March 25, 2019, 07:34:36 PM


Author Topic: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer  (Read 12594 times)

Online Chinguetti

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2561
  • Gender: Female
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #140 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.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 08:59:02 PM by Chinguetti »

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5229
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #141 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
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 09:28:10 PM by eggieguffer »

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #142 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.

Online Chinguetti

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2561
  • Gender: Female
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #143 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.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 09:53:00 PM by Chinguetti »

Offline CDW

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1783
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #144 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/

Online AMDC

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #145 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.

Online CO2

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4157
  • Gender: Male
  • Feeling Grabby?
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #146 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.
The joys of fauxtherhood

Online JNM

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #147 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.

Offline CDW

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1783
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #148 on: January 19, 2019, 06:26:27 AM »
"A well-known Republican San Francisco lawyer has filed a lawsuit against Google seeking to represent white, male, or conservative employees who believe the company has discriminated against them....

"The most jaw-dropping allegation is that 'Google publicly endorsed blacklists' of conservatives. The suit claims that several hiring managers publicly vowed not to hire people categorized as 'hostile voices' — aka conservatives."
https://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-google-employees-are-blacklisted-lawsuit-alleges-2018-1

Scary stuff. A sensible workplace policy would be a blanket ban on the discussion of certain topics, but SJW's don't care about fairness.

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #149 on: January 19, 2019, 07:48:35 AM »
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.
That's some hard, scientific evidence there. Maybe you should publish your research.

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5229
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #150 on: January 19, 2019, 07:50:48 AM »
"A well-known Republican San Francisco lawyer has filed a lawsuit against Google seeking to represent white, male, or conservative employees who believe the company has discriminated against them....

"The most jaw-dropping allegation is that 'Google publicly endorsed blacklists' of conservatives. The suit claims that several hiring managers publicly vowed not to hire people categorized as 'hostile voices' — aka conservatives."
https://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-google-employees-are-blacklisted-lawsuit-alleges-2018-1

Scary stuff. A sensible workplace policy would be a blanket ban on the discussion of certain topics, but SJW's don't care about fairness.

When people say things like 'why are you so triggered by a stupid advert?' or 'why are you worried about a bunch of stupid SJWs at a university?', this is the reason. This is the thick end of the wedge that can really affect people's lives. When people in power believe they are morally justified in rejecting groups of people because of their beliefs or inherent birth features, we're in trouble. We know it happened in the past and we don't want it repeated.   

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #151 on: January 19, 2019, 07:51:26 AM »
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.
IMO that's far from "a huge" assumption. For example, Korean hagwons in the late 90s started preferring Canadians to Americans because they complained less (and would work for less).

Culture, brother.

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5229
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #152 on: January 19, 2019, 10:50:49 AM »
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.
IMO that's far from "a huge" assumption. For example, Korean hagwons in the late 90s started preferring Canadians to Americans because they complained less (and would work for less).

Culture, brother.

That sounds more like economics than culture. If they hired Filippinos they would work longer hours for less money than Canadians without complaining. If that's what the Americans were complaining about. If it was stuff like there's no dryer in the flat or bones in the fish at lunchtime, fair enough.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 10:53:11 AM by eggieguffer »

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #153 on: January 20, 2019, 08:38:25 AM »
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.
IMO that's far from "a huge" assumption. For example, Korean hagwons in the late 90s started preferring Canadians to Americans because they complained less (and would work for less).

Culture, brother.

That sounds more like economics than culture. If they hired Filippinos they would work longer hours for less money than Canadians without complaining. If that's what the Americans were complaining about. If it was stuff like there's no dryer in the flat or bones in the fish at lunchtime, fair enough.
Culture--Americans took their complaints to the boss while Canadians didn't.

Why drag Filipinos into it?

Online JNM

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #154 on: January 20, 2019, 05:28:58 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.
IMO that's far from "a huge" assumption. For example, Korean hagwons in the late 90s started preferring Canadians to Americans because they complained less (and would work for less).

Culture, brother.

That sounds more like economics than culture. If they hired Filippinos they would work longer hours for less money than Canadians without complaining. If that's what the Americans were complaining about. If it was stuff like there's no dryer in the flat or bones in the fish at lunchtime, fair enough.
Culture--Americans took their complaints to the boss while Canadians didn't.

Why drag Filipinos into it?
Cuz they will complain yes and accept lower pay.

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #155 on: January 21, 2019, 01:42:29 AM »
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.
IMO that's far from "a huge" assumption. For example, Korean hagwons in the late 90s started preferring Canadians to Americans because they complained less (and would work for less).

Culture, brother.

That sounds more like economics than culture. If they hired Filippinos they would work longer hours for less money than Canadians without complaining. If that's what the Americans were complaining about. If it was stuff like there's no dryer in the flat or bones in the fish at lunchtime, fair enough.
Culture--Americans took their complaints to the boss while Canadians didn't.

Why drag Filipinos into it?
Cuz they will complain yes and accept lower pay.
Why not include the slaves on Salt Island?

Online JNM

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #156 on: January 21, 2019, 01:57:07 AM »
They don’t speek English.

A Filipino with a BA can, in fact, do the job.

Offline Chester Jim

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #157 on: January 21, 2019, 05:31:25 AM »
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.
That's some hard, scientific evidence there. Maybe you should publish your research.

Yeah don’t you know experience is worthless ya ol dumb coot.
Bonzai!

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #158 on: January 23, 2019, 10:52:15 PM »
They don’t speek English.

A Filipino with a BA can, in fact, do the job.
Not if they spell like you. 8)

And not if the job calls for a native English speaker, which most Americans and Canadians are.


Online JNM

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #159 on: January 23, 2019, 11:08:43 PM »
They don’t speek English.

A Filipino with a BA can, in fact, do the job.
Not if they spell like you. 8)

And not if the job calls for a native English speaker, which most Americans and Canadians are.

“Native” in this case, has an operational definition. It can mean whatever the ministry of education wants it to mean.