notconservative

I looked up the Advice Memo [0] written by the NRLB (thanks tptacek for mentioning that document) so that I could try to see what exactly they found discriminatory about Damore's paper. This is the relevant section:

The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.

The "these cases" reference is talking about a KKK member and someone who "made debasing and sexually abusive remarks to a female employee who had crossed a picket line months earlier". I don't see how Damore's memo is at all relatable to these.

And more importantly, the content they found to be discriminatory were the studies on differences in IQ and psycological traits by gender? How can presenting science be discriminatory?

If you disagree with some study, you explain why the methodology it used is bad or find other studies that try to explain it. You don't just claim that it's findings are discriminatory. That makes it impossible to discover why it's wrong (if it is).

[0] (PDF) http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391

Didn't I link 32-CA-205351 (both the case page and the PDF)?

Do you have a link to the Advice Memo?

I'm having trouble finding it on nlrb.gov's site or Google w/ `site:www.nrlb.gov`.

It looks like it may be this [0][1]. But, that case doesn't mention Damore as a participant, though it does list his lawyer: Dhillon Law Group, Inc.

[0] NRLB Case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351

[1] Advice Memo (PDF): http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391

That's possible of course.

But, I haven't read exactly what the NRLA found to be discriminatory. This would help anyone that is legitimately trying to improve working conditions and trying not to promote discrimination.

Yes, but not if you're trying to organize to improve working conditions, because this is protected by the NRLA.

If the NRLA believes only parts of Damore's memo were working towards improving working conditions and other parts were working to discriminate against women, which part is which.

To someone that agrees with Damore, it looks like everyone mischaracterized his effort to improve working conditions as sexism. Then Google was able to use that as cover to fire him for protected organizing.

Does the Advice Memo go into detail on exactly which parts of Damore's memo are discriminatory and which parts aren't?

“Much of" Damore’s memo was probably protected under the law. ... But ... Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shielded by labor law.

Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it.

I've heard him insist that he hasn't and wouldn't deliberately misgender one of his students.

From my understanding, it is purely the attempt to compel behavior from him that is his issue.

Poe's Law strikes again. I see your comment was even flagged.

And look! You're still here :)

I agree. If being mistaken as the wrong gender causes someone significant enough distress to make them commit suicide, they need (and likely are getting) serious mental health attention.

It is not the burden of anyone to cater to a stranger's mental illness. If you look vaguely male, I will say "excuse me sir, could I get past you?" (and "madam" for a vaguely female looking person). And there is no place where that should be illegal or morally wrong.

Deliberate misgendering is definitely a separate discussion from a genuine mistake.

I realize that cost of living has an impact on wealth.

But, we're talking about taxes and mostly about a couple specific provisions: SALT deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the higher-end tax rate. Relative wealth is definitely not relevant to the SALT and mortgage interest deductions. (To review, the mortgage interest deduction subsidizes the rich and the SALT deduction forces people in low tax states to subsidize people in high tax states)

The only one left is tax brackets. You could argue that tax brackets should take into account cost of living. So, if you earn 100k in Nebraska you'd pay a higher percentage of that than a similar person living in SF. But, I think that doesn't take into account the fact that SF is such an in-demand place to live. You don't have to live in SF. Basically, I'm not convinced that cost of living differences should play a role in taxes.

You're right that there are parts of this bill not to like, the estate tax stuff for sure and possibly the pass-through rate as well. But, where we disagree are the parts that "punishes expensive areas indiscriminately". Removing the SALT and mortgage deductions are good IMO.

A commenter in another thread posed a hypothetical about a family in CA vs. TX making $250k. Why should the one in CA get a big writeoff because CA has high taxes?

Of course, a state is free to tax it's citizens as much as it likes. But, that tax should not be deductible from state taxes, because it leaves families in other states to shoulder the burden.

Meanwhile, the mortgage interest deduction subsidizes people who can afford houses (in fact it incentivizes buying larger houses, which is also bad IMO). These are not the people who should be getting tax breaks.

OP is talking about comparing families specifically. This talking point doesn't mean anything on the level of a single taxpayer.

You could argue that the family in Texas is getting more services for their tax dollar. But, that is almost certainly false, because people who actually make enough to pay taxes don't tend to consume the kind of services that cost tons of money (aka. social services).

Thank you for posting the numbers to back this up.

"in the bay area" is not relevant. Living in the bay area is not a right. If the taxes or cost of living is too high, then you can't live in the bay.

I'm just saying that that's not how a lot of people see it. Living in an expensive market is not a right.

This is what a lot of commenters aren't getting. Complaints about raising my taxes to lower corporate taxes is kinda ironic because 200K+ is rich as far as most of America is concerned.

This article is more descriptive, not mentioning why the bill is setup like this. But, it's worth saying that this is working as intended from a GOP perspective. This hits mostly democrats. And even if it didn't, high state taxes are seen as propping up big (state) government.

I don't think it's that odd. This norm doesn't really exist currently. How do you think a company could encourage their employees to not talk politics at work?

That'd be fine with me if it was enforced equally. I haven't worked anywhere that attempted to do that, so not sure if it'd work or not. But, I'm skeptical.

I think what may happen is that it'd go underground. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. It may be a kind of secret reason to cause strife between employees.

It would have to be supported as a broader part of the company culture. No discussing things that aren't relevant to work. A "We're here to work and that's it." kind of policy.

It's nice that you have some friends that you can discuss opposing views with. I also cherish some of my liberal friends who I can have a genuine discussion with.

I've also had some bad experiences with family members who support Trump and are super emotional, vocal, and resistant to any discussion about him either on the policy- or simple behavior-level.

IMO there is a hidden wedge in politics between people who are willing to engage with their opinions and others who will take your beliefs in the worst possible context. It's not necessarily a right-left thing, or even a centrist/extremist thing either. I've had some of the most enlightening discussions about politics with people that are super extreme in their progressivism, communism, or conservatism, because they are so knowledgable about political philosophy or the data supporting their beliefs.

I was thinking the same thing! I was thinking about what NLP / ML you could whip up to answer these kinds of basic questions.

It could auto-reply to the super common things:

- Didn't read the article

- Why can't I downvote

- Title doesn't match the article

- No asking for upvotes

I did that recently, moved from the Bay Area to a red state. But, what about the concept of engaging with and challenging people who have different beliefs?

People don't really change their minds when you call them a racist, fire them, etc. When I am talking to a liberal who I know wont try to cause problems for me (like getting me fired), I will ask lots of questions.

Why do you believe X? What facts support that opinion? I believe Y because ..., where do you think the flaw in my logic is? Why do you think value A is more important that counter-value B?

It's really depressing that someone such as yourself, who has known what it is to be descriminated against for what you think are reasonable beliefs, would perpetuate the same against others.

If you think someone's views are wrong, then ask them why they think that. At worst, you'll get a better insight into how to point out why they are wrong. At best, you'll have a chance of convincing them that your position is better.

My main account is my reputation on the internet. That means there literally would be "serious consequences" if I posted conservative opinions. So, yeah. I'm a shallow idiot for not wanting to get fired.

I can say from first hand experience that this has happened. I know several closeted conservatives at my workplace and we all know that you shouldn't share your political leanings with anyone. Luckily there is some internal diversity of opinions. So, we can confront each other without consequences on things like immigration, labor issues, free trade, and social programs.

But, there are naturally areas where we all agree: guns, some other economic stuff, etc. So those opinions go completely unchallenged, where it'd be healthier to have liberal people to test those opinions.

The ultimate irony is that many conservatives will hesitate before commenting on this here, because people don't want to be on the receiving end of a torrent of downvotes.