> Except the links you posted don't dispute Damore's arguments at all.
Which argument? That there could possibly be innate psychological differences between the sexes etc. (which is not Damore's point, but a distraction), or that this has anything to do with the problem we're trying to solve with diversity programs? The consensus is absolutely that there is a sexism problem. Damore pays lip service to the "existence" of sexism, yet seems to mistakenly believe that the research he cites means that diversity programs must be changed, just like in my chemical plant analogy.
> I've read plenty on the subject thanks
You clearly have not read even the basics. There is no condescension here. I am not smarter than you, nor more moral. I just spent a considerable time learning about this, and it is obvious that you don't even understand what sexism is (Neither does Damore, BTW), and it's become clear that you're not even interested enough to bother reading the most introductory material. You say, "there are no fossils," and I say, "here are the fossils," yet you refuse to look. How can I hope to convince you? The reason this doesn't bother me is that I believe that the problem of sexism is so obvious once you care to look and so well studied, that the only people who still resist it are those who insist on not learning what it is. Learning what it is would not make you a leftist, as facts do not prescribe values, and you'd still be free to contend that the situation does not merit intervention in the form of diversity programs, but at least it would make true discussion possible as it would make your arguments relevant.
You have no idea what I know or believe, and you clearly are even having trouble reading the arguments presented to you rather than some ridiculous straw man you've built in your head. I don't have time for people who argue in bad faith and who make absurd assumptions about anyone who disagrees with them.
How can you even know you disagree without knowing the most basic concepts? You are arguing over the likelihood of Goldbach's conjecture being true without even knowing what the natural numbers are, while relying on some chemistry studies, whose relation to the natural numbers is unclear to you. I don't know how it's possible to argue "in good faith" with someone who is completely unfamiliar with the subject and refuses to learn.
To summarize, Damore wrote some memo whose intent was to show that Google should not invest in diversity programs. Those diversity programs are intended to fight sexism; I don't know how effective they are, but neither does Damore. His "arguments" consisted not of denying sexism (the meaning of which he clearly does not know), but of quoting some papers in yet another field he's not an expert in that purport to show that there are other factors involved. Those papers and others similar to them have been largely debated in the research community, and knowing nothing about that field, I could add nothing to that argument except parrot others. But I do know what sexism is, and I know the basics of logic well enough to see that there is no relevance to those findings even if they were true (again, a heavily contested point in itself).
He was fired for making a scene that required the CEO of Google to cut short his family vacation. If he were working for me, I would have fired him for incompetence and stupidity. Incompetence, because the guy does not know how to make a logical argument, lacks critical thinking, and failed to do even cursory study of the topic he discusses. Stupidity, because he didn't realize or didn't care that expressing himself -- a complete layman, and a rather disinterested one at that -- in that particular way, would have a negative effect on his coworkers and his employer. He's one of those people whose professional contribution to a company is negative.
Which argument? That there could possibly be innate psychological differences between the sexes etc. (which is not Damore's point, but a distraction), or that this has anything to do with the problem we're trying to solve with diversity programs? The consensus is absolutely that there is a sexism problem. Damore pays lip service to the "existence" of sexism, yet seems to mistakenly believe that the research he cites means that diversity programs must be changed, just like in my chemical plant analogy.
> I've read plenty on the subject thanks
You clearly have not read even the basics. There is no condescension here. I am not smarter than you, nor more moral. I just spent a considerable time learning about this, and it is obvious that you don't even understand what sexism is (Neither does Damore, BTW), and it's become clear that you're not even interested enough to bother reading the most introductory material. You say, "there are no fossils," and I say, "here are the fossils," yet you refuse to look. How can I hope to convince you? The reason this doesn't bother me is that I believe that the problem of sexism is so obvious once you care to look and so well studied, that the only people who still resist it are those who insist on not learning what it is. Learning what it is would not make you a leftist, as facts do not prescribe values, and you'd still be free to contend that the situation does not merit intervention in the form of diversity programs, but at least it would make true discussion possible as it would make your arguments relevant.