page. Yeah, there's a place for niceness and I abhor rudeness as much as anyone, but if someone is going to try and jury rig the odds in his favor when he can't show why his input belongs or assumes bad faith based on common spats, then it's not about being nice anymore, it's about someone who's not qualified to do the job he's been assigned to do and thinks he can get his way no matter what. If he's going to be stubborn and add conditions on how he wants to debate, or after rallying the mods on me on this page because I was a little testy while ignoring my salient points that were the core of my arguments, and pretend while I was blocked that he can edit this page to his liking and nobody seems to have a problem with his bad info or even regards a word I've said and provided links to on his dubious character? That is beyond irritating.

And for the record, both on this page AND the Basic Income page, I have left notes on the history section as to why I made my actions, particularly about some of his sketchier sources for his polls (see something as shady as David Horowitz and the latter Harvard-Harris poll that from what I've gathered, is not connected to the actual Harvard and thus with that fact in mind, has no actual significance on a topic of this magnitude) that hadn't been noticed by anyone until recently. The other thing is, nobody owns any article on this website. People are ignoring how McLaghing deliberately tries to lord his way over other users who something to bring to the table but he doesn't like what he sees. I like this site and care for the quality of its content. I'm not going to hold my tongue and certainly not kowtow to anyone who's out of control and spreading lies just because its the internet. Information matters. If too many people here have forgotten that, then the quality users will leave. I've said that plenty of times before, but this is veering dangerous close to being the straw that broke the camel's back for me. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This should be a side-by-side
For obvious reasons. 04:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * At the same time, I don't want this article to become so wishy-washy that it outright mitigates the overall negative implications of Damore's memo and the shady people it endeared him to in the first place. McLaghing's original version omitted a good chunk of info that veered into misusing his sources' actual claims, outright lied about the memo not making genetic claims about women if only because the memo relied on an implication to get its point across instead of an actual statement, and was far too supportive of the whole fiasco to begin with. James Earl Cash (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should be side-by-side, that way it should be easier to judge claims of bias in interpretation. Bongolian (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with a side-by-side version. I think that side-by-side is good for topics of a more philosophical flavor like, for example, abortion. For such topics, there is not a really objective answer, and it is a matter of discussing pros and cons accordingly to some philosophical/political/ideological views. Side-by-side is very good for that. On the other hand, the claims of the memo are precise and presented in quite scientific terms. For each claim, if it is supported by evidences then RW should point to such evidences, if otherwise it is confuted then RW should make clear that. A linear structure like the current one is good for that. I'm afraid that a side-by-side version would turn into something like a political debate: Column 1 "the memo said this which is true (references)", Column 2 "but that could be also be interpreted as... that is false accordingly to (references which have nothing to do with the memo)". --McLaghing (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * if you actually bothered to look at the scientific studies that you quoted from the very beginning in "support" of the memo, you'd see even they refute a lot of Damore's claims, that they address the problem of the gender gap and how faulty such studies were to begin with. The man is full of shit. This ain't rocket science. Jesus Christ. You're acting like he's beyond reproach. You even said in your chat with Mario that his analogy about the hysterical fragile women wasn't an analogy, that no, it was the actual thing but you can't see why that's insulting. Fascinating. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What I don't like is how McLaghing assumes that "oh, my arguments are just my interpretation. Having different interpretations is good, but they need to be bolstered like any other claim. I've tried to bolster mine, but he keeps writing it off as "it's just your feelings" and implications I'm just putting words in the guy's mouth without disputing my reasoning. As for the analogy part, he maybe misunderstood. I was talking about his "a guy punched me for something I said", but I've later offered a corrected version of the analogy. Or was referring to my exaggerated version of the Google memo. Hard to tell. 19:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Assertions need references
Due to the edit warring on this article, any additional assertions should have good references to back them up. Bongolian (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There should also be a section assessing the importance of the story. Since Mr. Damore is a soft-ware engineer and an autistic person, nothing he asserted in his report needs to be treated as if it were a report from the academy, or interpreted through any implied social implications he is likely incapable of making.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's particularly relevant whether or not Damore is autistic regarding how to assess what he said. It may be symptomatic of why he said it, but I don't think we're especially concerned about his motivations. Bongolian (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see what we are rightly concerned with at all. Why would his writing be particularly relevant? He is a soft-ware engineer and not a social scientist. The real story is the media reaction to a sophomore-level social science term paper that strains the reasoning capacity of popular media operating at a grade-school level. How to separate the facts from the ostensible implications? A better question is why bother? You can't assume anything about his intentions or implications because he is autistic. Nothing in this article should be personal. If he is wrong about a fact, it should be pointed out. I imagine some of Damore's claims lack consensus. That is a double-edged sword.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the section about science, a lot of the citations needed are already covered by the referenced scientific studies at the end of the paragraphs. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That may be, but each of those sentences needs to have a reference even if it is the same reference as elsewhere. I have done something similar elsewhere in the article, and you can follow this example:
 * First occurrence:
 * Subsequent occurrences:
 * Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Very good. But something should be done also for all the "citation needed"'s in the section "The memo". -McLaghing (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. Bongolian (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems the same to me. I cannot find your changes. --McLaghing (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, maybe you meant "Correct it by yourself". I would do, and I would delete all the "citation needed"'s sentences, because I think there's no source supporting them and the burden of proof in on who wrote them. But I guess that, especially if done by me, this would immediately start an edit war. -McLaghing (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I meant what I said. I don't care who adds references, but they should be added. Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that there are references supporting such claims? If you know there are, then you should add them. If you don't know, the burden of proof is on who wrote those sentences, and - unless he add references - they should be removed. -McLaghing (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that there were such references. I agree, a statement should be deleted if no one can come up with a supporting reference. Bongolian (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Is that rule gone? Because a lot of assertions without references have been added. --McLaghing (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No,, as far as I'm concerned, it is not gone. Assertions need references, and I believe that agrees with this. The more contested an article, the more that each and every sentence needs a reference. You may think that sucks, but it sucks a lot less than edit warring. It also makes it less likely that the page will be protected and have unverifiable statements removed. , this also pertains to you. Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * McLaghing, quoting science and statistics and news reports without a source is a problem. Analyzing a person in question especially when they make offensive and sketchy claims is fair game. You might as well be suggesting that it's okay to take Trump at his word when he says about Mexican drugs dealers, that "some of them are good people."


 * Also re: Bongolian. I'd like if you were relentless about any of my mistakes and list specific examples. I like to think that my latest updates were pretty well sourced but I'll do a double-check if I fucked up. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, that is reasonable, . I will have another read through of the article when/if editing on it slows down. Bongolian (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Analysis". McLaghing has no clue what that means and thinks they're just "assertions". 20:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

He's a white supremacist !!! All the evidences
Please list below all the evidences that Damore is a white supremacist. I mean "evidences" not "argumentations". Something Damore has said/done with the corresponding sources is good. -McLaghing (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

All the evidences:


 * 1) (write the first here)

I'm gonna do everyone a favor here and bow out of this nonsense right now. If Mario is still interested in playing, I might tag along, but yeah...don't see how this "discussion" will end well for anyone. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, McLaghing's deprived capacity for analyzing language and arguments beyond the raw words and understanding dogwhistles and double-speak the white supremacists and alt-right often employ (which I've given plenty examples through interwiki links) is seriously rubbing on me. I and James Earl Cash have explained our points, in the utmost verbiage, yet McLaghing willingly overlooks and dismisses as "not explicit evidence", strawmans my points (by unnecessarily quoting me and clipping my points and excusing them as "it's easy for me to respond to wrong premises" and there is no reason to quote me like this otherwise, disregarding my point about how he's complacent with the crowd that has endorsed his work, making a horrible strawman analogy that we'd think Jordan is a white supremacist because his mustache looks like Hitler's), defends how Damore pegs minority groups for no reason besides the faulty "it's discrimination" which I've also explained is a racist playing card to accuse minority support as "reverse discrimination". I'm not participating it because McLaghing will just dismiss them as "assertions" and probably move the goalposts as well. 20:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Welp, that's all folks! James Earl Cash (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

To both of you: Why are you getting upset? I stopped to edit the page (what would be the point? I am required to have a long discussion just to change a single sentence, while you can write entire paragraphs without objections) and you are essentially doing whatever you want with the content. The funny thing is that everything started with James Earl Cash calling the first version of the page "Bit of a biased article" but just compare the page then and now! :-D Come on...

Clearly, the real motivation you are getting upset is that when you are asked to support your claims with evidences you have nothing to say... -McLaghing (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess the only good takeaway from this is that not only do you get snippy with other users over an argument, but you're so brazen to edit war just to spite people, even after having put yourself in good graces with the mods. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave the entire pave another read through, and the biggest problem is that no one said Damore is a white supremacist. The most I have done is said that he has criticised minorty groups for being discriminatory toward white men (a claim I find obtuse and potentially racist as how racists, not actual critcs, dislike affirmative action) and also being cozy enough with shady figures. This is the extent of Damore. We need to clarify at he is at worst apologia for white supremacists, but beyond this is probably speculation. The above comment I made did sound like I was saying he is a white supremacist, but to clarify and as I have said multiple times now: I don't think he is one. Damper is a misguided clueless schmuck at worst and bought into racist talking points, being complaining "anti white discrimination" and stupidly criticizing minority groups as "discrimination".  07:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your ad hominem arguments against "Damper" (Freudian slip) seem to signal exasperation due to scientific consensus problems, ambiguity of the memo, and inability of certain progressives to deconstruct the writings of an autistic engineer who won't be insulted into agreeing with them. "Damper is a misguided clueless schmuck at worst..." You also, much to my astonishment, have not hesitated to write of your personal umbrage with Damore. Naturally you would hesitate to call him "a misguided, clueless, autistic schmuck." How small a transgression it would then seem.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was typing from mobile, it seemed to autocorrect that next time, but mobile typing is a pain in the ass. I think I went into enough detail with why I call him a clueless schmuck. I don't want to respond to the rest of whatever that is, particularly the "autistic" part. Why you are so interested in bringing up his autism, that's another problem. 21:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)