Reply to post:

Your top five dreadful people the Google manifesto has pulled out of the woodwork


I spent a few minutes last night reading through Damore's original memo, thought it was well researched, backed up with verifiable facts, reasoned and nuanced - and made some damn good points - for instance, is it really diverse and inclusive, to exclude a section of the company from support mechanisms and help with professional development, just on the basis of their race (i.e they're white), or their sex (they're male)? Are Google going for equality of opportunity (should be standard everywhere), or equality of outcome? And is Positive Discrimination not just another form of discrimination?

I then spent some time this morning reading this "article", and I know which of the two works was the more considered and though provoking piece - and it wasn't the 3 page rant on The Register. Ignoring the fact it pretty much started off on incorrect principles (Damore claiming women couldn't code, when he said nothing of the sort), complained about "rich white men" generalising, then made some generalisations about "rich white men" - and then spent another two pages ranting about how wrong Damore was, without actually offering any proof that he was.

So yes, this author has helped with my top 5 dreadful people. The author has gone straight in at number 1.

I've also tried to find a copy of the original memo (with sources) through a certain search provider, and for whatever reason it isn't finding anything.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020