Waygook.org

International => North America => USA => Topic started by: CDW on August 11, 2017, 01:46:13 AM

Title: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on August 11, 2017, 01:46:13 AM
http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/diversity-google-james-damore-memo/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro

The internal memo that got him fired:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

It sounds like he wanted to start a respectful discussion about the matter and Google decided to shut him down.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Rusty Brown on August 11, 2017, 05:13:42 AM
Can't blame him. Google is populated by reactionary people like you, Talawsohu. I'm sure his employers will get over their public embarrassment.

Edited by moderator to remove untoward slur.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on August 11, 2017, 05:53:25 AM
Just goes to prove what he says is true. You can't even question certain left wing orthodoxies. Even expressing an opinion that there may be certain biological traits that affect choice of occupation is tantamount to misogyny, as Tawlosohu is claiming above.
Personally I like to keep an open mind. Yeah, sure he was stupid to send round an email about it if he wanted to keep his job.

On a lighter note. Media and Google - 'How dare you, James Damore, claim that women are more emotional than men?'

Spokeswoman from Google - 'Some women didn't come into work today because they were so upset about the memo.'  :smiley:
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Chester Jim on August 11, 2017, 08:22:20 AM
When you say such crazy things as women and men are different then you better expect to get canned .
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: SaintsCanada on August 11, 2017, 09:19:35 AM
Can't blame him. Google is populated by reactionary gaylords like you, Talawsohu. I'm sure his employers will get over their public embarrassment.

Wow. Both a homophobic slur, and the incorrect use of "reactionary". Ironic, in that people who use homophobic slurs are, almost by definition, reactionary.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on August 11, 2017, 09:53:15 AM
I don't support google firing him for his views or even distributing them in response to a request by the company for feedback.

I do support them firing him in a cowardly move to avoid a hit to their share prices and damage to their reputation. They're a business not a religion.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: turningsteel on August 11, 2017, 09:59:27 AM
Counter-point:

He used work email to distribute his rantings (lord, did he try his best to make that memo look like a research paper) and publicly embarrassed his employer.  In addition, he very politely explained to his co-workers that almost half of them are genetically inferior to him.

But shit, at least he didn't bend his knee during the anthem at a football game, am I right?

This is it right here. At one point the guy even says that women are prone to being neurotic and emotional while men are stoic and procedural minded. He creates the definition of a hostile work environment for any women that would be working with him. Of course he was going to get fired.

Oh and Rusty, I'm guessing by your comment that you didn't read nor could you even understand what the guy wrote in his little manifesto. But hey, at least you got your opinion out there right?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: donuts81 on August 11, 2017, 10:10:45 AM
Quote
In addition, he very politely explained to his co-workers that almost half of them are genetically inferior to him.

No he didn't. He was talking about populations and tendencies not individuals and specifics. Your misrepresentation of what he said is half the problem. No one can have a serious conversation.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on August 11, 2017, 10:17:33 AM
Counter-point:

He used work email to distribute his rantings (lord, did he try his best to make that memo look like a research paper) and publicly embarrassed his employer.  In addition, he very politely explained to his co-workers that almost half of them are genetically inferior to him.

But shit, at least he didn't bend his knee during the anthem at a football game, am I right?

This is it right here. At one point the guy even says that women are prone to being neurotic and emotional while men are stoic and procedural minded. He creates the definition of a hostile work environment for any women that would be working with him. Of course he was going to get fired.

Oh and Rusty, I'm guessing by your comment that you didn't read nor could you even understand what the guy wrote in his little manifesto. But hey, at least you got your opinion out there right?

I think you guys are doing a bit of a character assassination of this guy.

Here's an interview with the guy where any idiot can see he is highly-educated, logical, rational and level-headed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro

His "little manifesto" in full.

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: JNM on August 11, 2017, 10:59:50 AM
Quote
In addition, he very politely explained to his co-workers that almost half of them are genetically inferior to him.

No he didn't. He was talking about populations and tendencies not individuals and specifics. Your misrepresentation of what he said is half the problem. No one can have a serious conversation.

He even had a section dedicated to this subject.

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Savant on August 11, 2017, 11:05:44 AM
Maybe, he can come to Korea. I hear Ilbe is hiring!
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Aurata on August 11, 2017, 11:14:27 AM
Google has become just another tool in the hands of the Washington oligarchy and is committed to the suppression of free speech.

Quote
Google’s chief search engineer legitimizes new censorship algorithm

By Andre Damon
31 July 2017

Between April and June, Google completed a major revision of its search engine that sharply curtails public access to Internet web sites that operate independently of the corporate and state-controlled media. Since the implementation of the changes, many left wing, anti-war and progressive web sites have experienced a sharp fall in traffic generated by Google searches. The World Socialist Web Site has seen, within just one month, a 70 percent drop in traffic from Google.
In a blog post published on April 25, Ben Gomes, Google’s chief search engineer, rolled out the new censorship program in a statement bearing the Orwellian title, “Our latest quality improvements for search.” This statement has been virtually buried by the corporate media. Neither the New York Times nor the Wall Street Journal has reported the statement. The Washington Post limited its coverage of the statement to a single blog post.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html)
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on August 11, 2017, 11:17:29 AM
I like Trump's response when he was asked about the gender pay gap:

"You're going to make the same if you do as good a job."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MioIksr8i00

Does the explanation for every gender disparity always have to be that women are oppressed?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on August 11, 2017, 11:32:01 AM
I like Trump's response when he was asked about the gender pay gap:

"You're going to make the same if you do as good a job."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MioIksr8i00

Does the explanation for every gender disparity always have to be that women are oppressed?

Yes, it does! Didn't you know that there is an unseen white male forcing every woman into making the choices they make in life?



Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on August 11, 2017, 11:38:54 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/7Qe9yGS.jpg)
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on August 11, 2017, 12:36:05 PM
Breitbart News has started a "Rebels of Google" series in which Google employees speak out (anonymously) about their oppressive work environment.
http://www.breitbart.com/tag/rebels-of-google/
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on August 11, 2017, 02:01:05 PM
Quote
The firing of this man is indirectly the fault of the right wing and its philosophy. If not for at-will employment, this man would have had a better shot at keeping his job. If unions weren't as demonizied, he might have an organizaion to help him fight the dismissal. Instead, all he can do is lament over a pint and hope he is not completely blacklisted from the industry.

Actually I think he's going to sue. And if he can prove they broke employment laws he'll win.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on August 11, 2017, 02:46:09 PM
Y'all want an adult conversation? Okay then.

Let's ignore the middle-school debate topic of "Women in the Workforce." I doubt any minds will be changed on that subject.

The firing of this man is indirectly the fault of the right wing and its philosophy. If not for at-will employment, this man would have had a better shot at keeping his job. If unions weren't as demonizied, he might have an organizaion to help him fight the dismissal. Instead, all he can do is lament over a pint and hope he is not completely blacklisted from the industry.

This is the corporate atmosphere you wanted, rightwingers. Remember that when it works against you.

Also, to person who called me a gaylord, come back to this thread when you finish with puberty.

Jobs such as his were never unionized. If you are a techie or a stockbroker or a lawyer, you have always played under a different set of rules than a factory worker or a teacher or a teamster.

He threatened google's brand. I may agree with him, but if I was a google shareholder I'd want his ass out and I think they should be able to.

I do think it's worrisome that what amounts to a borderline monopoly is a company that's committed to a "social diversity" view as its brand as opposed to a content neutral, wide open company, but that's google's choice and until they are broken up, it's how things are.

However, the internet is such a free marketplace that sooner or later some outfit will start that will offer the same things as google, facebook, and youtube that will be more diverse in political ideology and not weeded to a certain identity. They will rise, and google will have some level of decline. People will migrate there, that company will rise. 'googlize' itself, people will move on and that one will decline, etc. It's all a cycle.

The one area where google could be in trouble is that apparently this memo was in response to a request for company feedback. I'm not sure on the particulars of it becoming disseminated, but this could be troublesome. If the company solicited feedback from its employees, received feedback, and fired someone because of the feedback they gave, THAT is a problem.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on August 11, 2017, 02:58:38 PM
Quote
And while I vehemently disagree with his opinions

Did you read the whole thing, as I can't really see how anyone could 'vehemently' disagree with it? He cites sources and studies you might think are dodgy etc.. but none of this nature or nurture stuff has been proved definitively one way or another. If the science part isn't fully proven then how can you be so sure about the other stuff?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Rusty Brown on August 11, 2017, 03:07:12 PM
Can't blame him. Google is populated by reactionary gaylords like you, Talawsohu. I'm sure his employers will get over their public embarrassment.

Wow. Both a homophobic slur, and the incorrect use of "reactionary". Ironic, in that people who use homophobic slurs are, almost by definition, reactionary.

Liberals are the new reactionaries. They are the ones opposed to true, meaningful social reform. They are the puritans of modern society. Gaylord is a playground slur, get over it.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on August 11, 2017, 03:15:06 PM
Liberals are the new reactionaries. They are the ones opposed to true, meaningful social reform. They are the puritans of modern society. Gaylord is a playground slur, get over it.

Leaving aside whether such slurs are okay here (free for all ala youtube or 'no hate' ala Twitter is fine by me either way, as long as it's applied fairly), it's just unimaginative. Isn't there a more creative playground insult you could come up with? Two thumbs down on 'gaylord' in my book. If I was Talawsohu, I wouldn't be sweating things if that's the best you can come up with.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: zola on August 11, 2017, 03:36:52 PM
The captain of my cricket team when i was a wee kid had the surname Gaylord. That's a character builder. There was also a kid with the family name of Ramsbottum. We were too young to find it funny though.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: donovan on August 11, 2017, 04:03:12 PM
Not the same guy?... :sad:
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: MayorHaggar on August 11, 2017, 04:13:19 PM
The only mistake Google made was allowing some random employee to spam everyone's inbox with a bunch of psuedoscience.



It is hilarious seeing the alt-reich cry crocodile tears about how Silicon Valley is oppressing them and isn't allowing "a diversity of opinions," when modern conservatism is based on rejecting any kind of opposing view and dragging anyone through the dirt who isn't a cultist conservative. The vast majority of tech workers are male, and libertarian misogyny is really common among these techie bros. It's not like male techies are exactly being oppressed or anything.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: pkjh on August 11, 2017, 06:06:46 PM
The only mistake Google made was allowing some random employee to spam everyone's inbox with a bunch of psuedoscience.

It is hilarious seeing the alt-reich cry crocodile tears about how Silicon Valley is oppressing them and isn't allowing "a diversity of opinions," when modern conservatism is based on rejecting any kind of opposing view and dragging anyone through the dirt who isn't a cultist conservative. The vast majority of tech workers are male, and libertarian misogyny is really common among these techie bros. It's not like male techies are exactly being oppressed or anything.
An EE major here, worked a few years in the field after I graduated, in Ottawa though. What you say is true. It's like their middle/high school years they were oppressed nerds, literally being bullied by athletes. But now as adults things have changed, they're nerds making good cash, so at times girls are now throwing themselves at them (especially in that Silicon Valley area). They are the new jocks.

Anyways it's not like high-tech geeks are more sexist than the rest of the population. The percentage is probably the same, but you have a more amplified attitude, where in many places like 100% of the your workforce is male. Where in other industries attitudes would be toned down because of the mere presence of a woman in the room. I personally spent a few years in a place where it was more like 17/20 male. However, we had quite a number of secretaries, and government consultants (which helps even the gender ratio) around, which helped quell a lot of the 'locker room' talk. I can just imagine what would be said if there were no women around...
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: StillInKorea on August 11, 2017, 06:33:46 PM
SJWs make me appreciate living in Korea. For all the BS we have to deal with here, we at least get to avoid their hysterical drama.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on August 11, 2017, 06:41:27 PM
Quote
Anyways it's not like high-tech geeks are more sexist than the rest of the population. The percentage is probably the same, but you have a more amplified attitude, where in many places like 100% of the your workforce is male. Where in other industries attitudes would be toned down because of the mere presence of a woman in the room. I personally spent a few years in a place where it was more like 17/20 male. However, we had quite a number of secretaries, and government consultants (which helps even the gender ratio) around, which helped quell a lot of the 'locker room' talk. I can just imagine what would be said if there were no women around...

That's actually what the guy was saying, that he thought a more diverse workforce would be a good thing. He was just questioning the right way to go about it.

What Google and some other companies seem to be saying is 'men and women are exactly the same.' 'More gender diversity is better for the company' Umm in that case, Why?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Aurata on August 11, 2017, 07:57:42 PM
Google works hand in hand with the NSA and CIA to expand unconstitutional spying on everyone everywhere

Quote
Wikileaks Reveals Google's "Strategic Plan" To Help Democrats Win The Election, Track Voters

Google planned the creation of a voter tracking database, using smart phones:

Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.  In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter.  A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about (“the benefits of ACA to you” etc.)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/wikileaks-reveals-googles-strategic-plan-help-democrats-win-election (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/wikileaks-reveals-googles-strategic-plan-help-democrats-win-election)

...and also to suppress independent and dissenting thought and expression.

Quote
13 websites arbitrarily branded by Google as fake news or conspiracy sites whose readership Google has managed to reduce between 19 and 67 percent:

* wsws.org fell by 67 percent
* alternet.org fell by 63 percent
* globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent
* consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent
* socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent
* mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent
* commondreams.org fell by 37 percent
* internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent
* democracynow.org fell by 36 percent
* wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent
* truth-out.org fell by 25 percent
* counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent
theintercept.com fell by 19 percent

It is completely obvious that none of these sites are fake news or conspiracy sites. These sites are under Google censorship because they question the official lies that are used to control the explanations given to the people.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on August 12, 2017, 08:07:36 AM
Debra Soh, who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience, defends Damore.

"As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men....

"In fact, research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy.

"As the memo suggests, seeking to fulfill a 50-per-cent quota of women in STEM is unrealistic. As gender equity continues to improve in developing societies, we should expect to see this gender gap widen.

"This trend continues into the area of personality, as well. Contrary to what detractors would have you believe, women are, on average, higher in neuroticism and agreeableness, and lower in stress tolerance.

"Some intentionally deny the science because they are afraid it will be used to justify keeping women out of STEM. But sexism isn't the result of knowing facts; it's the result of what people choose to do with them."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on August 12, 2017, 08:19:28 AM
Debra Soh, who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience, defends Damore.

"As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men....

"In fact, research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy.

"As the memo suggests, seeking to fulfill a 50-per-cent quota of women in STEM is unrealistic. As gender equity continues to improve in developing societies, we should expect to see this gender gap widen.

"This trend continues into the area of personality, as well. Contrary to what detractors would have you believe, women are, on average, higher in neuroticism and agreeableness, and lower in stress tolerance.

"Some intentionally deny the science because they are afraid it will be used to justify keeping women out of STEM. But sexism isn't the result of knowing facts; it's the result of what people choose to do with them."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

One solution would be just to pay everyone in stem fields less money, so they'd become like construction or sanitation. Fields dominated by men that no one talks about or cares.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on August 21, 2017, 05:03:38 AM
"Really, it’s like being gay in the 1950s. These conservatives have to stay in the closet and have to mask who they really are. And that’s a huge problem because there’s open discrimination against anyone who comes out of the closet as a conservative."
-James Damore

It sounds like his lawsuit against Google has a reasonable chance of succeeding. It's illegal to fire an employee for merely raising concerns about working conditions.

" 'The crux of his claim is whether Google penalized him for raising concerns about working conditions (i.e., unfair treatment of white men?)' Sharpe said. 'Whether the manifesto really constitutes a "concern about working conditions" and whether he was acting for the good of others will be the dispositive issues. I am not aware of any cases that are exactly on point, but there are certainly cases that litigate this issue and cases where employees are returned to work.' "
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-may-win-nlra-legal-case-google-2017-8
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: JNM on August 21, 2017, 06:53:43 AM
More likely a nice settlement with strings attached.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Arabin on August 21, 2017, 09:14:37 AM
"Really, it’s like being gay in the 1950s. These conservatives have to stay in the closet and have to mask who they really are. And that’s a huge problem because there’s open discrimination against anyone who comes out of the closet as a conservative."
-James Damore

It sounds like his lawsuit against Google has a reasonable chance of succeeding. It's illegal to fire an employee for merely raising concerns about working conditions.

" 'The crux of his claim is whether Google penalized him for raising concerns about working conditions (i.e., unfair treatment of white men?)' Sharpe said. 'Whether the manifesto really constitutes a "concern about working conditions" and whether he was acting for the good of others will be the dispositive issues. I am not aware of any cases that are exactly on point, but there are certainly cases that litigate this issue and cases where employees are returned to work.' "
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-may-win-nlra-legal-case-google-2017-8

I like the gay in the 50's comment. Not melodramatic in the slightest. Because being beaten up and arrested for trying to have a love life is the same as having people sneer at you for being an entitled right wing manchild.

But I presume Google's very expensive lawyers will claim he was fired for bringing Google into disrepute. I haven't read the ten pages because life is too short but I would be very surprised if it confined itself to saying that the way diversity was handled at Google was a problem. Any tired biology/STEM argument can be seized upon to say this is why he was binned.

Manchild didn't help himself by going straight to Redpill youtubers when he was canned. That makes it very, very easy to paint him for just another angry virgin who think he is owed blowjobs and money by the virtue of his testes and pigmentation.

Even factoring a few media-whore lawyers willing to pro-bono this, Manchild will have to think very hard about suing Google. Because they have more resources than most nations and if he loses, and Google gets awarded costs, he is well and truly f**ked.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr C on August 21, 2017, 09:29:25 AM
I like Trump's response when he was asked about the gender pay gap:

"You're going to make the same if you do as good a job."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MioIksr8i00

Trump said it, so it must be true.

Wait.  Almost exactly not.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on August 21, 2017, 10:48:28 AM
Trump said it, so it must be true.

Wait.  Almost exactly not.

The wage gap evidence is suspect at best. Most indepth analysis of it really question how strong of an effect there is once you start controlling for a variety of factors.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: shanebarry1986 on August 21, 2017, 07:48:30 PM

At one point the guy even says that women are prone to being neurotic and emotional

Women are literally more neurotic than men, on average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9200973
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: sligo on August 21, 2017, 08:20:26 PM

At one point the guy even says that women are prone to being neurotic and emotional

Women are literally more neurotic than men, on average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9200973

Are we allowed to get irate when someone tells us that: "Women are genetically batter than men at multitasking"?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: JNM on August 21, 2017, 08:33:42 PM

At one point the guy even says that women are prone to being neurotic and emotional

Women are literally more neurotic than men, on average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9200973

Are we allowed to get irate when someone tells us that: "Women are genetically batter than men at multitasking"?

Only if you are a woman feeling (self) pressured to do more than your male coworker.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on August 21, 2017, 10:01:31 PM
Trump said it, so it must be true.

Wait.  Almost exactly not.

The wage gap evidence is suspect at best. Most indepth analysis of it really question how strong of an effect there is once you start controlling for a variety of factors.
Examples please, from a reputable source if possible.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: SweetFlaxAndBarley on August 22, 2017, 07:31:35 AM
"The earnings comparisons in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earnings differences, such as job skills and responsibilities, work experience, and specialization. See the accompanying technical notes section for more information, including a description of the source of the data and an explanation of the concepts and definitions used in this report"

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2015/home.htm
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Arabin on August 22, 2017, 07:46:36 AM

At one point the guy even says that women are prone to being neurotic and emotional

Women are literally more neurotic than men, on average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9200973

Odd because most of the unhinged clowns who obsessively troll this forum with their tired talking points stolen from 4chan, are men.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on August 22, 2017, 10:05:39 AM
Trump said it, so it must be true.

Wait.  Almost exactly not.

The wage gap evidence is suspect at best. Most indepth analysis of it really question how strong of an effect there is once you start controlling for a variety of factors.
Examples please, from a reputable source if possible.

I'm not going to wipe your arse for you if you want stats as I am sure you are more than capable of using gulag (google), but for starters, the highest paid professions such as engineering are dominated by males, so is the tech industry and high level surgeons plus a host of dangerous and dirty jobs which males choose to do.

Lower paid work in the fields of education, nursing, speech pathology and receptionist work are the dominant fields chosen by females. They choose to take on these lower paying fields of work; no one is forcing them to do it.

As mentioned, there are a host of factors that affect someone's wage:

Occupation
Hours worked
Willingness to travel
Tenure
Qualifications
Willingness to ask for a raise

Furthermore, it is illegal to pay a male more for doing the same job so I'd like to see some evidence from you that argues against that.

Lastly, if males get paid more for doing the same job, why isn't every office in the world full of women who allegedly get paid less? Imagine all the savings from your wage bill!
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: weigookin74 on August 31, 2017, 10:22:23 AM
Tolerance is a one way street for many leftists.  Bigotry of other people and other ideas are perfectly acceptable to them.  They have no response when you give them inconvenient things like "facts".  Even CNN gets in on the action.  They only want some facts and not others.  They don't want both sides of the story nor to be fair and even handed.  Integrity, honor, and fairness have been replaced by dishonesty, hate, intimidation, violence, and all around general creepiness. 

Not to say all are, especially older liberal and conservative friends.  They are much more rational, more mature, they don't need safe spaces, they don't get triggered, they don't get violent, they don't try to "shut you up", and they respect you at the end of the day for what type of person you are and how you treat them and other people.  (I have, for the record, even met many nice millennials.  Thirty seven % of them did vote for Trump and did vote against this PC crap.  Many others went 3rd party and many more stayed home.  So, at least half of them have some clue of what is going on, even if not fully in agreement all the time.) 
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on January 09, 2018, 11:02:42 PM
Update:

"James Damore sues Google, claims tech giant discriminates against white conservative men....

" 'Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males,' the lawsuit alleged. 'This is the essence of discrimination—Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics.'

"Damore told Fox Business that Google still engages in 'harassment and career sabotage of anyone that expresses a conservative viewpoint, and there’s constant shaming and attacks against white men within Silicon Valley.' "
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/01/09/james-damore-sues-google-claims-tech-giant-discriminates-against-white-conservative-men.html
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Rusty Brown on January 09, 2018, 11:47:07 PM
Sweet.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 10, 2018, 10:33:02 AM
Damone is also claiming liberals are hunting down conservatives in silicon valley. I don't think he's going to do so well on the stand.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Savant on January 10, 2018, 10:35:25 AM
White men complaining about oppression. Oh, weep!
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on January 10, 2018, 12:32:05 PM
The full complaint he submitted to the court:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Damore-Google-COMPLAINT.pdf

In the second half, he included numerous screenshots of biased (anti-conservative, anti-Caucasian, pro political violence) posts on Google's employee message boards. The evidence seems pretty damning.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 10, 2018, 01:29:43 PM
White men complaining about oppression. Oh, weep!

The guy got fired just for expressing his opinion, which in no stretch of the imagination could be described as offensive. Should he just take that on the chin because he was born a male and has the same skin colour as the majority of the population? Besides which having grown up autistic and with a hooter like that I'm pretty sure he's faced just as much discrimination as the next guy.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 10, 2018, 02:13:30 PM
The full complaint he submitted to the court:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Damore-Google-COMPLAINT.pdf

In the second half, he included numerous screenshots of biased (anti-conservative, anti-Caucasian, pro political violence) posts on Google's employee message boards. The evidence seems pretty damning.
Wouldn't that covered by free speech? Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 10, 2018, 02:16:58 PM
White men complaining about oppression. Oh, weep!

The guy got fired just for expressing his opinion, which in no stretch of the imagination could be described as offensive. Should he just take that on the chin because he was born a male and has the same skin colour as the majority of the population? Besides which having grown up autistic and with a hooter like that I'm pretty sure he's faced just as much discrimination as the next guy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you posting about two wrongs don't make a right? If so, why isn't that applicable here?

I'm pretty sure everyone knows he's autistic, but no one brought it up except the conservative supposedly supporting him. Funny, huh?

And what do you have against big noses? Is that a blood and soil thing?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on January 11, 2018, 11:51:10 AM
The full complaint he submitted to the court:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Damore-Google-COMPLAINT.pdf

In the second half, he included numerous screenshots of biased (anti-conservative, anti-Caucasian, pro political violence) posts on Google's employee message boards. The evidence seems pretty damning.
Wouldn't that covered by free speech? Just sayin'.
But they didn't get fired for their free speech. Damore did.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 11, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
The full complaint he submitted to the court:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Damore-Google-COMPLAINT.pdf

In the second half, he included numerous screenshots of biased (anti-conservative, anti-Caucasian, pro political violence) posts on Google's employee message boards. The evidence seems pretty damning.
Wouldn't that covered by free speech? Just sayin'.
But they didn't get fired for their free speech. Damore did.
That's up to the courts to decide.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 13, 2018, 03:16:41 PM
The full complaint he submitted to the court:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Damore-Google-COMPLAINT.pdf

In the second half, he included numerous screenshots of biased (anti-conservative, anti-Caucasian, pro political violence) posts on Google's employee message boards. The evidence seems pretty damning.
Wouldn't that covered by free speech? Just sayin'.
But they didn't get fired for their free speech. Damore did.

I'm not the first person on this thread to mention this, but it obviously hasn't sunk in for some of you.

FIRING PEOPLE FOR ANY REASON, WITHOUT HAVING TO JUSTIFY THAT DECISION, IS SOMETHING THAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE FOUGHT FOR FOR YEARS

When I lived in Texas a few years ago, one of the biggest items on the Republican-led legislative agenda was a "religious freedom" law that would give employers greater laxity in firing employees because of their sexuality. Republicans fought hard for, and won, "at will" status in California, which means that employers don't have to answer to anyone when they terminate your employment (obviously, lawyers know a few ways to challenge this, but they're an expensive resource).

"Free speech" means that the government can't throw you in jail for expressing an opinion, not that you have the absolute right to keep your job at a private company if said company determines (rightly or wrongly) that you have insubordinately challenged its HR policies and damaged its brand.

A true conservative response to this should be, "James Damore will be rewarded by whatever the market deems to be his true worth."
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 13, 2018, 07:57:39 PM
Quote
FIRING PEOPLE FOR ANY REASON, WITHOUT HAVING TO JUSTIFY THAT DECISION, IS SOMETHING THAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE FOUGHT FOR FOR YEARS

When I lived in Texas a few years ago, one of the biggest items on the Republican-led legislative agenda was a "religious freedom" law that would give employers greater laxity in firing employees because of their sexuality. Republicans fought hard for, and won, "at will" status in California, which means that employers don't have to answer to anyone when they terminate your employment (obviously, lawyers know a few ways to challenge this, but they're an expensive resource).

Ok I don't know anything about US labour laws but laws that allow companies to fire people because of their sexuality sounds more like something that takes place in Iran rather than the western world.

In the UK there are labour laws and processes of appeal. I guess this is also linked to the contract.

e.g.

From the UK government website:

Dismissal is when your employer ends your employment - they don’t always have to give you notice.

If you’re dismissed, your employer must show they’ve:

a valid reason that they can justify
acted reasonably in the circumstances
They must also:

be consistent - eg not dismiss you for doing something that they let other employees do
have investigated the situation fully before dismissing you - eg if a complaint was made about you.

 I imagine Google will cite some part of James Damore's contract that says he attacked Google's values or words to that effect. A similar case happened in the UK recently when a British Council manager slagged off Prince George.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-council-boss-prince-george-white-privilege-comments-angela-gibbins-fired-compensation-a8041496.html

The difference IMO is that the BC manager was mindlessly venting on a public forum against the grandson of the BC's patron and her comments had no possible constructive value.  Damore was not slagging off Google's bosses on a public forum and was actually attempting to give constructive feedback for the good of the company.

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Savant on January 13, 2018, 08:33:09 PM
Didn't he use his work e-mail to launch his tirade?

In the UK, I am sure he would have still been have fired for misuse of company e-mail, as well as tarnishing the company's name.

"attempting to give constructive feedback for the good of the company.". No, that's a bit of a stretch for defending the reasons for firing him.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 13, 2018, 08:38:21 PM
Quote
In the UK, I am sure he would have still been have fired for misuse of company e-mail, as well as tarnishing the company's name.

It was an eternal email wasn't it, so not tarnishing the Google brand. 

Quote
"attempting to give constructive feedback for the good of the company.". No, that's a bit of a stretch for defending the reasons for firing him.

I guess the courts will decide that, though while it might not have been his place to comment, if you read the memo you can see he was trying to suggest good practice in his opinion.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 13, 2018, 08:52:36 PM
The full complaint he submitted to the court:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Damore-Google-COMPLAINT.pdf

In the second half, he included numerous screenshots of biased (anti-conservative, anti-Caucasian, pro political violence) posts on Google's employee message boards. The evidence seems pretty damning.
Wouldn't that covered by free speech? Just sayin'.
But they didn't get fired for their free speech. Damore did.

I'm not the first person on this thread to mention this, but it obviously hasn't sunk in for some of you.

FIRING PEOPLE FOR ANY REASON, WITHOUT HAVING TO JUSTIFY THAT DECISION, IS SOMETHING THAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE FOUGHT FOR FOR YEARS

(https://i.imgur.com/cVpN5Po.gif)
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Savant on January 13, 2018, 08:55:19 PM
Quote
In the UK, I am sure he would have still been have fired for misuse of company e-mail, as well as tarnishing the company's name.

It was an eternal email wasn't it, so not tarnishing the Google brand. 

Quote
"attempting to give constructive feedback for the good of the company.". No, that's a bit of a stretch for defending the reasons for firing him.

I guess the courts will decide that, though while it might not have been his place to comment, if you read the memo you can see he was trying to suggest good practice in his opinion.

All the news reports I've read, say it was an "internal memo". So, he used Google property to voice his angry rant. There is "voicing an opinion" and there's "10 pages of ranting about neurotic women." Pretty sure, it broke Google's Code of Conduct.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 13, 2018, 08:59:18 PM
Quote
In the UK, I am sure he would have still been have fired for misuse of company e-mail, as well as tarnishing the company's name.

It was an eternal email wasn't it, so not tarnishing the Google brand. 

Quote
"attempting to give constructive feedback for the good of the company.". No, that's a bit of a stretch for defending the reasons for firing him.

I guess the courts will decide that, though while it might not have been his place to comment, if you read the memo you can see he was trying to suggest good practice in his opinion.
It wasn't met to be, but it looks like, unfortunately because anybody can make a mistake, it may haunt him for quite a while.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 13, 2018, 09:18:38 PM
Quote
In the UK, I am sure he would have still been have fired for misuse of company e-mail, as well as tarnishing the company's name.

It was an eternal email wasn't it, so not tarnishing the Google brand. 

Quote
"attempting to give constructive feedback for the good of the company.". No, that's a bit of a stretch for defending the reasons for firing him.

I guess the courts will decide that, though while it might not have been his place to comment, if you read the memo you can see he was trying to suggest good practice in his opinion.

All the news reports I've read, say it was an "internal memo". So, he used Google property to voice his angry rant. There is "voicing an opinion" and there's "10 pages of ranting about neurotic women." Pretty sure, it broke Google's Code of Conduct.

Why exaggerate? The section about neurotic women was one bullet point under the heading 'personality differences' in a 10 page memo

Quote
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 14, 2018, 02:28:54 PM
I agree that there's no need to exaggerate or overblow the contents of Damore's memo. It's not nearly as vicious as a lot of people have assumed it to be. It's a bit naive in its reliance on biological determinism, and oversimplifies a complicated topic through fairly juvenile reductionism intended to look "sciencey". That being said, it's quite possible that his comments wouldn't have made much of a splash had it not been leaked to the media and branded the "anti-diversity memo", so in that respect I think he got a raw deal. This is exactly the kind of thing that should get resolved by talking through the arguments, rather than public shaming.

I'd have more sympathy for Damore, though, had he not started printing T-shirts, set up a martyrdom vanity site and started appearing on the podcasts of alt-right cranks as soon within 48 hours of his firing. Also, to reiterate my previous point just one more time, people who say things like "I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason" are the ones who've pushed hardest for at-will employment.* You know, people like James Damore.

Finally, am I the only to notice that this is basically the snowflakiest lawsuit ever? If they're successfu it will establish a legal precedent in which white, conservative males become a protected class. Every foamy-mouthed tirade against minorities claiming "unsafe environments", every defense of Ann Coulter's hate speech as political incorrectness, every giggle at Milo's harassment of Leslie Jones under the banner of free speech, every Social Darwinist justification of privilege, every lament about government social engineering... All that goes out the window. If you support this lawsuit, you should support the precedent for every demographic before and after. And if you don't, what does that make you? What is the special set of characteristics that makes you want these particular plaintiffs to succeed, and others to fail?






*Wikipedia definition: At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 14, 2018, 04:25:09 PM
Quote
Finally, am I the only to notice that this is basically the snowflakiest lawsuit ever? If they're successfu it will establish a legal precedent in which white, conservative males become a protected class.

The guy was fired for having a different opinion to the company's ideology. What's that got to do with race or gender? he could have just as easily been a woman or a black guy. Though I guess he might not have lost his job if he was.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 14, 2018, 06:48:02 PM
Quote
Finally, am I the only to notice that this is basically the snowflakiest lawsuit ever? If they're successfu it will establish a legal precedent in which white, conservative males become a protected class.

The guy was fired for having a different opinion to the company's ideology. What's that got to do with race or gender? he could have just as easily been a woman or a black guy. Though I guess he might not have lost his job if he was.

The lawsuit explicitly cites "male gender" and "Caucasian race" as apparent reasons for the plaintiffs' termination. That's what it has to do with race and gender.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 14, 2018, 07:26:55 PM
Quote
Finally, am I the only to notice that this is basically the snowflakiest lawsuit ever? If they're successfu it will establish a legal precedent in which white, conservative males become a protected class.

The guy was fired for having a different opinion to the company's ideology. What's that got to do with race or gender? he could have just as easily been a woman or a black guy. Though I guess he might not have lost his job if he was.

The lawsuit explicitly cites "male gender" and "Caucasian race" as apparent reasons for the plaintiffs' termination. That's what it has to do with race and gender.

Oh does it? Anyway, how would that make white males a more protected class than any other class of person?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 15, 2018, 07:57:40 AM
Didn't he use his work e-mail to launch his tirade?

In the UK, I am sure he would have still been have fired for misuse of company e-mail, as well as tarnishing the company's name.

"attempting to give constructive feedback for the good of the company.". No, that's a bit of a stretch for defending the reasons for firing him.

Tirade? Are you kidding me? Have you read it? I seriously doubt it. Ironically, it was about how to increase women in tech.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 15, 2018, 08:00:56 AM
I agree that there's no need to exaggerate or overblow the contents of Damore's memo. It's not nearly as vicious as a lot of people have assumed it to be. It's a bit naive in its reliance on biological determinism, and oversimplifies a complicated topic through fairly juvenile reductionism intended to look "sciencey". That being said, it's quite possible that his comments wouldn't have made much of a splash had it not been leaked to the media and branded the "anti-diversity memo", so in that respect I think he got a raw deal. This is exactly the kind of thing that should get resolved by talking through the arguments, rather than public shaming.

I'd have more sympathy for Damore, though, had he not started printing T-shirts, set up a martyrdom vanity site and started appearing on the podcasts of alt-right cranks as soon within 48 hours of his firing. Also, to reiterate my previous point just one more time, people who say things like "I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason" are the ones who've pushed hardest for at-will employment.* You know, people like James Damore.

Finally, am I the only to notice that this is basically the snowflakiest lawsuit ever? If they're successfu it will establish a legal precedent in which white, conservative males become a protected class. Every foamy-mouthed tirade against minorities claiming "unsafe environments", every defense of Ann Coulter's hate speech as political incorrectness, every giggle at Milo's harassment of Leslie Jones under the banner of free speech, every Social Darwinist justification of privilege, every lament about government social engineering... All that goes out the window. LETS HOPE SO!!!!!!!!  If you support this lawsuit, you should support the precedent for every demographic before and after. And if you don't, what does that make you? What is the special set of characteristics that makes you want these particular plaintiffs to succeed, and others to fail?



*Wikipedia definition: At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.

The memo's basic premise was: women and men are different, so let's think of ways of how to get more women in tech. Only a complete and utter snowflake would find offence in that. The funny thing was, several women had to take leave as they were so offended by the memo; kind of proves its point, huh?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 15, 2018, 08:48:26 AM
I didn't say that I found the memo particularly offensive.

Also, the claim that "several women stayed home" is based on pretty scant evidence. It seems to have originated with one person, Kelly Ellis, who quit Google in 2014 and has a longstanding grievance with the company. The right wing media spun the claim into a big thing about how all these women were fulfilling a stereotype and proving Damore's point. But I seriously doubt that there was a significant contingent of women who stayed at home due to the distress the memo had caused. I could be wrong, but generally speaking, society doesn't operate like a Breitbart headline.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 15, 2018, 09:12:00 AM
I didn't say that I found the memo particularly offensive.

Also, the claim that "several women stayed home" is based on pretty scant evidence. It seems to have originated with one person, Kelly Ellis, who quit Google in 2014 and has a longstanding grievance with the company. The right wing media spun the claim into a big thing about how all these women were fulfilling a stereotype and proving Damore's point. But I seriously doubt that there was a significant contingent of women who stayed at home due to the distress the memo had caused. I could be wrong, but generally speaking, society doesn't operate like a Breitbart headline.

You did indeed say you found it not particularily offensive, but I found  "It's a bit naive in its reliance on biological determinism, and oversimplifies a complicated topic through fairly juvenile reductionism intended to look "sciencey", to be a little on the wrong side of  " I'm going to write off the entire memo's content with two sentences."

This is not the place to have an in-depth discussion on if men and women are different, but what is your knowledge on this topic? James Damore has an MA in sytems biology, and was a research scientist at MIT which would suggest he's more than capable of researching scientific literature and presenting it in a logical way. I'm not a massive fan of the "higher authority" argument, but I think it's reasonable in this case.

I found your comments on setting a precedent for white males to become a protected class to be very offensive. What if James Damore was black and he did exactly the same thing? What would you say then?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: JNM on January 15, 2018, 09:34:51 AM
Insert “The Incredibles” meme here.

When everybody is a protected class, nobody is.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 15, 2018, 10:17:29 AM
I'm happy to talk about the specifics of Damore's memo later, when I've got more time.

Quote
What if James Damore was black and he did exactly the same thing? What would you say then?

I would say that according to California labor law, a private company like Google has every right to fire someone perceived to be undermining its HR policies and damaging its public image, regardless of that person's ethnicity. I wouldn't think it was a good case for a discrimination lawsuit.

Let's forget about Damore for a second, though, and consider the second plaintiff. And let's imagine that he were a black woman who got fired for being horrible to her work colleague - an Israeli, let's say. The black woman makes some fairly ugly insinuations on an employee forum related to her co-worker's recent trip to Israel. Maybe some comments about banking and control of the media. The black woman gets fired, then mounts a discrimination lawsuit saying that she'd still have a job if she were a white, conservative male. Would you be cheering her on?

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on January 15, 2018, 10:28:49 AM
Insert “The Incredibles” meme here.

When everybody is a protected class, nobody is.
What are you on about? White males are part of at least three protected classes (race, color, gender). Additionally, California state law makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of political affiliations. So Damore seems to have a pretty strong case. None of the liberals he worked with got fired for voicing their opinions.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 15, 2018, 10:38:10 AM
I'm happy to talk about the specifics of Damore's memo later, when I've got more time.

Quote
What if James Damore was black and he did exactly the same thing? What would you say then?

I would say that according to California labor law, a private company like Google has every right to fire someone perceived to be undermining its HR policies and damaging its public image, regardless of that person's ethnicity. I wouldn't think it was a good case for a discrimination lawsuit.

Let's forget about Damore for a second, though, and consider the second plaintiff. And let's imagine that he were a black woman who got fired for being horrible to her work colleague - an Israeli, let's say. The black woman makes some fairly ugly insinuations on an employee forum related to her co-worker's recent trip to Israel. Maybe some comments about banking and control of the media. The black woman gets fired, then mounts a discrimination lawsuit saying that she'd still have a job if she were a white, conservative male. Would you be cheering her on?

A bit convoluted for me that scenario. You say "let's imagine he......" but then you say black woman, so you're including gender identity, anti-semitism and racism in your example. Pass.

BTW, I was asking basically why bring race into this? To me at least this is all about bringing more women into Google as that would mean more "diversity". Having any dissent in the ranks which goes against Google's groupthink sets one up for being terminated from employment even if you're a model worker like Damore was.

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on January 15, 2018, 10:41:59 AM
"Damore has now answered Google with a legal broadside, and it’s extraordinary. Most people don’t have time to read his entire 181-page complaint, but those who do will find a comprehensive argument that Google’s corporate culture encourages, sanctions, and facilitates an extraordinary amount of abuse against conservative white males.....

"For example, 'Googlers' (that’s what employees call themselves, using Google’s silly corporate language) relentlessly enforce a so-called 'Googley' culture where employees blacklist conservatives (blocking them from in-house communications), actually boo white-male hires, and openly discuss committing acts of violence against political opponents. The 'punch a Nazi' debate is alive and well at Google, and the definition of 'Nazi' is extraordinarily broad. In one posting, an employee proposes a 'moratorium on hiring white cis heterosexual abled men who aren’t abuse survivors.' In another, an employee advertises a workshop on 'healing from toxic whiteness.' Another post mocks 'white fragility.' The examples go on and on, for page after page."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455288/james-damores-google-lawsuit-exposes-companys-intolerance

Does that sound worse than Damore's memo?

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: JNM on January 15, 2018, 10:43:08 AM
Insert “The Incredibles” meme here.

When everybody is a protected class, nobody is.
What are you on about? White males are part of at least three protected classes (race, color, gender). Additionally, California state law makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of political affiliations. So Damore seems to have a pretty strong case. None of the liberals he worked with got fired for voicing their opinions.

He certainly does have a case worth hearing.

I would, not being a California Lawyer, call those “prohibited grounds”; “Protected class” would be people in identifiable groups who are subject to unfair treatment on those grounds.

Firing a pregnant woman (member of a protected class) because she leaked confidential information (not prohibited grounds) is different than because she took too many medical days.

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 15, 2018, 11:00:10 AM
Quote
What are you on about? White males are part of at least three protected classes (race, color, gender). Additionally, California state law makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of political affiliations. So Damore seems to have a pretty strong case. None of the liberals he worked with got fired for voicing their opinions.
Yes, but there's no solid legal precedent for claiming discrimination against that demographic category, and it will be very, very surprising if they succeed when the company in question is 60% white and 70% male, with about 3/4 of leadership positions held by white males, not to mention ongoing pay discrimination suits brought by female employees.

Again, just replace "white" with "black" and "male" with "female", plug those words into the stats above, and now imagine a black woman suing for discrimination, citing race and gender as factors. Would it become a celebrated cause for conservatives?

All that being said, I agree that they might stand a chance on the political discrimination front, as there's at least a stronger precedent for it. However, I'lll bet that Google can probably find many examples of people expressing opinions on employee forums that fall within a spectrum of conservatism, and not losing their jobs over it.

Quote
You say "let's imagine he......" but then you say black woman, so you're including gender identity, anti-semitism and racism in your example. Pass.

I'm referring to why the second plaintiff in the case was fired. Read the background - that's the context for my scenario. He, too, is claiming that he was subject to unfair treatment as a white male (hence the race and gender).
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 15, 2018, 11:32:15 AM
TL;DR version: The guy got fired for being a dick and making some ethnically charged innuendos to one of his co-workers on what I assume was an open employees' forum or e-mail chain. He got the sack. Now he's suing because apparently this wouldn't have happened had he not been a white male conservative.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 15, 2018, 12:00:08 PM
Quote
Again, just replace "white" with "black" and "male" with "female", plug those words into the stats above, and now imagine a black woman suing for discrimination, citing race and gender as factors. Would it become a celebrated cause for conservatives? He got the sack. Now he's suing because apparently this wouldn't have happened had he not been a white male conservative.

I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers some of your questions.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Though maybe not about whether it'd be such a 'celebrated' cause for conservatives. When an unarmed white man is shot by the police in the US, is it normally a 'celebrated' cause for BLM? I guess not.

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 15, 2018, 01:02:39 PM
Quote
Again, just replace "white" with "black" and "male" with "female", plug those words into the stats above, and now imagine a black woman suing for discrimination, citing race and gender as factors. Would it become a celebrated cause for conservatives? He got the sack. Now he's suing because apparently this wouldn't have happened had he not been a white male conservative.

I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers your question.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Though maybe not about whether it'd be such a 'celebrated' cause for conservatives. When an unarmed white man is shot by the police in the US, is it normally a 'celebrated' cause for BLM? I guess not.

In the US an employer can fire an employee for any reason. But you can't say "I'm firing you because you're old/gay/white/black." Unless there is proof that Google gave "we're firing you because you're a white male" as the reason for firing him, he doesn't have a case. They don't even have to give a reason, because conservatives have fought so hard for so long to give employers 100% control over firings. Usually the issue of "reason for firing" is only an issue in terms of applying for unemployment benefits. If you've been fired for being incompetent or insubordinate, you can't get unemployment. If you're fired because "my boss didn't like my pink shirt," or because of cost-cutting (i.e. laid off), you can get unemployment. But unemployment benefit considerations are completely irrelevant to the issue of whether he was fired against the law.

I'm pretty sure Google can win this case by simply saying "Google did not want to be associated with James Damore's sexist views." "Being sexist" is not a protected class.

Keep in mind all the times you've seen conservatives applauding someone being fired for saying something anti-conservative on Facebook. It's literally the same thing. Damore probably could've gotten away with it if he had done everything on his own time instead of using company resources and time to post his manifesto. And what was he hoping to change anyway? If he doesn't like the way Google does things, why didn't he leave and start his own company to show that sexist men make better techies? Google doesn't owe him anything but a paycheck.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 15, 2018, 01:08:20 PM
Quote
Again, just replace "white" with "black" and "male" with "female", plug those words into the stats above, and now imagine a black woman suing for discrimination, citing race and gender as factors. Would it become a celebrated cause for conservatives? He got the sack. Now he's suing because apparently this wouldn't have happened had he not been a white male conservative.

I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers your question.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Though maybe not about whether it'd be such a 'celebrated' cause for conservatives. When an unarmed white man is shot by the police in the US, is it normally a 'celebrated' cause for BLM? I guess not.

In the US an employer can fire an employee for any reason. But you can't say "I'm firing you because you're old/gay/white/black." Unless there is proof that Google gave "we're firing you because you're a white male" as the reason for firing him, he doesn't have a case. They don't even have to give a reason, because conservatives have fought so hard for so long to give employers 100% control over firings. Usually the issue of "reason for firing" is only an issue in terms of applying for unemployment benefits. If you've been fired for being incompetent or insubordinate, you can't get unemployment. If you're fired because "my boss didn't like my pink shirt," or because of cost-cutting (i.e. laid off), you can get unemployment. But unemployment benefit considerations are completely irrelevant to the issue of whether he was fired against the law.

I'm pretty sure Google can win this case by simply saying "Google did not want to be associated with James Damore's sexist views." "Being sexist" is not a protected class.

Keep in mind all the times you've seen conservatives applauding someone being fired for saying something anti-conservative on Facebook. It's literally the same thing. Damore probably could've gotten away with it if he had done everything on his own time instead of using company resources and time to post his manifesto. And what was he hoping to change anyway? If he doesn't like the way Google does things, why didn't he leave and start his own company to show that sexist men make better techies? Google doesn't owe him anything but a paycheck.

Was his memo sexist? Did he say that men were better than women at any point. Or just different?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 15, 2018, 01:41:30 PM


I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers some of your questions.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Great. When a gay Latina, working for a company dominated by gay Latinas, sues that company for discrimination against gay Latinas, I look forward to the outpouring of support she'll get on Fox News and Breitbart.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 15, 2018, 02:15:34 PM


I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers some of your questions.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Great. When a gay Latina, working for a company dominated by gay Latinas, sues that company for discrimination against gay Latinas, I look forward to the outpouring of support she'll get on Fox News and Breitbart.

A simple questions for you. Would it be possible of answering it without a "what if" scenario?

Do you think all people of a given sex and race combination are the same or is each person an individual? ie. are all white males are the same? are all black females are the same etc.

If yes, explain how this is so.

If no, explain why we need diversity within a company if people are individuals rather than just being part of a given group.



Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 15, 2018, 03:58:52 PM
Sorry, not taking the bait, especially when presented with a choice between a completely illogical position that nobody actually holds, and its foil, which you've clearly set up as being the "correct" answer.

If you're genuinely interested in that motivates diversity policy in the tech industry, why don't you take a look at Google's dedicated diversity page?

https://diversity.google/ (https://diversity.google/)

Or here, an interview with eBay's diversity officer:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-key-to-increasing-diversity-in-the-tech-industry-1502676240 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-key-to-increasing-diversity-in-the-tech-industry-1502676240)

Here's a business-focused report from Morgan Stanley on gender diversity and company performance:

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/gender-diversity-tech-companies (https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/gender-diversity-tech-companies)

Here's an opinion piece on the topic that references the Damore case without an accusatory or partisan tone:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality (https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality)

Maybe these are more informative resources than the opinion of someone who has no stake in the matter.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 15, 2018, 04:21:22 PM


I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers some of your questions.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Great. When a gay Latina, working for a company dominated by gay Latinas, sues that company for discrimination against gay Latinas, I look forward to the outpouring of support she'll get on Fox News and Breitbart.

A simple questions for you. Would it be possible of answering it without a "what if" scenario?

Do you think all people of a given sex and race combination are the same or is each person an individual? ie. are all white males are the same? are all black females are the same etc.

If yes, explain how this is so.

If no, explain why we need diversity within a company if people are individuals rather than just being part of a given group.

I think the answer would be the same from both sides. People are individulas but certain groups share elements of either privilege or discrimination. Where they differ is how to deal with this. Taking direct action to level the numbers or trying to persuade people that being unfairly disciminative is against their better interests.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 15, 2018, 04:25:58 PM
Quote
Again, just replace "white" with "black" and "male" with "female", plug those words into the stats above, and now imagine a black woman suing for discrimination, citing race and gender as factors. Would it become a celebrated cause for conservatives? He got the sack. Now he's suing because apparently this wouldn't have happened had he not been a white male conservative.

I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers your question.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Though maybe not about whether it'd be such a 'celebrated' cause for conservatives. When an unarmed white man is shot by the police in the US, is it normally a 'celebrated' cause for BLM? I guess not.

In the US an employer can fire an employee for any reason. But you can't say "I'm firing you because you're old/gay/white/black." Unless there is proof that Google gave "we're firing you because you're a white male" as the reason for firing him, he doesn't have a case. They don't even have to give a reason, because conservatives have fought so hard for so long to give employers 100% control over firings. Usually the issue of "reason for firing" is only an issue in terms of applying for unemployment benefits. If you've been fired for being incompetent or insubordinate, you can't get unemployment. If you're fired because "my boss didn't like my pink shirt," or because of cost-cutting (i.e. laid off), you can get unemployment. But unemployment benefit considerations are completely irrelevant to the issue of whether he was fired against the law.

I'm pretty sure Google can win this case by simply saying "Google did not want to be associated with James Damore's sexist views." "Being sexist" is not a protected class.

Keep in mind all the times you've seen conservatives applauding someone being fired for saying something anti-conservative on Facebook. It's literally the same thing. Damore probably could've gotten away with it if he had done everything on his own time instead of using company resources and time to post his manifesto. And what was he hoping to change anyway? If he doesn't like the way Google does things, why didn't he leave and start his own company to show that sexist men make better techies? Google doesn't owe him anything but a paycheck.

Was his memo sexist? Did he say that men were better than women at any point. Or just different?

It doesn't matter, Google could have fired him for having BO or liking the Philadelphia Eagles. Even if they said it was for being sexist, being sexist is not a protected class. Having ideas that your employer doesn't want to be associated with is not a protected class.

I think all we need to know about whether Damore is sexist is the fact that conservatives, who have always been anti-feminist and supportive of sexism, are suddenly up in arms over Damore. They know he's sexist, and it's why they support him. Kind of like how Trump supporters in general insist Trump isn't racist, yet defend every racist thing he says.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 15, 2018, 04:53:56 PM
Quote
I think all we need to know about whether Damore is sexist is the fact that conservatives, who have always been anti-feminist and supportive of sexism, are suddenly up in arms over Damore. They know he's sexist, and it's why they support him. Kind of like how Trump supporters in general insist Trump isn't racist, yet defend every racist thing he says.

There are a lot of people who aren't conservatives who'd be against the kind of stuff Google are getting up to. You won't hear from them much because they don't write in the media and are afraid to say what they want at work. However if you read a story about Dalmore in the Guardian for example, which is mostly read by people on the left, the comments section would be full of anti Google stuff.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 15, 2018, 05:09:15 PM
Not liking google doesn't have anything to do with wanting to employ someone. If you didn't like Google why would you care who they fire?

Anyone can post anonymously on message boards like this, yet the only people I see posting in support of Damore are the same conservatives who defend everything Trump does and come out to complain about women everytime there's something in the news for or against "feminism."


I don't have any sympathy for tech companies or their overpaid employees after they gleefully destroyed the Bay Area, but I've worked at enough American employers to know that employees have pretty much zero protections against being fired or any expectation of job security, which again is exactly what conservatives wanted.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 15, 2018, 05:39:57 PM
Quote
Anyone can post anonymously on message boards like this, yet the only people I see posting in support of Damore are the same conservatives who defend everything Trump does and come out to complain about women everytime there's something in the news for or against "feminism."

The kind of stuff posted on here about feminism from the news is the kind of stuff the majority of people in the UK would complain about. That's why only 7% identify as feminists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/

As I mentioned before when the Guardian (very left wing, 'intelligent' broadsheet) posts anything about feminism, there are pages and pages of comments against it. So much so that they  specifically decided to get rid of comments sections after articles about feminism recently. 

The demographic on these boards is mostly young people coming out of US/Canadian universities where this kind of stuff is the only acceptable ideology. Even so, the majority of them don't post anything at all about politics.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 15, 2018, 09:03:23 PM
Quote
Anyone can post anonymously on message boards like this, yet the only people I see posting in support of Damore are the same conservatives who defend everything Trump does and come out to complain about women everytime there's something in the news for or against "feminism."

The kind of stuff posted on here about feminism from the news is the kind of stuff the majority of people in the UK would complain about. That's why only 7% identify as feminists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/

As I mentioned before when the Guardian (very left wing, 'intelligent' broadsheet) posts anything about feminism, there are pages and pages of comments against it. So much so that they  specifically decided to get rid of comments sections after articles about feminism recently. 

The demographic on these boards is mostly young people coming out of US/Canadian universities where this kind of stuff is the only acceptable ideology. Even so, the majority of them don't post anything at all about politics.
From the article:
Quote
am Smethers, the charity’s chief executive, said: “The overwhelming majority of the public share our feminist values but don’t identify with the label. However the simple truth is if you want a more equal society for women and men then you are in fact a feminist.
“In our survey we also asked people for their instant reaction to the word ‘feminist’. We found the negative responses clearly in the minority as others saw the word as political, referring to campaigners, or offered explicitly positive

I wouldn't want to rely on the haters who troll comments sections for any kind of assumptions about what the general population thinks.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 16, 2018, 07:48:09 AM
Not liking google doesn't have anything to do with wanting to employ someone. If you didn't like Google why would you care who they fire?

Anyone can post anonymously on message boards like this, yet the only people I see posting in support of Damore are the same conservatives who defend everything Trump does and come out to complain about women everytime there's something in the news for or against "feminism."


I don't have any sympathy for tech companies or their overpaid employees after they gleefully destroyed the Bay Area, but I've worked at enough American employers to know that employees have pretty much zero protections against being fired or any expectation of job security, which again is exactly what conservatives wanted.

I support Trump and I don't like the silencing of conservative voices by the anti-free speech left.

That being said, this guy is on shaky ground. If he was just ranting and raving 24-7 on the boards and posting 10 page missives, that gets increasingly hard to defend.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 07:59:48 AM
Sorry, not taking the bait, especially when presented with a choice between a completely illogical position that nobody actually holds, and its foil, which you've clearly set up as being the "correct" answer.

If you're genuinely interested in that motivates diversity policy in the tech industry, why don't you take a look at Google's dedicated diversity page?

https://diversity.google/ (https://diversity.google/)

Or here, an interview with eBay's diversity officer:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-key-to-increasing-diversity-in-the-tech-industry-1502676240 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-key-to-increasing-diversity-in-the-tech-industry-1502676240)

Here's a business-focused report from Morgan Stanley on gender diversity and company performance:

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/gender-diversity-tech-companies (https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/gender-diversity-tech-companies)

Here's an opinion piece on the topic that references the Damore case without an accusatory or partisan tone:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality (https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality)

Maybe these are more informative resources than the opinion of someone who has no stake in the matter.

I didn't even have to see Google's webpage as I knew what they'd represent as a "progressive" workplace; a picture of a black man, Asian woman and white guy. Typical. I couldn'r read further than 'We know our best work will come when our workforce reflects the world around us. We’re addressing the lack of representation across the company through our talent engagement and community outreach efforts."

Do you actually buy into this crap? Why on earth does a company's best work have to come via having a workforce that represents the world around us? Does that mean a medical clinic has to stop employing so many Asians and more blacks as that doesn't represent the world around us? Where are the dwarfs and midgets at Google? Where is the representation for them?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 08:10:31 AM
So Damore had the temerity to say that men and women are different and that makes him sexist? Right, got it. I suppose the author of "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" should also be called out for being sexist. I mean, men and women are the same, right? Or perhaps the scientists who discovered that the male and female brains are different which explains differences behaviour are also sexist, or the fact that males have more testosterone which might make them....dare I say it, close your eyes everyone, trigger warning trigger warning...different!
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 08:48:32 AM
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


   
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 16, 2018, 08:57:32 AM
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

It's considered a 'problem' because tech is well paid. Which points to the likelihood that social justice is really just another form of Marxism. They want everyone to be equal financially. They don't give a crap about women being denied the life enhancing experience of being a bricklayer. The first line references this when it says 'the idea that biological differences drive social inequality is considered fairly offensive.' Thus women are deemed to be socially unequal to men because overall they get paid less. I'm not sure if the writer actually believes that biological differences have nothing to do with more women going into childcare, for example, or that their biological differences do lead them into fields like childcare, which men then ensure are badly paid. Probably the latter as that reinforces the idea of the oppressed class.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 09:12:19 AM
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

It's considered a 'problem' because tech is well paid. The first line references this when it says 'the idea that biological differences drive social inequality is considered fairly offensive.' Thus women are deemed to be socially unequal to men because overall they get paid less. I'm not sure if the writer actually believes that biological differences have nothing to do with more women going into childcare, for example, or that their biological differences do lead them into fields like childcare, which men then ensure are badly paid.

Yes, that's probably the very epicentre of the Left's issues; men earn more than women which is naturally an injustice. Women are then seen as victims so we have to fix this problem. Blacks, Asians and other minorities are also underrepresented, so we have to even things up to represent the world around us and thus make ourselves feel good about ourselves.

I wonder if more women would be encouraged into tech if tech was poorly paid; I think we all know the answer to that one.  ;D
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Savant on January 16, 2018, 09:27:17 AM
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

It's considered a 'problem' because tech is well paid. The first line references this when it says 'the idea that biological differences drive social inequality is considered fairly offensive.' Thus women are deemed to be socially unequal to men because overall they get paid less. I'm not sure if the writer actually believes that biological differences have nothing to do with more women going into childcare, for example, or that their biological differences do lead them into fields like childcare, which men then ensure are badly paid.

Yes, that's probably the very epicentre of the Left's issues; men earn more than women which is naturally an injustice. Women are then seen as victims so we have to fix this problem. Blacks, Asians and other minorities are also underrepresented, so we have to even things up to represent the world around us and thus make ourselves feel good about ourselves.

I wonder if more women would be encouraged into tech if tech was poorly paid; I think we all know the answer to that one.  ;D

Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 16, 2018, 09:41:30 AM
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: JNM on January 16, 2018, 09:45:01 AM
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

Veterinarians make mega-bucks!
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 16, 2018, 09:48:05 AM
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

Veterinarians make mega-bucks!

True, though I guess now that the majority of vets are women, the patriarchy will get together and  somehow conspire to ensure the field as a whole becomes less lucrative.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 16, 2018, 09:49:21 AM
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/500x/72690841/you-women-should-be-kept-barefoot-and-pregnant.jpg)

Stereotype much?

I hope you're not one of those dudes who complain when jobs posted in Korea call for females.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: JNM on January 16, 2018, 09:54:37 AM
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

Veterinarians make mega-bucks!

True, though I guess now that the majority of vets are women, the patriarchy will get together and  somehow conspire to ensure the field as a whole becomes less lucrative.

We will get right on that, once we address the pay disparity in porn.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 10:12:41 AM
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/500x/72690841/you-women-should-be-kept-barefoot-and-pregnant.jpg)

Stereotype much?

I hope you're not one of those dudes who complain when jobs posted in Korea call for females.

That's your argument? Attack the person rather than what he/she has to say?

What stereotype? I give evidence that women dominate certain fields and men others. I made no mention that women have to do certain jobs. I made sure I said women should be given the opportunity to follow whatever careers interest them and that seems to be the case.

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 10:25:20 AM
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

It's considered a 'problem' because tech is well paid. The first line references this when it says 'the idea that biological differences drive social inequality is considered fairly offensive.' Thus women are deemed to be socially unequal to men because overall they get paid less. I'm not sure if the writer actually believes that biological differences have nothing to do with more women going into childcare, for example, or that their biological differences do lead them into fields like childcare, which men then ensure are badly paid.

Yes, that's probably the very epicentre of the Left's issues; men earn more than women which is naturally an injustice. Women are then seen as victims so we have to fix this problem. Blacks, Asians and other minorities are also underrepresented, so we have to even things up to represent the world around us and thus make ourselves feel good about ourselves.

I wonder if more women would be encouraged into tech if tech was poorly paid; I think we all know the answer to that one.  ;D

Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

Can you prove that men get preferential treatment over women in the tech field? It seems these days being a female is an advantage in the tech field as we've got to have diversity, don't we? We even have to have "diversity training" so we can have more diversity.

Using your argument, can I say that women outnumber men in vet science due to discriminatory hiring practices? No, I wouldn't say anything as stupid as that. I would say that more women than men have an interest in that field.

I agree that social workers and nurses get underpaid, but no one forces women into those occupations. I think women are smart enough to research how much they are expected to be paid before entering social work or nursing.They choose those occupations knowing full well how much they're going to get paid.  If I woman's number one aim is to have a highly-paid occupation, than she should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping them. 

Your comments reek of unfounded victimhood.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 10:27:31 AM
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

Veterinarians make mega-bucks!

That's why we don't need more diversity in vet science. Women come out on top!
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Savant on January 16, 2018, 10:43:42 AM
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

A lot more women are drawn to the tech sector. I think if the work as CJ insinuated was underpaid then I think they would still be drawn to the tech sector if tech was their "thing".

A lot of public sector jobs are underpaid: nurses, doctor, firefighter, etc. Being a man or woman and sector pay levels is nothing to do with their choice to do those jobs. It's a straw man argument.

CJ's premise was if tech jobs paid peanuts then less women would apply. My point was counter to this.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Savant on January 16, 2018, 10:49:04 AM
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

It's considered a 'problem' because tech is well paid. The first line references this when it says 'the idea that biological differences drive social inequality is considered fairly offensive.' Thus women are deemed to be socially unequal to men because overall they get paid less. I'm not sure if the writer actually believes that biological differences have nothing to do with more women going into childcare, for example, or that their biological differences do lead them into fields like childcare, which men then ensure are badly paid.

Yes, that's probably the very epicentre of the Left's issues; men earn more than women which is naturally an injustice. Women are then seen as victims so we have to fix this problem. Blacks, Asians and other minorities are also underrepresented, so we have to even things up to represent the world around us and thus make ourselves feel good about ourselves.

I wonder if more women would be encouraged into tech if tech was poorly paid; I think we all know the answer to that one.  ;D

Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

Can you prove that men get preferential treatment over women in the tech field? It seems these days being a female is an advantage in the tech field as we've got to have diversity, don't we? We even have to have "diversity training" so we can have more diversity.

Using your argument, can I say that women outnumber men in vet science due to discriminatory hiring practices? No, I wouldn't say anything as stupid as that. I would say that more women than men have an interest in that field.

I agree that social workers and nurses get underpaid, but no one forces women into those occupations. I think women are smart enough to research how much they are expected to be paid before entering social work or nursing.They choose those occupations knowing full well how much they're going to get paid.  If I woman's number one aim is to have a highly-paid occupation, than she should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping them. 

Your comments reek of unfounded victimhood.

In Korea, I've found that veterinarians are split roughly 50/50 male/female. With perhaps, there being slightly more male vets.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 11:14:55 AM
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

A lot more women are drawn to the tech sector. I think if the work as CJ insinuated was underpaid then I think they would still be drawn to the tech sector if tech was their "thing".

A lot of public sector jobs are underpaid: nurses, doctor, firefighter, etc. Being a man or woman and sector pay levels is nothing to do with their choice to do those jobs. It's a straw man argument.

CJ's premise was if tech jobs paid peanuts then less women would apply. My point was counter to this.

It's a pity the numbers don't add up to your argument. Tech is not very popular with women; biology is.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/women-in-tech_n_6955940.html

When I googled this, all I found on the first page was articles, all written by women, of how "depressing" is was that there are so few women in tech and that tech is a "boys' club". Am I to say that nursing is a girls' club?

Yes, that's one of my main points. Men are represented a lot more in tech than women are. As tech is highly-paid, and that there is a gender pay gap, the best way of making things more even is to get more women in tech. As seen above, women are not very interested in tech, so women need to invent a conspiracy theory that there is some kind of issue.

What's the sample size on the amount of vets you've visited? 10? 20? 4? Not exactly statistically significant.

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 11:25:41 AM
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

A lot more women are drawn to the tech sector. I think if the work as CJ insinuated was underpaid then I think they would still be drawn to the tech sector if tech was their "thing".

No they are not. Look at the stats. Women are not drawn to tech. If tech was their thing, they would be drawn to it regardless of salary but they are not drawn to it. It's funny out of all the jobs that women are not into, tech is one of the highest paid and seems to be the one with the biggest push for women to get into.

A lot of public sector jobs are underpaid: nurses, doctor, firefighter, etc. Being a man or woman and sector pay levels is nothing to do with their choice to do those jobs. It's a straw man argument.

Right. So why did mention that social care workers and nurses are underpaid then? Two jobs in which women dominate

CJ's premise was if tech jobs paid peanuts then less women would apply. My point was counter to this.

Well, you can try again.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 16, 2018, 11:28:26 AM
Quote
I agree that social workers and nurses get underpaid, but no one forces women into those occupations. I think women are smart enough to research how much they are expected to be paid before entering social work or nursing.They choose those occupations knowing full well how much they're going to get paid.  If I woman's number one aim is to have a highly-paid occupation, than she should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping them.

I agree that diversity targets and training courses are imperfect tools for achieving outcomes that might be excessively idealistic. I think white men are smart enough to research their companies' diversity policies before they choose to accept a job.They choose those occupations knowing full well that diversity programs are being undertaken by their HR departments.  If a white man's number one aim is to have a job that doesn't have a diversity agenda, than he should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping him.

CJ, your comments reek of unfounded victimhood.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 16, 2018, 11:46:48 AM
Quote
I agree that social workers and nurses get underpaid, but no one forces women into those occupations. I think women are smart enough to research how much they are expected to be paid before entering social work or nursing.They choose those occupations knowing full well how much they're going to get paid.  If I woman's number one aim is to have a highly-paid occupation, than she should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping them.

I agree that diversity targets and training courses are imperfect tools for achieving outcomes that might be excessively idealistic. I think white men are smart enough to research their companies' diversity policies before they choose to accept a job.They choose those occupations knowing full well that diversity programs are being undertaken by their HR departments.  If a white man's number one aim is to have a job that doesn't have a diversity agenda, than he should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping him.

CJ, your comments reek of unfounded victimhood.

Paying both men and women low salaries is not discriminatory. male/female targets and women only short lists are. You could argue that in a totally free society companies should be able to specify whoever they want in job adverts and they can say 'no blacks/men or women need apply.' Personally I would be against that.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 11:51:00 AM
Quote
I agree that social workers and nurses get underpaid, but no one forces women into those occupations. I think women are smart enough to research how much they are expected to be paid before entering social work or nursing.They choose those occupations knowing full well how much they're going to get paid.  If I woman's number one aim is to have a highly-paid occupation, than she should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping them.

I agree that diversity targets and training courses are imperfect tools for achieving outcomes that might be excessively idealistic. I think white men are smart enough to research their companies' diversity policies before they choose to accept a job.They choose those occupations knowing full well that diversity programs are being undertaken by their HR departments.  If a white man's number one aim is to have a job that doesn't have a diversity agenda, than he should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping him.

CJ, your comments reek of unfounded victimhood.

If we go back to what James wrote in his memo, a memo that didn't cause any issues for a month before being given the flick by it, he was trying to help women. Get it?? He was actually trying to get more women in tech.

The very first sentence from his memo " I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes"

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f

Try again with your parody.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Savant on January 16, 2018, 12:01:44 PM
Quote
I agree that social workers and nurses get underpaid, but no one forces women into those occupations. I think women are smart enough to research how much they are expected to be paid before entering social work or nursing.They choose those occupations knowing full well how much they're going to get paid.  If I woman's number one aim is to have a highly-paid occupation, than she should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping them.

I agree that diversity targets and training courses are imperfect tools for achieving outcomes that might be excessively idealistic. I think white men are smart enough to research their companies' diversity policies before they choose to accept a job.They choose those occupations knowing full well that diversity programs are being undertaken by their HR departments.  If a white man's number one aim is to have a job that doesn't have a diversity agenda, than he should pursue that occupation. No one is stopping him.

CJ, your comments reek of unfounded victimhood.

If we go back to what James wrote in his memo, a memo that didn't cause any issues for a month before being given the flick by it, he was trying to help women. Get it?? He was actually trying to get more women in tech.

The very first sentence from his memo " I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes"

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f

Try again with your parody.

Still quoting from James' pseudo-science manifesto?

We can clearly state that women have less interest in computing/coding than men.

But once, you start getting into "biological differences" and "personality differences" then it gets too mumbo-jumbo and completely biased.

His paragraph on "Men's higher drive for status" was well muddled. Citing high pay/high stress for obtaining more status then lists jobs like coal mining, garbage collection and firefighting.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 16, 2018, 12:08:18 PM
CJ, why are you so triggered by this anyway? It's about time you toughened up realized that the real world isn't going to coddle you like the safe spaces of r/redpill and Mike Cernovich's Twitter feed. Boo-hoo, you get offended when you think white men are suffering. Welcome to adulthood, snowflake. It's like my friend Milo says - "F*ck Your Feelings!" I'm tired of people like you trying to shut down the free speech of private citizens who think diversity is good for their businesses. If you don't like the way things are done in America, you can always move to Saudi Arabia. SJWs like you, with your constant whining about oppression and discrimination against white men, are the reason that people like Keith Ellison get elected.

Quote
If we go back to what James wrote in his memo, a memo that didn't cause any issues for a month before being given the flick by it, he was trying to help women. Get it?? He was actually trying to get more women in tech.

FAKE NEWS!
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: freddyinkorea on January 16, 2018, 02:00:20 PM
CJ, why are you so triggered by this anyway? It's about time you toughened up realized that the real world isn't going to coddle you like the safe spaces of r/redpill and Mike Cernovich's Twitter feed. Boo-hoo, you get offended when you think white men are suffering. Welcome to adulthood, snowflake. It's like my friend Milo says - "F*ck Your Feelings!" I'm tired of people like you trying to shut down the free speech of private citizens who think diversity is good for their businesses. If you don't like the way things are done in America, you can always move to Saudi Arabia. SJWs like you, with your constant whining about oppression and discrimination against white men, are the reason that people like Keith Ellison get elected.

Quote
If we go back to what James wrote in his memo, a memo that didn't cause any issues for a month before being given the flick by it, he was trying to help women. Get it?? He was actually trying to get more women in tech.

FAKE NEWS!

Lol typical response after you can't refute the truth.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 16, 2018, 02:02:33 PM
CJ, why are you so triggered by this anyway? It's about time you toughened up realized that the real world isn't going to coddle you like the safe spaces of r/redpill and Mike Cernovich's Twitter feed. Boo-hoo, you get offended when you think white men are suffering. Welcome to adulthood, snowflake. It's like my friend Milo says - "F*ck Your Feelings!" I'm tired of people like you trying to shut down the free speech of private citizens who think diversity is good for their businesses. If you don't like the way things are done in America, you can always move to Saudi Arabia. SJWs like you, with your constant whining about oppression and discrimination against white men, are the reason that people like Keith Ellison get elected.

Quote
If we go back to what James wrote in his memo, a memo that didn't cause any issues for a month before being given the flick by it, he was trying to help women. Get it?? He was actually trying to get more women in tech.

FAKE NEWS!

Lol typical response after you can't refute the truth.

Yep, that 'ha ha, you're triggered just like the people you criticise' schtick is getting awfully stale.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 16, 2018, 02:15:50 PM
CJ, why are you so triggered by this anyway? It's about time you toughened up realized that the real world isn't going to coddle you like the safe spaces of r/redpill and Mike Cernovich's Twitter feed. Boo-hoo, you get offended when you think white men are suffering. Welcome to adulthood, snowflake. It's like my friend Milo says - "F*ck Your Feelings!" I'm tired of people like you trying to shut down the free speech of private citizens who think diversity is good for their businesses. If you don't like the way things are done in America, you can always move to Saudi Arabia. SJWs like you, with your constant whining about oppression and discrimination against white men, are the reason that people like Keith Ellison get elected.

Quote
If we go back to what James wrote in his memo, a memo that didn't cause any issues for a month before being given the flick by it, he was trying to help women. Get it?? He was actually trying to get more women in tech.

FAKE NEWS!

I rest my case.  ;D
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 16, 2018, 03:56:34 PM
Quote
Yep, that 'ha ha, you're triggered just like the people you criticise' schtick is getting awfully stale.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/028/094/33e.png)
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 16, 2018, 04:03:31 PM
CJ, why are you so triggered by this anyway? It's about time you toughened up realized that the real world isn't going to coddle you like the safe spaces of r/redpill and Mike Cernovich's Twitter feed. Boo-hoo, you get offended when you think white men are suffering. Welcome to adulthood, snowflake. It's like my friend Milo says - "F*ck Your Feelings!" I'm tired of people like you trying to shut down the free speech of private citizens who think diversity is good for their businesses. If you don't like the way things are done in America, you can always move to Saudi Arabia. SJWs like you, with your constant whining about oppression and discrimination against white men, are the reason that people like Keith Ellison get elected.

Quote
If we go back to what James wrote in his memo, a memo that didn't cause any issues for a month before being given the flick by it, he was trying to help women. Get it?? He was actually trying to get more women in tech.

FAKE NEWS!

Lol typical response after you can't refute the truth.

Yep, that 'ha ha, you're triggered just like the people you criticise' schtick is getting awfully stale.

lol conservatives can't handle their own medicine. TRIGGERED!
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CJ on January 17, 2018, 09:08:49 AM
CJ, why are you so triggered by this anyway? It's about time you toughened up realized that the real world isn't going to coddle you like the safe spaces of r/redpill and Mike Cernovich's Twitter feed. Boo-hoo, you get offended when you think white men are suffering. Welcome to adulthood, snowflake. It's like my friend Milo says - "F*ck Your Feelings!" I'm tired of people like you trying to shut down the free speech of private citizens who think diversity is good for their businesses. If you don't like the way things are done in America, you can always move to Saudi Arabia. SJWs like you, with your constant whining about oppression and discrimination against white men, are the reason that people like Keith Ellison get elected.

Quote
If we go back to what James wrote in his memo, a memo that didn't cause any issues for a month before being given the flick by it, he was trying to help women. Get it?? He was actually trying to get more women in tech.

FAKE NEWS!

Lol typical response after you can't refute the truth.

Yep, that 'ha ha, you're triggered just like the people you criticise' schtick is getting awfully stale.

lol conservatives can't handle their own medicine. TRIGGERED!

I think it's only Andyman who totally lost his cool and decided to lose face by ranting like a screaming child who's had his dummy taken away. My Lord what an unhinged rant. The more outraged you are doesn't make your argument any better. Quite the contrary. As soon as you lose your cool; you lose the debate.

Let me dumb this down for the regressive Left so they can follow.

James Damore loved Google and was a model employee who had quickly gone up the ranks to Senior Softeware Engineer.

James Damore was all for diversity and inclusiveness as seen by literally the very first line of his memo.

James Damore thought that getting more women in tech by being discriminatory to White males wasn't the best way forward. From his memo:

The harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However,
to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several
discriminatory practices:
● Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race5
● A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
● Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by
decreasing the false negative rate
● Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same
scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
● Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal
discrimination6
____________________________________________________________________________


James Damore then wrote a memo detailing why there are less women in tech than men and ways to get more women in tech whilst on a plane from the US to China. Here are some examples:


We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming
and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how
people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive
ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get
female students into coding might be doing



Women on average are more cooperative
○ Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may
be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do.
○ This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from




Google employees read the memo and nothing happened for a full month.

According to Wired, Google's internal forums showed some support for Damore, who said he received private thanks from employees who were afraid to come forward.

The memo was leaked to social media where upon the snowflake Left statred screaming for blood as James had the shocking audacity to say that men are different to women.

James Damore was fired as a consequence of the outrage by the snowflake Left.

James Damore is now seeking to sue as he feels he was bullied and unlawfully dismissed.

This was an internal memo which should never have been made public.

The Groupthink behaviour by many Google employees, and the childish and ultrasensitive reaction by Leftist snowflakes is truely astounding, even for them.






Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Andyman on January 17, 2018, 11:30:26 AM
Quote
I think it's only Andyman who totally lost his cool and decided to lose face by ranting like a screaming child who's had his dummy taken away. My Lord what an unhinged rant. The more outraged you are doesn't make your argument any better. Quite the contrary. As soon as you lose your cool; you lose the debate.

Dude, you didn't didn't like my first parody (which was actually a fair reflection of my true feelings) and invited me to try again. I did! I can only conclude that it was fairly successful if you took it at face value.

I think this is the reason that people are talking past each other on this issue: First of all, you're kind of setting up a false equivalency, whereby a less-than-fulsome defense of James Damore as a person, as a Google employee, and as a victim, equates to support for Google, and its diversity policies, and diversity drives in the tech industry in general, and for firing people who express conservative viewpoints. I don't think anybody feels that way, so you're kind of arguing with yourself, trying to stimulate a debate that no one wants to have because nobody's view really fits that profile.

And you're still missing a major point. James Damore could have been employee of the year, and written Google into his will, got a Google tattoo on his scrotum, and been bullied at work and dismissed under conditions that 99% of the population would consider unfair. Due to the labor laws fought for and enacted by people of James Damore's political tribe, none of the foregoing factors matter. All Google has to say is that he was a liability to the company and was bad for its image. You know, like how conservatives have ensured that Colin Kapernick remains unemployed...

Quote
This was an internal memo which should never have been made public.

I agree. If he was serious about making positive changes at Google, however, there were other steps he could have taken. If I wanted to seriously examine gender balance and productivity in my workplace, for example, I wouldn't start by drawing up a list of the ways that men and women are different based on highly contested data, from a limited branch of science, then distribute it amongst employees. I'd probably take another path. And he has to live the consequences of the path he chose. Just like all the NFL players that conservatives want to see fired.

Quote
The Groupthink behaviour by many Google employees, and the childish and ultrasensitive reaction by Leftist snowflakes is truely astounding, even for them.

I agree, but hardly think this kind of behavior is limited to the left. It's the crappy age we live in, and we all contribute to it when we allow ourselves to believe that the real world and the hyperbolic ravings of extreme partisan media accurately reflect each other.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/el_PZyC6sUM/maxresdefault.jpg)

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 18, 2018, 12:13:53 AM
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/500x/72690841/you-women-should-be-kept-barefoot-and-pregnant.jpg)

Stereotype much?

I hope you're not one of those dudes who complain when jobs posted in Korea call for females.

That's your argument? Attack the person rather than what he/she has to say?

What stereotype? I give evidence that women dominate certain fields and men others. I made no mention that women have to do certain jobs. I made sure I said women should be given the opportunity to follow whatever careers interest them and that seems to be the case.
You gave no such evidence. Unless you believe that working as a hotel maid, cook, daycare employee, checkout cashier, laundress and the like is what women truly aspire to.

What people do in life is not necessarily linked to what "interests them." It's often what's available to them.

Unless you truly believe women are just naturally interested in low-paying high-stress, bad hours occupations.

We've come a long ways since the days of the cavemen. Why don't you join us?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 18, 2018, 09:02:06 AM
Anyone who thinks that the picture of women modern men in 21st century capitalist countries dream about is one where she is barefoot and pregnant with her hair in curlers and standing over a stove, is an idiot.

If that's what men wanted, that's what would be shown as a model. It isn't. In fact such a picture would probably drive men away in droves.

If someone ever says "You just want women barefoot and pregnant", it's almost guaranteed that the person does not accurately perceive reality.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 18, 2018, 11:21:30 AM
Anyone who thinks that the picture of women modern men in 21st century capitalist countries dream about is one where she is barefoot and pregnant with her hair in curlers and standing over a stove, is an idiot.

If that's what men wanted, that's what would be shown as a model. It isn't. In fact such a picture would probably drive men away in droves.

If someone ever says "You just want women barefoot and pregnant", it's almost guaranteed that the person does not accurately perceive reality.
Your ability to perceive what is obviously not to be taken literally seems to be out to lunch.

As for driving "men away in droves," when the president has a thing for porn queens, not so accurate. For what could be more an object to be controlled and dominated than such a woman?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 20, 2018, 10:32:59 AM
Interesting interview with Jordan Peterson on the topic.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Peterson is very assured, Cathy Newman's arguments are dreadfully poor. 'What gives you the right to say that?', 'loads of 'so you're saying .such and such...' when he clearly isn't. E.g 'So you're saying women aren't intelligent enough...?' , a few pointless 'not alls', plenty of 'it's not fair' whines and a bit about lobsters at the end to try and make him look like a crank. 

Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 20, 2018, 10:16:32 PM
Interesting interview with Jordan Peterson on the topic.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Peterson is very assured, Cathy Newman's arguments are dreadfully poor. 'What gives you the right to say that?', 'loads of 'so you're saying .such and such...' when he clearly isn't. E.g 'So you're saying women aren't intelligent enough...?' , a few pointless 'not alls', plenty of 'it's not fair' whines and a bit about lobsters at the end to try and make him look like a crank.
A Jordan Peterson fanboy? Do you send him money? Have you cleaned your room?

It's sad that people can get so bent out of shape over the use of pronouns and that one can be seen as striking a blow for freedom by using he instead of she. Is peterson an example that the rebellion will be televised--on youtube--or that rebellion is just another commercial activity? Is he promoting ideas or his brand?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: donuts81 on January 22, 2018, 09:48:34 AM
Quote
It's sad that people can get so bent out of shape over the use of pronouns and that one can be seen as striking a blow for freedom by using he instead of she. Is peterson an example that the rebellion will be televised--on youtube--or that rebellion is just another commercial activity? Is he promoting ideas or his brand?

Yeah, except he never said anything like that. You're as bad as the interviewer in the video.

He was against being compelled by the govt to use govt mandated pronouns and having it be a punishable offense. He never called a she, he.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 22, 2018, 10:24:58 AM
Quote
It's sad that people can get so bent out of shape over the use of pronouns and that one can be seen as striking a blow for freedom by using he instead of she. Is peterson an example that the rebellion will be televised--on youtube--or that rebellion is just another commercial activity? Is he promoting ideas or his brand?

Yeah, except he never said anything like that. You're as bad as the interviewer in the video.

He was against being compelled by the govt to use govt mandated pronouns and having it be a punishable offense. He never called a she, he.

I thought Newman did better than people are giving her credit for and it wasn't the car crash people are saying (she did have to challenge him and she stuck to pretty routine talking points), but it was clear that at some points all she could do was try and put words in his mouth and mischaracterize what he's saying.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 22, 2018, 10:28:59 AM
Quote
It's sad that people can get so bent out of shape over the use of pronouns and that one can be seen as striking a blow for freedom by using he instead of she. Is peterson an example that the rebellion will be televised--on youtube--or that rebellion is just another commercial activity? Is he promoting ideas or his brand?

Yeah, except he never said anything like that. You're as bad as the interviewer in the video.

He was against being compelled by the govt to use govt mandated pronouns and having it be a punishable offense. He never called a she, he.

So you're saying, we should strike a blow for freedom by using he instead of she?
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 22, 2018, 10:30:57 AM
Quote
I thought Newman did better than people are giving her credit for and it wasn't the car crash people are saying

Yeah, she really had him on the ropes with the lobster issue.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CO2 on January 22, 2018, 11:11:08 AM
Quote
I thought Newman did better than people are giving her credit for and it wasn't the car crash people are saying

Yeah, she really had him on the ropes with the lobster issue.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/334/563/b51.jpg)
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 22, 2018, 12:13:07 PM
Quote
I thought Newman did better than people are giving her credit for and it wasn't the car crash people are saying

Yeah, she really had him on the ropes with the lobster issue.

I'm trying to be generous. I do remember during the first half, that I thought Peterson wasn't owning. I can't remember specifically, but I do remember when I listened the first time, I though it wasn't his best effort. Not compared to say, a Ben Shapiro who can be absolutely ruthless in debate.

The second half though was pretty bad for Newman, especially the free speech-transgender part and the lobster stuff.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 22, 2018, 01:07:37 PM
Quote
I'm trying to be generous.

Why? Because she's a woman? (sexist) She's got a first class degree from Oxford and is paid more than Peterson gets as a professor, for interviewing people.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 22, 2018, 01:13:17 PM
Quote
I'm trying to be generous.

Why? Because she's a woman? (sexist) She's got a first class degree from Oxford and is paid more than Peterson gets as a professor, for interviewing people.

As I said, I genuinely thought things were fairly even during the first half, at least not a runaway Peterson smashing. Despite him running riot in the 2nd half and her debacle there, no reason not to notice that the first half wasn't abysmal for her. I could focus just on the 2nd half and the overall outcome, but I think it's better to be generous and acknowledge the first half as well. 
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 22, 2018, 01:33:12 PM
Quote
I'm trying to be generous.

Why? Because she's a woman? (sexist) She's got a first class degree from Oxford and is paid more than Peterson gets as a professor, for interviewing people.

As I said, I genuinely thought things were fairly even during the first half, at least not a runaway Peterson smashing. Despite him running riot in the 2nd half and her debacle there, no reason not to notice that the first half wasn't abysmal for her. I could focus just on the 2nd half and the overall outcome, but I think it's better to be generous and acknowledge the first half as well.

In the first half she accused him of being divisive for having mostly male youtube followers, then asked 'what's in it for women?' when he talked about encouraging men to grow up. That last question was pretty indicative of her view of society being basically men against women, I thought.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Imogen1991 on January 22, 2018, 01:50:16 PM
Interesting interview with Jordan Peterson on the topic.


Peterson is very assured, Cathy Newman's arguments are dreadfully poor. 'What gives you the right to say that?', 'loads of 'so you're saying .such and such...' when he clearly isn't. E.g 'So you're saying women aren't intelligent enough...?' , a few pointless 'not alls', plenty of 'it's not fair' whines and a bit about lobsters at the end to try and make him look like a crank.

I think Peterson is great, he's a breath of fresh air. And he makes his arguments so eloquently. I'm reading his book right now (12 rules for life), it's a great read for anyone interested in what he has to say
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 22, 2018, 02:16:56 PM
In the first half she accused him of being divisive for having mostly male youtube followers, then asked 'what's in it for women?' when he talked about encouraging men to grow up. That last question was pretty indicative of her view of society being basically men against women, I thought.

I think that's reading too much into a ratings driven TV presenter's questioning, at least at the beginning. I thought Newman was more just probing and pushing than "unhinged" or anything like that.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Chinguetti on January 22, 2018, 02:47:04 PM
Quote
I'm trying to be generous.

Why? Because she's a woman? (sexist) She's got a first class degree from Oxford and is paid more than Peterson gets as a professor, for interviewing people.

She was trying to upset him, I think. She was trying to evoke an emotional response from him and to get his ire up because it was a hot button topic and emotional responses gets views.

I don't know, while it kind of turned into a circus of sorts and backfired a bit, I felt like it was planned.

Interviewers are just kind of like that. Some are just more skilled at controlling the interview, especially when there's some kind of agenda behind it. But, regardless, underhanded tactics aside, it doesn't completely invalidate good points made on either side.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 22, 2018, 03:10:04 PM
Quote
it doesn't completely invalidate good points made on either side.

Well so far, neither you nor DeMartino have actually mentioned any good points made by Cathy Newman.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Chinguetti on January 22, 2018, 03:37:51 PM
Quote
it doesn't completely invalidate good points made on either side.

Well so far, neither you nor DeMartino have actually mentioned any good points made by Cathy Newman.

Honestly, I'm not interested in discussing them or else I would have addressed those points in my first post. Whether or not I agree with certain points, I know how to play devil's advocate. But people often bring this stuff up just to argue for argument's sake or to peddle their own personal agendas, and I can't be bothered. While a lot of people are still up for the challenge and find that sort of thing fun and entertaining, I don't, at least not in subjects like this one.

I'd much rather just read what everyone is saying about it, and was more interested in pointing out the behind-the-scenes motivations in this instance because I've been involved with people in this sort of thing and I know that an (apparently) failed attempt at doing something doesn't suddenly discredit a person or their points. A lot of the times, it's done on purpose. Trying to write them off based on what you view as a bad interview, especially when you don't personally like the interviewer and his/her views, without fully understanding what was going on in the interview itself and what was being said here and there is a mistake that might blindside some folks later. We can discuss participants' behaviors and tactics, sure, as long as it's understood that what a participant does/doesn't do or say doesn't suddenly invalidate their side of the argument as well. Just depends on why they're doing it.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm more concerned about the manipulation side of it. I find THAT interesting. And also because people are easily distracted by it.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 22, 2018, 04:39:20 PM
Quote
Honestly, I'm not interested in discussing them or else I would have written out my first post here with those points in mind

So don't say there were valid points made on both sides if you're not going to say what they were. Otherwise people will probably think it's just a platitude. Afterall, no one can force you to discuss those points once you've mentioned them.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Chinguetti on January 22, 2018, 08:19:33 PM
Quote
Honestly, I'm not interested in discussing them or else I would have written out my first post here with those points in mind

So don't say there were valid points made on both sides if you're not going to say what they were. Otherwise people will probably think it's just a platitude. Afterall, no one can force you to discuss those points once you've mentioned them.


Why can't I say there were valid points on both sides without getting into it? No one can force me to discuss them either way, but one way is far cleaner and won't detract from the point of my original post.

You can argue that some people will think it's just a platitude. Fair enough. But others won't. It doesn't really matter either way because none of that was really the point of my original post anyway. The internet is a big place. If people were REALLY interested in reading about actually well-argued opposing views on that particular subject, they don't need them to come from me.

But continually challenging someone to state an opinion on a particular matter when they've made it clear that they're not interested in discussing that particular issue on a particular platform to begin with might seem unnecessarily argumentative and contrary to some people and implies that you're not really looking for an actual discussion (especially when the info you're requesting is very easily found -- it's not like waygook.org is the only site where people are discussing this shit) but for a means to try to validate your own position and authority on the matter. As if you think your position would be hard to rebuttal. As if you've only been looking at sources that validate your own views while ignoring others'.

Whether you do or don't doesn't matter to me. It's an aside, and, if I pushed it, it would only serve to bait you into an argument. Some people find that fun. I don't. But you can see how pointless it is for me to even point that out. Unless, that is, if I were just looking for an argument.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: eggieguffer on January 22, 2018, 08:49:35 PM
Quote
Honestly, I'm not interested in discussing them or else I would have written out my first post here with those points in mind

So don't say there were valid points made on both sides if you're not going to say what they were. Otherwise people will probably think it's just a platitude. Afterall, no one can force you to discuss those points once you've mentioned them.

Why can't I say there were valid points on both sides without getting into it? No one can force me to discuss them either way, but one way is far cleaner and won't detract from the point of my original post.

You can argue that some people will think it's just a platitude. Fair enough. But others won't. It doesn't really matter either way because none of that was really the point of my original post anyway. The internet is a big place. If people were REALLY interested in reading about actually well-argued opposing views on that particular subject, they don't need them to come from me.

But continually challenging someone to state an opinion on a particular matter when they've made it clear that they're not interested in discussing that particular issue on a particular platform to begin with might seem unnecessarily argumentative and contrary to some people and implies that you're not really looking for an actual discussion (especially when the info you're requesting is very easily found -- it's not like waygook.org is the only site where people are discussing this shit) but for a means to try to validate your own position and authority on the matter. As if you think your position would be hard to rebuttal. As if you've only been looking at sources that validate your own views while ignoring others'.

Whether you do or don't doesn't matter to me. It's an aside, and, if I pushed it, it would only serve to bait you into an argument. Some people find that fun. I don't. But you can see how pointless it is for me to even point that out. Unless, that is, if I were just looking for an argument.

Actually there seems to be very little discussion online concerning valid points made on both sides. The Left wing media seems to be favoring the let's turn her into a victim due to all the misogynistic comments response.

E.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cathy-newman-abuse-channel-4-jordan-peterson-metoo-backlash-latest-a8170031.html
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: gogators! on January 22, 2018, 08:57:16 PM
Quote
I'm trying to be generous.

Why? Because she's a woman? (sexist) She's got a first class degree from Oxford and is paid more than Peterson gets as a professor, for interviewing people.

As I said, I genuinely thought things were fairly even during the first half, at least not a runaway Peterson smashing. Despite him running riot in the 2nd half and her debacle there, no reason not to notice that the first half wasn't abysmal for her. I could focus just on the 2nd half and the overall outcome, but I think it's better to be generous and acknowledge the first half as well.

In the first half she accused him of being divisive for having mostly male youtube followers, then asked 'what's in it for women?' when he talked about encouraging men to grow up. That last question was pretty indicative of her view of society being basically men against women, I thought.
Considering you posts on the topic,  I'd say that's your view.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: Chinguetti on January 22, 2018, 09:47:44 PM
Actually there seems to be very little discussion online concerning valid points made on both sides. The Left wing media seems to be favoring the let's turn her into a victim due to all the misogynistic comments response.

That's one way to look at it.

But yes, my point was that there is a lot of manipulation going on in general, but not always for why people think, and not always or even usually using obvious or similar tactics. It's important for people to investigate outside of their comfort zones a little and to not rely so heavily on impressions being given by media in the first place, be it left or right or social, and to stop focusing solely on outlets that specialize in specific perspectives. Media is an important source and a valuable tool, but people should be aware of its shortcomings and understand that it can and is often misused. By everyone. It should serve as a complement to other sources and to sincere discussion, not as the basis for them or as an excuse to deride opposing viewpoints.

It's that exact derision, being used to quiet and demonize opposition, that is keeping a lot of discussions in quieter and smaller circles, and it gets in the way of concessions and compromise.

But points are being made and discussed, and they are easy to find. They're just not always gonna be presented on clean, one-size-fits-all media platforms.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on April 20, 2018, 02:41:11 PM
Three new plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit. The lawsuit accuses Google of fetishizing diversity and discriminating against Caucasians, Asians, males, and conservatives.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/18/three-new-plaintiffs-join-james-damores-discrimination-lawsuit-google/
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: AMDC on April 20, 2018, 02:55:55 PM
The lawsuit accuses Google of fetishizing diversity and discriminating against Caucasians, Asians, males, and conservatives.

I'm no conservative, but this is kind of a pickle.

On the one hand, I'd objectively agree that bringing in a solid mix of men and women, all races, and different origins/perspectives would help bring the different perspectives in that are needed to solve complex problems and push the cutting edge technology that they put out. If you have a bunch of people from the same background that think the same, why hire so many in the first place?

However, if it's true that it's just a circle jerk of like-minded people, it seems misplaced to focus on this faux 'diversity', if it's not benefiting the company in the way that it should.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CO2 on April 20, 2018, 03:15:14 PM
The lawsuit accuses Google of fetishizing diversity and discriminating against Caucasians, Asians, males, and conservatives.

I'm no conservative, but this is kind of a pickle.

On the one hand, I'd objectively agree that bringing in a solid mix of men and women, all races, and different origins/perspectives would help bring the different perspectives in that are needed to solve complex problems and push the cutting edge technology that they put out. If you have a bunch of people from the same background that think the same, why hire so many in the first place?

However, if it's true that it's just a circle jerk of like-minded people, it seems misplaced to focus on this faux 'diversity', if it's not benefiting the company in the way that it should.

Well, that's the danger, right? Is a 30 year old Indian man different or the same as a 30 year old Californian man? Are they more different than a white man from Texas and a white man from Maine? What about Idaho?

If there's an assumption that all Indian men and all white native born American men think differently, isn't that othering? It's a huge assumption that simply hiring someone from a different culture will bring something new to the table. Which is why it's important to have a good interview process and then hire the person that will bring the best change to the company. Not any change, mind you, but positive, profit-inducing change, regardless of immutable characteristics.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: JNM on April 20, 2018, 03:23:01 PM
The lawsuit accuses Google of fetishizing diversity and discriminating against Caucasians, Asians, males, and conservatives.

I'm no conservative, but this is kind of a pickle.

On the one hand, I'd objectively agree that bringing in a solid mix of men and women, all races, and different origins/perspectives would help bring the different perspectives in that are needed to solve complex problems and push the cutting edge technology that they put out. If you have a bunch of people from the same background that think the same, why hire so many in the first place?

However, if it's true that it's just a circle jerk of like-minded people, it seems misplaced to focus on this faux 'diversity', if it's not benefiting the company in the way that it should.

Well, that's the danger, right? Is a 30 year old Indian man different or the same as a 30 year old Californian man? Are they more different than a white man from Texas and a white man from Maine? What about Idaho?

If there's an assumption that all Indian men and all white native born American men think differently, isn't that othering? It's a huge assumption that simply hiring someone from a different culture will bring something new to the table. Which is why it's important to have a good interview process and then hire the person that will bring the best change to the company. Not any change, mind you, but positive, profit-inducing change, regardless of immutable characteristics.

Exactly!

I have been in meetings with groups of people who have worked for the same company all their career.  Most of them went to the same handful of regional universities.  It didn't matter the skin colour, gender, or age... they all thought the same.
Title: Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
Post by: CDW on April 21, 2018, 12:25:49 PM
YouTube is being sued too.

"YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn’t help the world’s largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee....

"Recruiters used what was known internally as a 'diversity tracker,' to track minority hiring, the people familiar with hiring practices at YouTube and Google said. For the week of March 20, 2017, for example, the team tracked a year-to-date goal of 21 African-American hires, with one actually hired in that period, according to an internal YouTube email attached as an exhibit to the lawsuit."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-hiring-for-some-positions-excluded-white-and-asian-males-lawsuit-says-1519948013

Racial quotas are illegal.