Correct. This is the key position between equity and equality. You speak of language, but you totally misunderstand the shred. Though I appreciate your position isn’t mathematical, scientific or otherwise analytically related to the concepts being communicated. Your concern is the words, which means you lose the core of the argument and fall into a presenting a mechanism even the alt-right themselves attempt to use.
It isn’t about words, in the slightest. They are a mechanism of communication of concepts, which themselves either have to be accurate, or ditched. I don’t care as much about what he said. Other people cover that better (and have a greater credible position to cover that) than I. I care about whether what he said aligned to a truth (which it does not) and crucially, whether that statement was worth the systemic trade-off of lower performance at Google.
Yet, there is one thing I’m now going to cut down on and won’t respond to, because it simply takes up a lot of unnecessary time. If you don’t provide research or numbers, then it is irrelevant to the manifesto’s position and I won’t respond to it. So from now on, everything you say is false until proven otherwise. Consider it a null hypothesis. It is often why people with tin-foil ideas are rejected by modern science. They fail to do the very basics before trying to engage someone and it’s kinder and better all round to not engage with them. It saves hurt feelings under the foil, agro, money and time. I personally don’t carry the ethical shackles of having to be kind.
The manifesto states one thing, which is by all definitions a conjecture or opinion. The next stage in such a study is to determine if that conjecture is true or not.
For example, is there current research in the total body of knowledge that corroborates or refutes their position? The answer is yes and almost all of them refute the manifesto’s position. So James’ opinion is now worthless simply on that, never mind the logical fallacies contained within it too. As nobody is entitled to an opinion in the presence of fact.
The next point then becomes whether starting the discussion from that position of supreme empirical weakness was worth decimating the team, alienating over 30% of their work colleagues and damaging the reputation of Google. That’s all this stuff one one side, versus a person’s ill researched opinion, which is demonstrably false in fact. As a trade off decision, James demonstrated extremely poor judgement, on top of everything else.
Anyway, I’m drawing this to a close. I’ve already been “kinder” than I needed to be in engaging.