On point 1: here’s what a few actual scientists have to say.
All that this Google guy did was use data/conclusions from evolutionary psychology. Mostly correctly.
If it weren’t so sad, it’d be laughable that you’re trying to argue against a collection of viewpoints without actually arguing against any of these viewpoints. “I know they’re wrong, so I don’t have to bother putting in the qualification and mental effort required to debunk them, yo!” This is treatment reserved for the likes of 9/11 truthers and anti-vaxxers, and only because they have already been debunked before. Properly, with actual arguments. So doing it again and again is just a waste of time.
The points this guy makes about gender, though? No. They haven’t been debunked. They have been argued, debated, but definitely not debunked. In fact, they’ve become part of lots of serious scientific work nowadays, so the least they deserve is being taken seriously… instead of being casually dismissed by an unqualified chucklefuck like you.
On point 2: in order to GET to these more interesting engineering jobs, you still have to go through a shitload of coding stuff before… no? So, if there’s a real gender gap for the coding parts and such, it will carry over to the next stages… and that gender gap may or may not be partly natural, with discrimination playing only some of the role. This point doesn’t refute anything said in the original manifesto AT ALL.
On point 3: you clearly didn’t understand what was ACTUALLY being said in the manifesto. Almost all of your descriptions of it are a misinterpretation at best and a lie at worst. I’d say the views that are “harmful” and “fundamentally corrosive” are the ones that refuse to even consider certain branches of science and shut the mouths of anyone who dares to do so, but maybe that’s just me.
What isn’t just me, though, is that your response ends in the most disturbingly sadistic fashion I’ve seen. It wouldn’t be enough for you to just fire him, you’d be escorting him with security and without his stuff in order to psychologically crush him. Either that, or you’re that ludicrously afraid of him and think he might go berserk at any moment. It’s an authoritarian response in both cases, and one that proves his point about a “political monoculture” right.
If that’s the reaction (including, as far as I know, eventually being fired) someone gets simply by daring to speak their mind and using evolutionary psychology to support their claims, we’re living in very dark times, indeed.
It’s one thing to claim “you are wrong for reasons X, Y and Z”. Or even “your sources, while respectable, are still wrong for reasons X, Y and Z”. However, almost all of the responses I’ve seen don’t do that. Instead, they go for the “BURN THE WITCH” tactic, which is less mentally demanding, but also much more destructive. I’m afraid your response is one of the worst.
Disrespectfully yours,
Lightning_Shade
