Google employee fired 4 objections to PC culture Inquisition

[ninjahood]

Son what?

a naive apolitical assessment being taken and politicized by a environment he ironically agreed with in principle but challenged da means.

 

[41239]

dont got the time to read it, cuzzo semi right, hes playing dumb to a certain extent tho, but it kinda remind me of that pic of some start up that posted their boardroom that was 100% white women with the caption that bragged diversity, dummys just as bad as their "oppressors" stupid mfs

 

[ninjahood]

dont got the time to read it, cuzzo semi right, hes playing dumb to a certain extent tho, but it kinda remind me of that pic of some start up that posted their boardroom that was 100% white women with the caption that bragged diversity, dummys just as bad as their "oppressors" stupid mfs

diversity is relative.

 

[dmbrhs]

He had his right to free speech, Google had their right to fire him for using their company and mailing list as a vehicle to promote his beliefs.

Freedom of speech has NOTHING to do with this. Freedom of speech protects you from government suppression (like holding a KKK rally). He released a manifesto criticizing his employer. His employer can fire him for that. The guy had no right to do it. He just did it, and suffered the consequences.

 

[hand2handking]

diversity is fixed in relation to dominant society

 

[6pac]

probably is a youtube commenter

 

[ninjahood]

diversity is fixed in relation to dominant society

nah really, more like a close ratio population of w/e medium ya elaborating on.

hegemonies need no apply.

 

[yeah]

nah, you're overplaying da political hand cuz certain folks of a partisan ilk is rollin with it.

da reality is da rubber of meritocracy is meeting da road of reality where things "on paper work" in real life are much more nuanced, I.E. emotions & passions, and flat out zeal of something tends to get blown way out of proportion.

you can tell this guy only knows how to crunch data and come to callused scientific conclusions, which on da tech world is just what da doctor ordered.

that manifest was cited like a dissertation.

this is why Robots won't ever really take over jobs humans do where da human element cannot be factored out.

da irony is biological men & women are different and to politicize it is just giving lip service of w/e da overarching topic is just to not offend and move on.

 

[6pac]

**** the internet man

 

[Brownstone]

Naw I agree with ninja, he's a nerd so he thought he could argue the intricacies of corporate melting pot culture/redundancies with a term paper.

Sit down, and code.

 

[thunderchunk69]

https://www.perspectiveapi.com

Google is investing in Artificial intelligence. Maybe they'll deem open thought offensive or "toxic"

 

[Mr.Guy]

So ninja is against diversity?

 

[ninjahood]

https://www.perspectiveapi.com

Google is investing in Artificial intelligence. Maybe they'll deem open thought offensive or "toxic"

someone created a bot on Twitter abd within 20 mins it learned how to be a *** hole based on what other tweets it saw

 

[brendasdeadbaby]

I read thread title high asf and thought he got fired for not wanting to change from pc to mac

 

[freeze]

Of course OP would have an issue with gender equality

i literally just copy & pasted a article, try again.

Nah, your thread title says otherwise. Don't try to be clever, because you don't have the capacity to do so

bars

 

[Methodical Management]

• Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. Google wasn't playing "thought police." Damore chose to blast out a rant to more than 40,000 coworkers claiming that women are biologically less capable of succeeding in the tech world than men. That is an action, not a "thought," and that action has consequences. If you, as an employer, allow that to fly, what message does that send to the rest of the company? To the market as a whole?
  
  The people you hire represent your organization. If they become an embarrassment, why are you obligated to maintain their employment? If you're so against "entitlements" and "hand outs," how can you be in favor of compelling companies to keep racists or sexists around for the sake of "ideological diversity?" Isn't that hypocrisy? What happened to that otherwise omnipresent, dogmatic faith in the wisdom of the free market and of corporate autonomy? So, companies shouldn't be forced to hire or even serve minorities, but they should be forced to serve as megaphones for their employees' bigotry?
  
  Where was all this "free speech" talk when CNN fired Kathy Griffin?
  
  
• How far do you let this slide? What if the author had instead used quack science from phrenologists to "prove" that race based affirmative action is somehow misguided "because the Bell Curve?" What if he thought eugenics policies were a good idea? Or what if he just sent out racist Michelle Obama memes, like the former mayor of West York, PA? "Hitler had some good ideas and we should be able to discuss those in a sensible manner without emotion or shame." That's all just "ideological diversity?"
  
  
• Not all scientific studies are created equal. The mere publication of a study does not somehow cement its findings as "scientific fact." Cherry picking a few papers that seem to support a particular conclusion does not mean that your conclusion is thus the consensus view of the scientific community as a whole.
  
  In at least one case, Damore's conclusions aren't even shared by the very people he cited in his rambling diatribe.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/google-science-women-brains_us_598aea57e4b0449ed506b6c0
  

  Using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality is like surgically operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm.

  
  

  There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio-structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. These include culturally-embedded gender stereotypes, biased socialization practices, in some cultures explicit employment discrimination, and a certain degree of masculinization of technological workplaces. Within this sea of gender bias, should Google use various practices (affirmative action is not just one thing) to especially encourage capable women of joining (and enjoying) the Google workplace? I vote yes.

  
  There are countless articles out there criticizing the "science" behind the memo, but, suffice it to say, if even some of the very researchers he's citing don't share his conclusions, he does not have a meaningful grasp of the literature. He just looked for something - anything - scholarly to apply a patina of "scientific" legitimacy to what is otherwise a loose collection of tired gender stereotypes.

• If diversity efforts are a "social experiment," what of the centuries of oppression and institutional bias that necessitated them in the first place?
  
  Are these inequities simply going to solve themselves? The male-dominated tech industry remains incredibly hostile to women. This is not a "natural" occurrence, but a human-made one. To claim otherwise is not to accept "science", but to deny history.
  
  
• Even if we presume Google to be an amoral entity driven purely by its own self-aggrandizement, the case could be made that the tech world's misogyny is damaging its reputation and has finally begun to scare away investment.
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/opinion/sunday/jerks-and-the-start-ups-they-ruin.html
  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/
  
  Google itself is under investigation by the Department of Labor for its wage disparities: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/dol-google-pay-discrimination/522411/
  
  We've dealt with various SV tech companies over the years, and, while every company is different, I've come across more than enough instances of "toxic", misogynistic workplace cultures to find such complaints eminently justified on the whole. If anything, the problem is grossly under-reported.
  
  Damore may have set out to prove that diversity initiatives are misguided or unnecessary, but he's actually demonstrated the opposite.

ever had a argument with a broad? exactly....

It's difficult to make the case that you have no bias on this issue when you're posting sexist "jokes" on the same page. Consider yourself warned, by the way.

that manifest was cited like a dissertation.

It's 10 pages long and has 11 citations. Where does that qualify as a dissertation? Trump University?

 

[Mr.Guy]

Meth with that ether again.

 

[ninjahood]

It's 10 pages long and has 11 citations. Where does that qualify as a dissertation? Trump University?

hyperbole is an accepted form of writing b, relax.

It's difficult to make the case that you have no bias on this issue when you're posting sexist "jokes" on the same page

who's talking jokes? this been established that women are emotional argumentive creatures.

A stronger connection between these areas in men suggests they have a more analytical than emotional approach when dealing with negative emotions,” said Stéphane Potvin, associate professor at the University of Montreal’s Department of Psychiatry. “It is possible that women tend to focus more on the feelings generated by these stimuli, when men remain somewhat ‘passive’ toward negative emotions, trying to analyze the stimuli and their impact.”

http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-w...gative-emotions-react-differently-mens-354226

jokes...i wish

 

[harlemtothebronx]

ethical/moral concerns vs cold hard truths are always great combative opponents because you're dealing with rooted facts vs emotional feelings of people which isn't always connected to what's really going on, but merely da perception.

hyperbole is an accepted form of writing b, relax.

 

[nawghtyhare]

It's difficult to make the case that you have no bias on this issue when you're posting sexist "jokes" on the same page. Consider yourself warned, by the way.

who's talking jokes? this been established that women are emotional argumentive creatures.
A stronger connection between these areas in men suggests they have a more analytical than emotional approach when dealing with negative emotions,” said Stéphane Potvin, associate professor at the University of Montreal’s Department of Psychiatry. “It is possible that women tend to focus more on the feelings generated by these stimuli, when men remain somewhat ‘passive’ toward negative emotions, trying to analyze the stimuli and their impact.”

http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-w...gative-emotions-react-differently-mens-354226

jokes...i wish

id really like to get meth's response to this
all joking and sexism or whatever aside
i always thought it was just the norm
and accepted that women were more "emotional"
and reacted from emotion more than men
thought it was because of hormones and all that

 

[ninjahood]

and since meth is here opining, why don't we use Niketalk as a test case.

this place is da quintessential boys club, irrespective of da fact that this place lauds da principles of diversity and openiness and its co-founder is a walking talking billboard of progressive thought.

Men & Women tend to self select their interests/careers. this has huge ramifications in terms of their future earning potential of all things.

what's being sadly loss in da whole fiasco is a cold clinical analytical look into why these methods of trying to diversify either aren't working as planned or are being detrimental to other aspects of a environment takes a backseat to da emotional response and termination to pacify and placate da backlash as a result of da critiques of said policies.

 

[SC kid]

hyperbole is an accepted form of writing b, relax.



who's talking jokes? this been established that women are emotional argumentive creatures.



http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-w...gative-emotions-react-differently-mens-354226

jokes...i wish

That study was only 46 people tho
And 25 women
And in Canada lol

I'm not saying it is not plausible that women are more emotional than men or whatever..but im CERTAIN there ARE men out there who are more emotionally argumentive than some women.

Our president for example.

 

[ninjahood]

That study was only 46 people tho
And 25 women
And in Canada lol

you implying Canada is a on another planet or something? and surveys & studies always use a small sample size and scale it up reflect a large population on question (Red skins poll demonstrated this)

 

[PatRiley]

That study was only 46 people tho
And 25 women
And in Canada lol

I'm not saying it is not plausible that women are more emotional than men or whatever..but im CERTAIN there ARE men out there who are more emotionally argumentive than some women.

Our president for example.

Yep. Trump is way more emotional than my wife, or any other female that I'm close with for that matter. Once again Ninjahood bringing the hard facts and scientific knowledge

 

[SC kid]

you implying Canada is a on another planet or something? and surveys & studies always use a small sample size and scale it up reflect a large population on question (Red skins poll demonstrated this)

I was joking about the Canada thing but my point is this.

How can you make that assumption in a workplace? Women could very well be more emotional in making decisions as a whole...i don't know.....but what I'm saying is that it is POSSIBLE there is a woman in a work environment who has a cooler head than some men in the same environment and who makes decisions with less emotional influence. I'm sure of it.

I mean there's alot of factors....outside influences that come into play...say you have a man and a woman working together and the guy is going through a divorce...or his son died. There's so many things.