Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."

[blah blah blah extensive discussion about the "science" of how women are biologically less suited to being leaders and coders]

"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."

"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."

Basically he starts from two faulty premise (women are inherently less suited to being engineers and and leaders) and draws a faulty conclusion (therefore, diversity efforts are bad and discriminatory, because men will always be inherently better).

The quotes you provide don't reflect your summary. They state that they may in part explain differences in representation in technology and leadership. The other quotes state that discrimination is not a remedy, and that not all differences are social constructs, and that these need to be considered if you want to provide solutions.

Why do you not consider his statements with regards to traits not to be true? You appear quite dismissive of the science he cites. It appears he chose relatively mild language here in presenting his arguments. Do you have alternative studies to provide that refute his points? Do you feel that discrimination should be a remedy, and if so why is it justified?

just give it up dude. slink back to your MRA sites.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

TL;DR this and all the previous responses:

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
You aren't providing specific examples to back up your points.
If you're right, the market would be rewarding you. Markets are rational.
You are using emotional arguments instead of scientific ones.
You're ignoring the simple explanations and trying to make things more complicated than they need to be.
If you think this is a problem for women, why aren't you also concerned about similar problems men face in other fields?
Much has already been done; if its not enough, why is it the responsibility of companies to do more?
It's better than it used to be so why are you still acting like nothing has been done?

Ladies, these jerk-offs get their jollies doing this. They have an unlimited supply of arguments that they will deploy just to wear us out (and hopefully make us slip up and look dumb). We need to stop engaging--it's not a back-and-forth, it's a dumb game they play because they don't respect us, they just want to toy with us. Leave them alone, in their basements. Talk to real men.

I think the above response demonstrates different traits between men and women.

If you want to work in STEM, you want to know the how and the why, so that you can understand and solve a problem. Likewise in other areas in life, it allows for communication. If you're married to a man, it helps to be explicit as to what you want.

There's no scores being kept here. This is an anonymous forum, we have no clue who each other are and who said what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing.

There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty.

You're sad. Under the law, "may in part" is overt. This isn't your freshman year philosophy class. You are not as smart as you think you are.

Can you explain further? I have an engineering background and work in patent law and when I see the words "in part" I interpret it as not 100%, but some quantity between 1-99%/

ok dimwit. saying someone is IN PART unable to do the job due to their gender is overt. "Overt" does not mean "the only reason." Imagine if someone said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."

[blah blah blah extensive discussion about the "science" of how women are biologically less suited to being leaders and coders]

"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."

"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."

Basically he starts from two faulty premise (women are inherently less suited to being engineers and and leaders) and draws a faulty conclusion (therefore, diversity efforts are bad and discriminatory, because men will always be inherently better).

The quotes you provide don't reflect your summary. They state that they may in part explain differences in representation in technology and leadership. The other quotes state that discrimination is not a remedy, and that not all differences are social constructs, and that these need to be considered if you want to provide solutions.

Why do you not consider his statements with regards to traits not to be true? You appear quite dismissive of the science he cites. It appears he chose relatively mild language here in presenting his arguments. Do you have alternative studies to provide that refute his points? Do you feel that discrimination should be a remedy, and if so why is it justified?

just give it up dude. slink back to your MRA sites.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

ok.

I disagree with your science. There is plenty of evidence that women are well suited to software engineering and leadership, but are kept out due to hostility and gender stereotyping. I think Damore is motivated by sexism.

So to clarify, is your view is that women are only kept out due to hostility and gender stereotyping without any other factors involved?

Given the anonymous nature of this forum its difficult to tell with whom I am having a conversation.

I'm saying it's the most important reason, and there's no way to disentangle any other factors until we remedy discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."

[blah blah blah extensive discussion about the "science" of how women are biologically less suited to being leaders and coders]

"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."

"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."

Basically he starts from two faulty premise (women are inherently less suited to being engineers and and leaders) and draws a faulty conclusion (therefore, diversity efforts are bad and discriminatory, because men will always be inherently better).

The quotes you provide don't reflect your summary. They state that they may in part explain differences in representation in technology and leadership. The other quotes state that discrimination is not a remedy, and that not all differences are social constructs, and that these need to be considered if you want to provide solutions.

Why do you not consider his statements with regards to traits not to be true? You appear quite dismissive of the science he cites. It appears he chose relatively mild language here in presenting his arguments. Do you have alternative studies to provide that refute his points? Do you feel that discrimination should be a remedy, and if so why is it justified?

just give it up dude. slink back to your MRA sites.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

ok.

I disagree with your science. There is plenty of evidence that women are well suited to software engineering and leadership, but are kept out due to hostility and gender stereotyping. I think Damore is motivated by sexism.

So to clarify, is your view is that women are only kept out due to hostility and gender stereotyping without any other factors involved?

Given the anonymous nature of this forum its difficult to tell with whom I am having a conversation.

I'm saying it's the most important reason, and there's no way to disentangle any other factors until we remedy discrimination.

That's a fair view, thanks for the clarification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing.

There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty.

You're sad. Under the law, "may in part" is overt. This isn't your freshman year philosophy class. You are not as smart as you think you are.

Can you explain further? I have an engineering background and work in patent law and when I see the words "in part" I interpret it as not 100%, but some quantity between 1-99%/

ok dimwit. saying someone is IN PART unable to do the job due to their gender is overt. "Overt" does not mean "the only reason." Imagine if someone said

I think your comment got cut off there. I wouldn't call it overt. Instead, i would call that ambiguous.

I don't read any hostility in those quotes, but you're taking offense to those quotes as well as my understanding of them. There's no need to belittle anyone's intelligence for drawing two different interpretations of the same phrase. I would caution taking offense to ambiguous statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's a rank and file nobody. He probably thinks, "I've made it to Google! I'm the best of the best!" while he plays ping pong and rides the bus back to San Francisco to go sleep in a shared yurt.

Guys like this are the worst. They're completely insecure now that they're among the best, and look around to see who they might put down to elevate themselves.

One of my friends is a woman who was an English major who took a few computer science courses and went from that to programming and running all sorts of IT systems. She's just plain smarter than most other people.

It seems to me that the Google engineer who started the current controversy was probably exaggerating the magnitude of sex-based differences, but that Google went overboard when it fired a guy who expressed a controversial opinion about this.

But I think the real issue is trying to figure out some way to make jobs like Google software engineer and new physician more compatible with making the daycare pickup deadline.

Whether women are, on average, worse at programming than men or not, many women are clearly capable of being great coders. But it's hard to combine working an 18-hour day and being the lead parent for a child.

Figuring out how to put a hard 12-hour cap on people's workdays might do a lot more to help get ahead than obsessing about sexism.

I agree except can't you see the obvious? why should women be the "lead parent"? the fact is that many arguments about women not being "willing" to do time consuming jobs are premised on her husband's failure to be an equal partner. If highly motivated women could be serenely assured that their children were receiving excellent loving care by their other parent (and dinner and clean laundry magically appeared) then they would be free to shoot for the stars. High acheiving men very often have a sah.

but what about women who WANT to be the lead parent? I do. It is more important to me than any other job I have ever held (and I've been an "executive") or could ever hold. my husband is willing to and capable of doing all the parenting "stuff" but I want to be the one to spend as much time with my kids before they go off to college.

i think this might be the point google guy was trying to make -- woman have been "allowed" to break out of their norms, but men haven't. until they do -- and by that i mean until it is ok for them to leave the office to get the kids on a regular basis (because they want to, not because the old ball and chain is out of town), we are going to be stuck in the same ruts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing.

There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty.

You're sad. Under the law, "may in part" is overt. This isn't your freshman year philosophy class. You are not as smart as you think you are.

Can you explain further? I have an engineering background and work in patent law and when I see the words "in part" I interpret it as not 100%, but some quantity between 1-99%/

ok dimwit. saying someone is IN PART unable to do the job due to their gender is overt. "Overt" does not mean "the only reason." Imagine if someone said

I think your comment got cut off there. I wouldn't call it overt. Instead, i would call that ambiguous.

I don't read any hostility in those quotes, but you're taking offense to those quotes as well as my understanding of them. There's no need to belittle anyone's intelligence for drawing two different interpretations of the same phrase. I would caution taking offense to ambiguous statements.

it's not ambiguous, jerk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's a rank and file nobody. He probably thinks, "I've made it to Google! I'm the best of the best!" while he plays ping pong and rides the bus back to San Francisco to go sleep in a shared yurt.

Guys like this are the worst. They're completely insecure now that they're among the best, and look around to see who they might put down to elevate themselves.

One of my friends is a woman who was an English major who took a few computer science courses and went from that to programming and running all sorts of IT systems. She's just plain smarter than most other people.

It seems to me that the Google engineer who started the current controversy was probably exaggerating the magnitude of sex-based differences, but that Google went overboard when it fired a guy who expressed a controversial opinion about this.

But I think the real issue is trying to figure out some way to make jobs like Google software engineer and new physician more compatible with making the daycare pickup deadline.

Whether women are, on average, worse at programming than men or not, many women are clearly capable of being great coders. But it's hard to combine working an 18-hour day and being the lead parent for a child.

Figuring out how to put a hard 12-hour cap on people's workdays might do a lot more to help get ahead than obsessing about sexism.

I agree except can't you see the obvious? why should women be the "lead parent"? the fact is that many arguments about women not being "willing" to do time consuming jobs are premised on her husband's failure to be an equal partner. If highly motivated women could be serenely assured that their children were receiving excellent loving care by their other parent (and dinner and clean laundry magically appeared) then they would be free to shoot for the stars. High acheiving men very often have a sah.

but what about women who WANT to be the lead parent? I do. It is more important to me than any other job I have ever held (and I've been an "executive") or could ever hold. my husband is willing to and capable of doing all the parenting "stuff" but I want to be the one to spend as much time with my kids before they go off to college.

i think this might be the point google guy was trying to make -- woman have been "allowed" to break out of their norms, but men haven't. until they do -- and by that i mean until it is ok for them to leave the office to get the kids on a regular basis (because they want to, not because the old ball and chain is out of town), we are going to be stuck in the same ruts.

Well we won't really know until men step up to the plate, will we?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Female engineer here, and the special programs and resources you are talking about don't exist in my industry - which is aerospace. In college we did have SWE (society of women engineers), but men were welcome at all events, including networking events.

As for the flexible workplaces you talk about - where available, they benefit men just as much as women (i.e. not special benefits available only to women). I will concede though that maternity leave is more generous than paternity leave.

I have definitely experienced hostility at my work, and I'm in my mid 30s so I'm not talking about stuff that happened a long time ago. I'm talking about stuff that happened recently. Women are harder on women at work (i.e. I've found that many female admins are hostile to female engineers, but are very nice to male engineers)

Some of my OLDER male colleagues with stay at home wives don't understand why I can't afford to put in extra hours at work and don't seem to understand the concept of efficiency. (i.e. My 45 hour work week is more productive than his 60 hour work week).

I was with you until that last paragraph. If you can't work the hours the job requires, own it, and understand that's why you're paid less. I'm a woman in a male-dominated industry, and I worked part time when my kids were young, and there's no shame in it. But when I went back full time, I was never the first one to leave. You may tell yourself you're more "efficient," but when something unexpected comes up and you're not there, it's a black mark against you.

This is a larger issue of the higher up you go the more hours you have to put in. Thats bs. I can work twice as fast as most people at my office. I negotiated multiple work from home days where I can multitask. I cant wait for the older bean counters to leave.

If you ever get to be in leadership, I think you'll feel differently. You have no idea what the higher ups have to deal with. You think you do, but you don't, until the buck stops with you. Among other things, they deal with emergencies when the person who was supposed to handle it went home because they (and I've had both men and women employees like this) because they worked so "efficiently" that day. I'm a woman and I work very efficiently, but I also remember who was there when I needed them. Those people get promoted, because I could depend on them. People like you undermine any arguments women make about gender equality. Equal pay for equal work. Not equal pay for the amount of work that you think is reasonable.

Wow you guys are old school. I did own it and I left that crappy place and found a place that appreciated my talent and compensated me very well. On top of that, I am in a leadership position, though it wasn't something I wanted. You know we are talking about tech jobs here right? If you can't figure out how to do your job without being chained to your desk or if you can't figure out how to support your boss remotely then you a pretty bad engineer.. I'm a manager now of a team of 20. We work in 5 different locations across the country; some of us work at home at least 1 day a week. I want my team to have work life balance, and I only care that they meet their deadlines and work at least 40 hours a week. And yes, I can depend on my team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing.

There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty.

You're sad. Under the law, "may in part" is overt. This isn't your freshman year philosophy class. You are not as smart as you think you are.

Can you explain further? I have an engineering background and work in patent law and when I see the words "in part" I interpret it as not 100%, but some quantity between 1-99%/

ok dimwit. saying someone is IN PART unable to do the job due to their gender is overt. "Overt" does not mean "the only reason." Imagine if someone said

I think your comment got cut off there. I wouldn't call it overt. Instead, i would call that ambiguous.

I don't read any hostility in those quotes, but you're taking offense to those quotes as well as my understanding of them. There's no need to belittle anyone's intelligence for drawing two different interpretations of the same phrase. I would caution taking offense to ambiguous statements.

it's not ambiguous, jerk

You are committing a logical fallacy. This is pretty basic logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."

[blah blah blah extensive discussion about the "science" of how women are biologically less suited to being leaders and coders]

"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."

"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."

Basically he starts from two faulty premise (women are inherently less suited to being engineers and and leaders) and draws a faulty conclusion (therefore, diversity efforts are bad and discriminatory, because men will always be inherently better).

The quotes you provide don't reflect your summary. They state that they may in part explain differences in representation in technology and leadership. The other quotes state that discrimination is not a remedy, and that not all differences are social constructs, and that these need to be considered if you want to provide solutions.

Why do you not consider his statements with regards to traits not to be true? You appear quite dismissive of the science he cites. It appears he chose relatively mild language here in presenting his arguments. Do you have alternative studies to provide that refute his points? Do you feel that discrimination should be a remedy, and if so why is it justified?

just give it up dude. slink back to your MRA sites.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

TL;DR this and all the previous responses:

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
You aren't providing specific examples to back up your points.
If you're right, the market would be rewarding you. Markets are rational.
You are using emotional arguments instead of scientific ones.
You're ignoring the simple explanations and trying to make things more complicated than they need to be.
If you think this is a problem for women, why aren't you also concerned about similar problems men face in other fields?
Much has already been done; if its not enough, why is it the responsibility of companies to do more?
It's better than it used to be so why are you still acting like nothing has been done?

Ladies, these jerk-offs get their jollies doing this. They have an unlimited supply of arguments that they will deploy just to wear us out (and hopefully make us slip up and look dumb). We need to stop engaging--it's not a back-and-forth, it's a dumb game they play because they don't respect us, they just want to toy with us. Leave them alone, in their basements. Talk to real men.

I think the above response demonstrates different traits between men and women.

If you want to work in STEM, you want to know the how and the why, so that you can understand and solve a problem. Likewise in other areas in life, it allows for communication. If you're married to a man, it helps to be explicit as to what you want.

There's no scores being kept here. This is an anonymous forum, we have no clue who each other are and who said what.

If you're working with women, it helps to believe them when they tell you they perceive something differently from you. And the "how" and "why" that you need to understand so that you can solve problems--in any aspect of life--includes "how people feel" and "why they feel that way." You can't treat every people problem like a technical problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing.

There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty.

You're sad. Under the law, "may in part" is overt. This isn't your freshman year philosophy class. You are not as smart as you think you are.

Can you explain further? I have an engineering background and work in patent law and when I see the words "in part" I interpret it as not 100%, but some quantity between 1-99%/

ok dimwit. saying someone is IN PART unable to do the job due to their gender is overt. "Overt" does not mean "the only reason." Imagine if someone said

I think your comment got cut off there. I wouldn't call it overt. Instead, i would call that ambiguous.

I don't read any hostility in those quotes, but you're taking offense to those quotes as well as my understanding of them. There's no need to belittle anyone's intelligence for drawing two different interpretations of the same phrase. I would caution taking offense to ambiguous statements.

it's not ambiguous, jerk

You are committing a logical fallacy. This is pretty basic logic.

lol. there's no logical fallacy or ambiguity there. it's just that you don't know how to read and don't understand discrimination law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

lol. there's no logical fallacy or ambiguity there. it's just that you don't know how to read and don't understand discrimination law.

"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."

You appear to not understand the word "may" as a modifier to "in part".

may
1. expressing possibility.

in part
1. to some extent though not entirely.

May is ambigious. In part is to what degree.

Used in that quote you can have multiple interpretations (I'm open to hearing more) including:
1) Distribution of traits might (or might not) explain...
2) Distribution of traits might explain to some degree (along with other factors)

o·vert
done or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden.

You appear to be arguing that this can be read plainly, running counter to the ambiguous language.

Of course you will just dismiss all of this anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

lol. there's no logical fallacy or ambiguity there. it's just that you don't know how to read and don't understand discrimination law.

"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."

You appear to not understand the word "may" as a modifier to "in part".

may
1. expressing possibility.

in part
1. to some extent though not entirely.

May is ambigious. In part is to what degree.

Used in that quote you can have multiple interpretations (I'm open to hearing more) including:
1) Distribution of traits might (or might not) explain...
2) Distribution of traits might explain to some degree (along with other factors)

o·vert
done or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden.

You appear to be arguing that this can be read plainly, running counter to the ambiguous language.

Of course you will just dismiss all of this anyways.


"you are probably dumb because you are black, but maybe it's just because your mom is dumb too."

does that sound like overt discrimination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"you are probably dumb because you are black, but maybe it's just because your mom is dumb too."

does that sound like overt discrimination?

I would agree with that statement, because the intent is more apparent in the second clause. I don't see the same fact pattern from the Googler's manifesto.