Autism Isn’t To Blame For Bad Behavior.

Post Reply New Topic

I read this a little bit diffently:

"However,
to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several
discriminatory practices:
● Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race​ 5
● A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
● Hiring practices which can ​effectively lower the bar​​for “diversity” candidates by
decreasing the false negative rate
● Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same
scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
● Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal
discrimination​ 6"

In Germany he would have been successfully if he had sued Google because they had fired him. But in USA the workers seem to have only the right to shut up. A right of free speech doesn't really exists for the poor ones of course.

Hiring does not base solely on this. Nice boobs and a cute smile are sometimes really big arguments. Especially because most women accept to be paid worse than males. And autists don't have problems to find a job just because of worse skills or being unwillingly to work.

^Making fun of sarcastic statements is cynism. But I'm a little bit unsure how autistic people perceive this who even struggle with sarcasm that is nothing but bitter irony (making fun of really evil things because of bitterness).
Should I better skip such kind of postings here?

I always thought of sarcasm as a way of getting out of telling the truth directly. Sometimes the bold truth is harsh, but making light of a situation is even more hurtful in some instances. It makes people think they aren't valued.

Beyond the “sexism” it is pretty naive to send a paper to all your colleagues harshly criticizing your employer (echo chamber) and not expect to be fired. That behavior is to put it generously not being a team player.

The “Right to Free Speech” means only that the U.S. Government cannot arrest you for what you say, and the “Right to Free Press” applies in the same way to the written word.

If you are dismissed from your job, it does not mean that your rights have been violated.

It means only that your ex-employer thought you were being an a$$hole, and they were showing you the door.

OK, right. Sarcasm is rather biting and bitter mockery and doesn't needs to be ironic. Bitter irony just counts to it. But it's not just telling a bad truth but making fun of it.

Yes, that is what I think. The main problem was that the paper was made public, thus embarrassing Google.
If he had kept it as a confidential reply to his manager, there's a possibility he might still have a job.

To get back to the original topic, in the case of Damore, it seems like Aspergers played a very major role in his decision-making. He seemed to have good intentions but misread the situation and responded inappropriately by (a) taking Google's open speech policy too literally (b) not understanding that his comments (regardless of the facts) would still be considered offensive to women, (c) not comprehending the danger of openly criticising ones employer.
These correspond to classic Asperger traits (literal thinking, mind-blindness / low emotional intelligence, ignorance of unwritten rules and social hierarchies, and generally being inappropriate).

Also, Damore himself has never used Aspergers to try and excuse his behaviour, he has always taken responsibility for what he wrote.

So I don't think the cartoon has got that right, it's not just that he's an a**hole.
(Well, he may be an a**hole, but that's certainly not the only consideration here)

He sued google for his termination so that made me think he was playing the victim.

Let's check the facts here...

1. Write a sexist rant against female I.T. professionals.
2. Publish and distribute the rant on public websites.
3. Experience the indignant backlash.
4. Get fired from your job.
5. Claim that it was all "a joke" and that you are "a victim".
6. Sue your former employer for unlawful termination.

Let's not jump to any conclusions.

Aaaaaaaannnnd ... he's a troll.

Interesting how definition of troll has changed. It usually means someone who deliberately provokes people and causes trouble.

Now it has come to 1)do something wrong 2)get caught and be punished for it 3)play the victim=troll


Kids do this all the time. My son does this too but he is 8 and I hope he will grow out of it.