Ideological diversity? What do you think we are trying to promote? An accurate representation within the company of American society's diverse race, gender, sexual orientation, age, and class makeup?
Conservative googler claims that conservative viewpoints are not welcome at google, asks for diversity of ideology instead of diversity of skin tone and genitalia.
One diversity hire xir highness responds: "If HR does nothing in this case, I will consider leaving this company for real for the first time in five years"
"I feel like there's a lot of pushback from white dudes who genuinely feel like diversity is lowering the bar" claims another.
If you're important and powerful enough to have that be a serious threat, leave and start your own company, you're throwing away money by not doing that. If you're not, don't try dumb blackmail, just quit or just stay there but don't make it a social media thing
I don't know, nowadays a targeted media campaign, "Poor, oppressed employee, victim of *ism and *phobia, leaves [company] after [drama]." can be somewhat damaging to the company, PR wise, even if the employee in question had the added value of a potted plant.
This is very sad. You would think if there is one lesson we could take from the history of the US, religious tolerance in the colonies, slavery, the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, our wars with Native Americans, the likes of the Japanese Internment, women's suffrage, everything ... if there's one resounding strain here, it's that you don't un-people people.
He's talking about the hypothetical hurt feelings of rednecks who were ridiculed in absentia at a party in San Francisco for voting against gay marriage.
Didn't read the second one because it was too much text. Some of the shorter ones were rather reasonable which is a bit odd for HN. I expected something of the "that guy is litteraly responsible for the death of 5 trillion POC" sort.
I do stand corrected though. I lack your dedication to drama so as to even sift trough walls of text in comments.
Mostly because he backs it up with some really poorly worded and/or backed up data about "biological differences" (which is usually the politically friendly term for biological inferiority). Some of his suggested policies/initiatives seem very well thought out and overall beneficial, but with a sexist spin.
While biological differences do exist between individuals, it's much more difficult to generalize those differences across large groups with certainty and make reasonable assumptions to individuals and small groups based on any statistical observation. Because of this, it is widely seen as an unethical approach to any sort of group/organization policy.
A good example of this, astrology. While many find entertainment and potential life advice through astrology, it is seen as a very irrational way to go about making life and organizational choices based on astrological signs. There may be scientific data that shows that some traits correlate with specific astrological signs to a significant degree, but we (as a society) would shun anybody that suggested corporate policy should be changed for Sagitarius coworkers.
Sex differences are far more measurable than zodiac signs
Nobody is saying that every single man or every single woman fits the gender mould. There are plenty of feminine men and masculine women. But on a broad scale, the differences are obvious and very easily measured. This isn't pseudoscience, neuroscientists have been observing it for decades. One of the clearest divisions is in empathising and systemising behaviours- men are generally far better at shape rotating tasks, for example, whereas women are better at reading emotions given only a picture of some eyes.
Richard Lippa’s Gender Differences In Personality And Interests is a pretty good source for this sort of thing. It notes that one of the largest gender differences recorded – larger even than the things we tend to think of as hard-and-fast obvious gender differences like physical aggressiveness or attitudes toward casual sex – is what Lippa calls “interest in things vs. people”. He writes:
>>For the people–things dimension of interests, the results in Table 1 are clear, strong, and unambiguous. Men tend to be much more thing-oriented and much less people-oriented than women (mean d = 1.18, a ‘very large’ difference, according to Hyde (2005) verbal designations
He notes that a d of 1.18 is “very large”, but I worry that the less statistically savvy won’t appreciate quite how large it is. All I can say is that I spent several years believing that the d statistic was a scale from 0 to 1, because I’d never seen a d go outside that range before. Daniel Lakens wrote a great piece about a study that found a d = 1.96, where he argued we should dismiss it almost out of hand, because non-tautological effects are almost never that large and so clearly somebody made a mistake in the study (spoiler: they did). Lippa’s finding isn’t quite at that level, but it’s getting up there.
And that's where people keep missing the big picture in all of this. The few things he points to (coding pairs, inclusive group functions) are good overall. These aspects are good for engineering overall, not because, "feeeeeeeeemales are more socially minded and don't fit into my idea of engineering!" He's trying to say overtly that we need to carve out space for all these different people, because "science."
Because the science is far from conclusive and the doc linked doesn't give much data or evidence. There isn't any conclusive evidence I've seen that says women are less capable of being scientists or engineers, but plenty of data showing women are routinely treated poorly in the workplace.
It's never worth adding those kinds of caveats, the people that think you're an awful sexist and racist will do so anyway, and now you look weak, since you're kow-towing.
People deep enough in SV culture to work at Google don't really get to be neutral on this issue. It's not like he intended for the current audience, actually containing many moderates, to see it.
The problem is by "conservative viewpoints" these people never actually mean conservative viewpoints.
Actual conservative viewpoints are tolerated in most places, small government, conservative economics.
When you see people like this cry about how "conservative viewpoints aren't welcome" they almost certainly mean bullshit about race, gender and stuff like that.
They really do believe their racist and delusional bullshit should be tolerated.
Not a single opponent to gay marraige I've seen is against civil unions for gay people. Why do you think opposition to gay marraige is opposition to civil rights and not a religious stipulation?
It's not my religion, but who would have guessed you are a presumptuous bigot. Marriage is a holy sacrament, government should stay the fuck out of religion.
Not a single opponent to gay marraige I've seen is against civil unions for gay people.
If this was at all true, it wouldn't have been a struggle to attain civil unions for gay people 10-20 years ago.
If you don't want your church performing gay marriages, they don't have to and you can switch churches at any time. But you're wrong if you're going to suggest the Government take a very selective definition of marriage within the bible as a way to enact policy for everyone.
Lots of perfectly reasonable arguments for wanting to keep a 2000 years old tradition as it is, especially when most countries already have a legal union contract covering the same things a marriage does.
Gay marriage wasn't necessary for gay couples to have the same rights as married couples. But LGBT lobbies made it their symbol of pretended oppression to fight.
In practical terms, it changes nothing. All it does is make weak leftists like you go nuts when people raise the smallest objection.
There is not a single valid argument, there is not an argument that even approaches the solar system of valid for why you, based on your trash tier religion, have any right to tell someone that they can't marry another person.
I said 2000 randomly, just to state that it's ancient as fuck and that wedlock has always been the base of family structured civilisations, almsot everywhere.
When you see people like this cry about how "conservative viewpoints aren't welcome" they almost certainly mean bullshit about race, gender and stuff like that.
Prove to me that it is all bullshit. It might be but I want you to prove it.
Only if you treat me out to a wine bar date in San Francisco then go to a dog park with me afterwards were we talk about how women are the "n-words" of tech.
without seeing the doc it's hard to know who I should be judgy about. does the document say, "these diversity programs undermine meritocracy' and women think the notion of a meritocracy is sexist, or does it say "women are dummies who can't code and won't date me." We need to know!
If you could just bend over and be helpful for a second, can you jellyfisting please define, 'South Park Neutral'. If you'll bear with my opinion before I promptly suicide, it seems like Matt and Trey manage to roundly mock all comers; unlike you - because you're unable to reach a sexual climax due to significant mental and biological barriers.
Right now they're on top but thinking you'll be on top forever while playing bullshit internal political games is how you go from being google to being Microsoft.
Who admittedly are also doing okay, just for a value of okay that equals desperately wishing they were doing as well as Google.
This diversity stuff is standard in top companies. I recently interned at a top international bank and they spend a lot of time internally promoting diversity.
If anyone's wondering, it's obvious that the document was based on http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-mostly-not-due-to-offensive-attitudes/, but it sounds like the author put a much harsher spin on it. Like, from Scott's, "maybe you shouldn't assume that some group is mostly male because it's misogynistic", to "no there's definitely no misogyny at all so we should stop all diversity programs".
His sophistication on gender issues is generally somewhere around the level of australopithecine, distantly aspiring towards Neanderthaldom as some shining mountaintop goal.
This is not the sentence of an educated person. This is the sentence of a person who really really wants you to think he's educated.
He's part of the self-declared "Rationalish Community". Imagine the ridiculous level of self-regard implied by that. Picture cb2 with a graduate degree.
/u/ScottAlexander if brevity is the soul of wit, you're a witless soulsucking fuck.
Problem is brevity in modern academia is absolute suicide today. In order to reassure anyone that you're not evil™ for daring to be nuanced, all your work needs to be filled with disclaimers, re-clarifications and painstaking comprehensiveness to ensure no (deliberate) mischaracterizations.
Google is currently being investigated by the Department of Labor for its gender pay gap and Silicon Valley has been repeatedly exposed as a place that discriminates against women and people of color—as well as the private and public response from its workforce are important.
Does anyone else find this sort of thing funny? All these lefties crying about the wage gap and they work for and run companies that perpetuate the wage gap?
All the tweets are a hilarious mix of feminist talking points and white-knightery:
By Aimee: "Today's rage-read (at work): doc essentially saying that women are unsuited for tech because they like people, whilst men like things."
Sarah wrote: "Internal article circulated at work today describing how gender rep gap in SW is due to biological differences btwn men/women."
To which Andrew, the white knight, responded with: "That garbage fire of a document is trash and you are wonderful coworkers who I am extremely lucky to work with."
Andrew is probably trying to get into Sarah's pants.
Jaana went on a rage binge with: "Write a doc about how inferior women are, then try to be a hero by offering help to save the vulnerable 🤢🤢🤢 Still shaking in anger."
That's write, she's literally shaking. I wonder if she also stood up and, with tears in her eyes, screamed "NO" and knocked her computer over.
I love watching lefties get their panties all wadded up. Righties do the same thing, but not to the dramatic extent that lefties do.
California talking about being a Utopia who will save all the minorities while ignoring and discriminating against them locally? Is it a day that ends in Y?
Does anyone else find this sort of thing funny? All these lefties crying about the wage gap and they work for and run companies that perpetuate the wage gap?
You'd think the fact that even environments heavily controlled by heavily feminist and social justice oriented people demonstrate a pay gap would clue some of them in to it not being (at least mostly) discrimination, but ideologue skulls are pretty thick.
Yes, we spend billions of dollars on diversity workshops, outreach programmes, women-only workshops and conferences, unconscious bias training and inviting Anita to give speeches, but if only we spent N+1 billion dollars, then maybe women could get a fair shake around here.
A community made up of sexist jerks has a moral obligation to stop being sexist and jerkish right away, both because it’s the right thing to do, and because it’s tactically advantageous to be able to recruit women to the cause. If sexist jerkishness can be measured by gender balance, the appropriate response is “keep dialing up the level of cracking-down-on-sexism until gender balance approaches parity.” But if this is your philosophy, and gender balance doesn’t respond at all to these crackdowns, then level-of-cracking-down quickly rises to infinity.
Women would become obsolete in a century. Sentient AIs, advances in robotics and material sciences would give us real intelligent partners. Advances in the medical field would make child rearing in artificial wombs more safe and controllable. Women will be on the line behind truckers losing their jobs to self driving trucks.
I don't mean exact copypasta, just the general idea. They are basically neoreactionaries of technological kind. The whole women being obsolete due to artifical wombs, sex dols etc. I'll try and find the article.
It would be good if we could actually read the allegedly heretical document in question, to make up our own minds about it. If it does indeed contain a heresy, then that is a serious business. It calls at least for a symbolic auto-da-fé.
so since im a fucking loser i can tell this "anti-diversity document" was inspired by this slate star codex post with maybe some "wahh libruls are mean" mixed in. without the document itself i cant judge how dumb of a take it is (it might be very, very dumb) but the core concept "men like 'things' massively more than women" is correct, but acknowledging statistical gender differences exist isnt hip anymore so thats plenty to make twitter mad on its own.
This guy is clearly autistic. Otherwise he would know that voicing a moderate conservative opinion, let alone a more radical one like his apparently is, is not going to go down well among tech people like Google employees who are practically all progressives.
This isn't about diversity or diversity of ideology, it's about neurodiversity.
LOOK YOU LITTLE BETA, HAVING BALLS DOESN'T MEAN PACKING UP AND QUITTING AT THE FIRST SIGN OF TROUBLE. IT MEANS STANDING DEFIANT IN THE FACE OF DANGER FOR WHAT IS RIGHT LIKE A TRUE HERO.
I'm curious what conservative views a tech company should be pandering to, as a way to protect fragile feelings. Google's already made their opinion on net neutrality known, so what "right" do these idiots have to express the opposite, as emoyees of said company?
Arguing for "ideological diversity" is like arguing for the right to be stupid. It's not illegal, no, but there's explicit reason it shouldn't be tolerated.
A network effect (also called network externality or demand-side economies of scale) is the effect described in economics and business that one user of a good or service has on the value of that product to others. When a network effect is present, the value of a product or service is dependent on the number of others using it.
The classic example is the telephone, where a greater number of users increases the value to each. A positive externality is created when a telephone is purchased without its owner intending to create value for other users, but does so regardless.
Do you have a spare few million to get it going? Added when you invite people who want to censor frogs as hate speech into your censors, its going to be censorship.
protecting people from "sensitive" material, basically anything conservative.
That's just false though because most left wing political youtubers have had their revenue cut by 90%. Cons always whine about being targeted, but don't give a shit about the other side experiencing the same thing.
Secular Talk, for example, is a left wing youtuber who had his revenue cut by 90% after the stricter rules. Their whole business is getting fucked, and there's no one to represent them.
You do realise tech minded conservatives can also agree with Google on net neutrality? That conservatives don't adhere to every tenet of the Republican Party?
Sounds like those people would probably disagree with this "manifesto" in the first place. Or is misogyny a tenet of the republican party most conservatives would agree with?
Diversity helps with creativity and innovation. Very important for a company, let alone a tech company. Having people with diverse backgrounds brings new perspectives. It's blatantly obvious that this would apply even more so with people who have different opinions
strange that no one wants to share it so we can see if it's as bad as they say it is. Then again, no one ever exaggerates on twitter, it is a good well-vetted source for journalistic integrity after all
What google should do is listen, women generally suck at tech stuff and if you have a team thats 50-50 men and women, you probably have a shitty team.
Whats going to happen is someone is getting fired for not being bluepilled properly or doing what every non-libtard does in Silicon Valley these days which is pretend you are a libtard.
The Gizmodo top comments saying that bringing IQ is a telltale of racism, and the comment right behind saying that people get higher IQ because they improve it by going to top school...
199 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-08-05
Error in fetchQuote() line 4 character 0: 400 AUTHENTICATION_ERROR - could not connect to server
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
Ideological diversity? What do you think we are trying to promote? An accurate representation within the company of American society's diverse race, gender, sexual orientation, age, and class makeup?
1 mtg_liebestod 2017-08-05
Yep. Gotta fire 80% of the east asians working there for the sake of diversity. Or count them as honorary whites.
1 SnackBier 2017-08-05
TL;DR:
Conservative googler claims that conservative viewpoints are not welcome at google, asks for diversity of ideology instead of diversity of skin tone and genitalia.
One diversity hirexir highness responds: "If HR does nothing in this case, I will consider leaving this company for real for the first time in five years""I feel like there's a lot of pushback from white dudes who genuinely feel like diversity is lowering the bar" claims another.
1 Agrees_withyou 2017-08-05
The statement above is one I can get behind!
1 dogbref 2017-08-05
isn't that what he wants lmao
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-05
Anyone making that kind of threat is dead weight
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-05
If you're important and powerful enough to have that be a serious threat, leave and start your own company, you're throwing away money by not doing that. If you're not, don't try dumb blackmail, just quit or just stay there but don't make it a social media thing
1 aguyfromhungary 2017-08-05
I don't know, nowadays a targeted media campaign, "Poor, oppressed employee, victim of *ism and *phobia, leaves [company] after [drama]." can be somewhat damaging to the company, PR wise, even if the employee in question had the added value of a potted plant.
1 Byrnhildr_Sedai 2017-08-05
Potted plants have a net addition of oxygen.
1 carthoris26 2017-08-05
As opposed to the dozen other times xur threatened without really meaning it.
1 cruelandusual 2017-08-05
lolwut. The second highest comment:
He's talking about the hypothetical hurt feelings of rednecks who were ridiculed in absentia at a party in San Francisco for voting against gay marriage.
1 SnackBier 2017-08-05
Didn't read the second one because it was too much text. Some of the shorter ones were rather reasonable which is a bit odd for HN. I expected something of the "that guy is litteraly responsible for the death of 5 trillion POC" sort.
I do stand corrected though. I lack your dedication to drama so as to even sift trough walls of text in comments.
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
Funny how nobody ever complains about German internment camps in America.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
Yep. It's because they still hold to racist assumption that German's are white
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
You're a racist if you don't accept the Japanese as proud honarary Aryans.
1 jackthebutholeripper 2017-08-05
Heres the document http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
1 therapy 2017-08-05
Amazing, so the supposed "anti-diversity screed" says
And talks at length about how to increase those forms of diversity. Yet even the article quoting the screed calls it "anti-diversity".
1 aksfjh 2017-08-05
Mostly because he backs it up with some really poorly worded and/or backed up data about "biological differences" (which is usually the politically friendly term for biological inferiority). Some of his suggested policies/initiatives seem very well thought out and overall beneficial, but with a sexist spin.
1 Jinzub 2017-08-05
Why is it sexist? Biological differences do exist and are measurable from a very young age, across cultures.
1 aksfjh 2017-08-05
While biological differences do exist between individuals, it's much more difficult to generalize those differences across large groups with certainty and make reasonable assumptions to individuals and small groups based on any statistical observation. Because of this, it is widely seen as an unethical approach to any sort of group/organization policy.
A good example of this, astrology. While many find entertainment and potential life advice through astrology, it is seen as a very irrational way to go about making life and organizational choices based on astrological signs. There may be scientific data that shows that some traits correlate with specific astrological signs to a significant degree, but we (as a society) would shun anybody that suggested corporate policy should be changed for Sagitarius coworkers.
1 Jinzub 2017-08-05
Sex differences are far more measurable than zodiac signs
Nobody is saying that every single man or every single woman fits the gender mould. There are plenty of feminine men and masculine women. But on a broad scale, the differences are obvious and very easily measured. This isn't pseudoscience, neuroscientists have been observing it for decades. One of the clearest divisions is in empathising and systemising behaviours- men are generally far better at shape rotating tasks, for example, whereas women are better at reading emotions given only a picture of some eyes.
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-05
But they are overstated a lot
1 skeetsurfing1984 2017-08-05
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-mostly-not-due-to-offensive-attitudes/
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
Astrology is not a scientific pursuit. There is no scientific link. Your analogy is moronic.
1 aksfjh 2017-08-05
Neither is sexism, yet here we are.
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
Biology is though, you nincompoop.
1 thro_way 2017-08-05
That's his point. That we shouldn't have corporate policy changed for women.
1 aksfjh 2017-08-05
And that's where people keep missing the big picture in all of this. The few things he points to (coding pairs, inclusive group functions) are good overall. These aspects are good for engineering overall, not because, "feeeeeeeeemales are more socially minded and don't fit into my idea of engineering!" He's trying to say overtly that we need to carve out space for all these different people, because "science."
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-05
then he should quit his job at Google and stop being a little pussy writing manifestos
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-05
this is why dumbasses like you will never work at Google
1 Jinzub 2017-08-05
Lol
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-05
If Reddit had profiles with pictures, would you choose your most played Dota2 character, your anime waifu or your favorite furry ?
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-05
id choose a picture of Jesus getting railed by a 3rd wave feminist
1 dildosaurusrex_ 2017-08-05
Because the science is far from conclusive and the doc linked doesn't give much data or evidence. There isn't any conclusive evidence I've seen that says women are less capable of being scientists or engineers, but plenty of data showing women are routinely treated poorly in the workplace.
1 therapy 2017-08-05
It's true he uses words which are going to be misinterpreted by many progressive readers. This makes me even more sure the guy is autistic.
1 jackthebutholeripper 2017-08-05
Yepper.
1 Harradar 2017-08-05
It's never worth adding those kinds of caveats, the people that think you're an awful sexist and racist will do so anyway, and now you look weak, since you're kow-towing.
1 the_poodleo 2017-08-05
Youre more likely to get people on the fence point to agree with you.
1 Harradar 2017-08-05
People deep enough in SV culture to work at Google don't really get to be neutral on this issue. It's not like he intended for the current audience, actually containing many moderates, to see it.
1 zahlman 2017-08-05
Also, it gives third parties something to point to when they argue about it.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-05
The problem is by "conservative viewpoints" these people never actually mean conservative viewpoints.
Actual conservative viewpoints are tolerated in most places, small government, conservative economics.
When you see people like this cry about how "conservative viewpoints aren't welcome" they almost certainly mean bullshit about race, gender and stuff like that.
They really do believe their racist and delusional bullshit should be tolerated.
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
Not a single opponent to gay marraige I've seen is against civil unions for gay people. Why do you think opposition to gay marraige is opposition to civil rights and not a religious stipulation?
1 pizzashill 2017-08-05
SEPARATE BUT EQUAL! Like I told the other guy, your dog-shit religion is 0% relevant, it is 0% relevant.
1 clarkeff 2017-08-05
Woah dude, no need to get all Islamophobic
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
It's not my religion, but who would have guessed you are a presumptuous bigot. Marriage is a holy sacrament, government should stay the fuck out of religion.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-05
"It's not my religion" then literally the next line "Marriage is a holy sacrament."
No, it's fucking not you mongoloid.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
Comparing civil unions to racial segregation is racist af dude
1 MRB2012 2017-08-05
When the religious terrorists pop up, you'll have nobody but yourself to blame.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-05
When religious terrorists pop up, I hope they get a bullet in the head. Religious zealots of all stripes have no place in society.
1 SpectroSpecter 2017-08-05
It's easier to just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is pure evil
Saves you from having to put rational thought into your arguments
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-05
Christians don't own marriage dumbfuck
1 poply 2017-08-05
If this was at all true, it wouldn't have been a struggle to attain civil unions for gay people 10-20 years ago.
If you don't want your church performing gay marriages, they don't have to and you can switch churches at any time. But you're wrong if you're going to suggest the Government take a very selective definition of marriage within the bible as a way to enact policy for everyone.
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-05
Lots of perfectly reasonable arguments for wanting to keep a 2000 years old tradition as it is, especially when most countries already have a legal union contract covering the same things a marriage does.
Gay marriage wasn't necessary for gay couples to have the same rights as married couples. But LGBT lobbies made it their symbol of pretended oppression to fight.
In practical terms, it changes nothing. All it does is make weak leftists like you go nuts when people raise the smallest objection.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-05
There is not a single valid argument, there is not an argument that even approaches the solar system of valid for why you, based on your trash tier religion, have any right to tell someone that they can't marry another person.
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-05
Wtf has religion anything to do here you moron, we're talking about marriage as a legal contract, you inbred fuck.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-05
Then you have literally no reason to be against gay marriage.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-05
bbbut muh tradition
kys
1 SloppyLogician 2017-08-05
You know that, like, Jewish people had marriage. Do you think Jesus invented marriage?
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-05
I said 2000 randomly, just to state that it's ancient as fuck and that wedlock has always been the base of family structured civilisations, almsot everywhere.
1 SloppyLogician 2017-08-05
Right, it's just a legal contract. Insisting their contracts are called something different just feels petty at this point.
And our relationship with that legal contract has changed a lot. Women (in the US at least) aren't being traded for goats anymore.
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-05
I agree, that's why I am in favor of gay marriage. Its meaning has shiffted years ago, some don't see it or don't want to.
You can see it : the biggest schism about gay marriage isn't a left/right division, it's a generational division.
1 cincilator 2017-08-05
Prove to me that it is all bullshit. It might be but I want you to prove it.
1 Neon_needles 2017-08-05
Lol what a pussy. The only thing this dork shakes is his boyfriends micro-dick after two zimas and lengthy supernatural show binge.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
Can I see your micro-dick?
1 Neon_needles 2017-08-05
Only if you treat me out to a wine bar date in San Francisco then go to a dog park with me afterwards were we talk about how women are the "n-words" of tech.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
Noonga's?
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-05
Nyavladoksa?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-08-05
I see you've dated in San Francisco before.
1 niexx 2017-08-05
dafuq is a dog park
1 snappleteadrink 2017-08-05
I don't they make those anymore.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-08-05
They're bringing it back!
1 snappleteadrink 2017-08-05
I actually wanted a comment from neon needles but thanks anyways
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-08-05
Nobody cares
1 Somenakedguy 2017-08-05
Just send him nudes or something
1 Neon_needles 2017-08-05
Look man, I'm more complicated then that.
I require also some diabities medication sent via Amazon to me
1 Hellkyte 2017-08-05
Wtf is wrong with Supernatural?
You uncultured swine.
1 take_a_dumpling 2017-08-05
I like how the article claims that the doc was "was met with derision from a large majority of employees" based on a few tweets.
Sadly the guy who wrote this thing is dumb. He should have stuck to diversity of opinion without going after the other stuff. That comes later.
1 cruelandusual 2017-08-05
What would have been the point? Do you think he's all butt-hurt because Googlers don't want to eliminate the capital gains tax?
1 flipkt 2017-08-05
Yet managing to become "viral" within google.
1 kermit_was_right 2017-08-05
I mean "look at this crazy motherfucker!" is actually pretty common motivation.
1 Chicup 2017-08-05
He's going to be fired either way. Might as well go for a pound.
1 tomato_man123 2017-08-05
without seeing the doc it's hard to know who I should be judgy about. does the document say, "these diversity programs undermine meritocracy' and women think the notion of a meritocracy is sexist, or does it say "women are dummies who can't code and won't date me." We need to know!
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-05
The author is dead so it always means the later, because that's what SV morons actually believe
1 tomato_man123 2017-08-05
whats "SV"
1 mtg_liebestod 2017-08-05
Silicon Valley?
1 tomato_man123 2017-08-05
oh yeah, duh. guess i won't cut it in the SV meritocracy. down with meritocracy!
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-05
It's okay, when diversity quotas end nepotism will step in to take it's place, you won't have to worry about merit for a long time.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2017-08-05
It's /r/Drama you're supposed to judge both sides because both sides are always retarded unlike your position of the South Park Neutral.
Or you randomly pick a side to fight for to generate drama when the link is boring.
Shouldn't your skill be high enough to make people want to hire you despite their Misogyny?
Rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis by Age and Gender
Men are 5 times more likely to be Software Engineers then Women, it's basic science.
1 DuBBle 2017-08-05
If you could just bend over and be helpful for a second, can you jellyfisting please define, 'South Park Neutral'. If you'll bear with my opinion before I promptly suicide, it seems like Matt and Trey manage to roundly mock all comers; unlike you - because you're unable to reach a sexual climax due to significant mental and biological barriers.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2017-08-05
Snally proved it empirically.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/613x4a/breaking_news_research_confirms_that_rdrama_is/
1 neutralvoter 2017-08-05
kmeans clustering is not in any way shape or form a method for 'empirically proving' something. christ what a dumb thing to say
1 Imgur_Lurker 2017-08-05
k
1 purplepilled3 2017-08-05
Its just a way for manlets to judge apathy as a character weakness
1 purplepilled3 2017-08-05
Its just a way for manlets to judge apathy as a character weakness
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-05
Well yeah, most social justice fights are that. Guys who are virgins for life versus girls who are virgins for life
1 youcanteatbullets 2017-08-05
It's almost impressive that it hasn't leaked already, clearly Google is doing something right. Maybe Trump could learn a thing or two.
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
Gizmodo published it in full. If you can't hide your facts from fucking Gizmodo I wouldn't brag about your ability to stop leaks.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-05
due to biological differences between men and women
Sounds more like the latter tbhfam
1 Chicup 2017-08-05
Google turned evil about 3 years ago. Can't think of anything good after that.
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-05
Diversity:. When everyone thinks the same way with different skin color.
1 TheFallenHero 2017-08-05
Diversity: when retards serious post on brebbit
1 cimarafa 2017-08-05
SeriousPost detected
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-05
No, if I was seriousposting I would have also called for diversity of breast size
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-05
( ͡° ͜ʖ ) ͡°
1 SpectroSpecter 2017-08-05
>unironically vouching for anything below DD
1 GuillotinesNOW 2017-08-05
Variety is the spice of life. You know, sometimes you're just in the mood for a girl with an A cup.
And a feminine penis.
And a mustache.
1 nmx179 2017-08-05
Sounds like what google needs is a diversity of people who do their fucking jobs instead of tripping over some trifling shit about "diversity".
1 high_side 2017-08-05
They seem to be doing okay tbh.
1 nmx179 2017-08-05
Right now they're on top but thinking you'll be on top forever while playing bullshit internal political games is how you go from being google to being Microsoft.
Who admittedly are also doing okay, just for a value of okay that equals desperately wishing they were doing as well as Google.
1 ProphetRith 2017-08-05
Lol yeah probably it's fucking google they make a shit ton of money despite those lazy sjws working for them 😂
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-05
This but ironically
1 alibix 2017-08-05
This diversity stuff is standard in top companies. I recently interned at a top international bank and they spend a lot of time internally promoting diversity.
1 caffienatedjedi 2017-08-05
I work in a fortune 50, they only do it to hit the checkboxes.
The ones creating drama over it are part of the market self-regulating.
1 alibix 2017-08-05
Checkboxes for who? A lot of the stuff is internal not PR
1 caffienatedjedi 2017-08-05
They always advertise it when hiring. It has like zero impact where I work.
1 alibix 2017-08-05
I guess this bank was particularly SJW-ey then.
1 Kazimir-Malevich 2017-08-05
We need 2 make u CEO of google
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-05
If anyone's wondering, it's obvious that the document was based on http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-mostly-not-due-to-offensive-attitudes/, but it sounds like the author put a much harsher spin on it. Like, from Scott's, "maybe you shouldn't assume that some group is mostly male because it's misogynistic", to "no there's definitely no misogyny at all so we should stop all diversity programs".
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-05
I like how Scott locks comments preemptively and the commentors just go to the next thread to post.
1 Hellkyte 2017-08-05
I made it all of a paragraph through that before I quit. Wtf is it with libertarians trying being overly legalistic/wordy?
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-05
*educated people. He's not a libertarian as evidenced by his "The Non-Libertarian FAQ (Why I Hate Your Freedom)".
1 Hellkyte 2017-08-05
This is not the sentence of an educated person. This is the sentence of a person who really really wants you to think he's educated.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-05
Ah. That's what upset you.
1 Harradar 2017-08-05
He's a doctor, I think that counts as being educated?
1 Hellkyte 2017-08-05
What's he a doctor of, just curious. Most PhDs have better shit to do with their time then dig through Reddit subcultures.
1 Harradar 2017-08-05
I mean he's an actual doctor, a psychiatrist specifically.
1 newprofile15 2017-08-05
What's it like to think that everyone who subscribes to a different ideology didn't go to college?
1 niexx 2017-08-05
scott alexander is a walking embodiment of tl;dr
1 sombresobriquet 2017-08-05
It's okay that you had to look up what that meant, it doesn't make you dumb.
1 Hellkyte 2017-08-05
Of course it doesn't. Everyone had to look it up.
1 sombresobriquet 2017-08-05
It's high school biology my dude
1 jajajaja21 2017-08-05
He's part of the self-declared "Rationalish Community". Imagine the ridiculous level of self-regard implied by that. Picture cb2 with a graduate degree.
/u/ScottAlexander if brevity is the soul of wit, you're a witless soulsucking fuck.
1 HivemindBuster 2017-08-05
Problem is brevity in modern academia is absolute suicide today. In order to reassure anyone that you're not evil™ for daring to be nuanced, all your work needs to be filled with disclaimers, re-clarifications and painstaking comprehensiveness to ensure no (deliberate) mischaracterizations.
1 HillaryClinton-Trump 2017-08-05
Does anyone else find this sort of thing funny? All these lefties crying about the wage gap and they work for and run companies that perpetuate the wage gap?
All the tweets are a hilarious mix of feminist talking points and white-knightery:
By Aimee: "Today's rage-read (at work): doc essentially saying that women are unsuited for tech because they like people, whilst men like things."
Sarah wrote: "Internal article circulated at work today describing how gender rep gap in SW is due to biological differences btwn men/women."
To which Andrew, the white knight, responded with: "That garbage fire of a document is trash and you are wonderful coworkers who I am extremely lucky to work with."
Andrew is probably trying to get into Sarah's pants.
Jaana went on a rage binge with: "Write a doc about how inferior women are, then try to be a hero by offering help to save the vulnerable 🤢🤢🤢 Still shaking in anger."
That's write, she's literally shaking. I wonder if she also stood up and, with tears in her eyes, screamed "NO" and knocked her computer over.
I love watching lefties get their panties all wadded up. Righties do the same thing, but not to the dramatic extent that lefties do.
1 Not_Just_You 2017-08-05
Probably
1 DuBBle 2017-08-05
1 HillaryClinton-Trump 2017-08-05
I am an idiot. I did not major in spelling.
1 caffienatedjedi 2017-08-05
California talking about being a Utopia who will save all the minorities while ignoring and discriminating against them locally? Is it a day that ends in Y?
1 Harradar 2017-08-05
You'd think the fact that even environments heavily controlled by heavily feminist and social justice oriented people demonstrate a pay gap would clue some of them in to it not being (at least mostly) discrimination, but ideologue skulls are pretty thick.
Yes, we spend billions of dollars on diversity workshops, outreach programmes, women-only workshops and conferences, unconscious bias training and inviting Anita to give speeches, but if only we spent N+1 billion dollars, then maybe women could get a fair shake around here.
1 Zeuter 2017-08-05
1 dildosaurusrex_ 2017-08-05
Or google pays a lot of lip service to diversity to draw attention away from the fact that it's not good at it
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-05
I thought women aren't things.
1 Nicholai_Dimitri 2017-08-05
Women were a mistake. Femicide now
1 flipkt 2017-08-05
Women would become obsolete in a century. Sentient AIs, advances in robotics and material sciences would give us real intelligent partners. Advances in the medical field would make child rearing in artificial wombs more safe and controllable. Women will be on the line behind truckers losing their jobs to self driving trucks.
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-05
This better be a copypasta
1 cincilator 2017-08-05
I think it is an article from Jacobite magazine. (not to be confused with Jacobin)
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-05
Couldn't find anything when I googled it
1 cincilator 2017-08-05
I don't mean exact copypasta, just the general idea. They are basically neoreactionaries of technological kind. The whole women being obsolete due to artifical wombs, sex dols etc. I'll try and find the article.
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-05
I meant I couldn't find the article. I googled the entire comment tho, Google can get weird if you do that
1 cincilator 2017-08-05
As I said, it is not copy of exact sentences but is a paraphrase of the general idea.
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-05
Oh ok that makes sense. Misinterpreted
1 RV_Camping_Nightmare 2017-08-05
Poe's Law right here
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
It's funny because it's true.
1 michaelnoir 2017-08-05
It would be good if we could actually read the allegedly heretical document in question, to make up our own minds about it. If it does indeed contain a heresy, then that is a serious business. It calls at least for a symbolic auto-da-fé.
1 makes_people_cringe 2017-08-05
shitmodo posted it
http://web.archive.org/web/20170806085113/http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-05
If you actually read a ten page manifesto from someone who hasn't killed at least 3 people you're wasting your time
1 glmox 2017-08-05
so since im a fucking loser i can tell this "anti-diversity document" was inspired by this slate star codex post with maybe some "wahh libruls are mean" mixed in. without the document itself i cant judge how dumb of a take it is (it might be very, very dumb) but the core concept "men like 'things' massively more than women" is correct, but acknowledging statistical gender differences exist isnt hip anymore so thats plenty to make twitter mad on its own.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-08-05
Fucking rationalists get out REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
1 glmox 2017-08-05
hey man i just like to be well-read
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-05
NERD!
1 alibix 2017-08-05
There were tons of women in computing at the start of the industry.
1 therapy 2017-08-05
This guy is clearly autistic. Otherwise he would know that voicing a moderate conservative opinion, let alone a more radical one like his apparently is, is not going to go down well among tech people like Google employees who are practically all progressives.
This isn't about diversity or diversity of ideology, it's about neurodiversity.
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
You're confusing balls with stupidity. Of course he knew how it was going to be recieved, and he said fuck it and did it anyway. Good for him.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-05
If he had balls he'd quit, not sperg out on some useless manifesto without killing anyone
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
LOOK YOU LITTLE BETA, HAVING BALLS DOESN'T MEAN PACKING UP AND QUITTING AT THE FIRST SIGN OF TROUBLE. IT MEANS STANDING DEFIANT IN THE FACE OF DANGER FOR WHAT IS RIGHT LIKE A TRUE HERO.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-05
ur right. writing a 10 page manifesto passive aggressively complaining while hinting at maybe considering quitting is so alpha.
1 MooseHeckler 2017-08-05
whythemayocidematters
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
I'm curious what conservative views a tech company should be pandering to, as a way to protect fragile feelings. Google's already made their opinion on net neutrality known, so what "right" do these idiots have to express the opposite, as emoyees of said company?
Arguing for "ideological diversity" is like arguing for the right to be stupid. It's not illegal, no, but there's explicit reason it shouldn't be tolerated.
1 Chicup 2017-08-05
Youtube now has the ADL and some feminist bitch to help them with protecting people from "sensitive" material, basically anything conservative.
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
Sounds like anybody who cares can start their own video hosting website and run it however they want. Then, we'll just let the market decide.
Some feminist bitch running everything does seem pretty awful, but let's not confuse unpopularity with censorship.
1 Dolphin_Gokkun 2017-08-05
What is network value (see: telephone standards)
One role of the state is to support competitive markets not "free" markets, for example, by breaking up monopolies (see Bell Telephone).
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
Excuse me while I break out this sawdust for your word vomit.
1 Dolphin_Gokkun 2017-08-05
1 WikiTextBot 2017-08-05
Network effect
A network effect (also called network externality or demand-side economies of scale) is the effect described in economics and business that one user of a good or service has on the value of that product to others. When a network effect is present, the value of a product or service is dependent on the number of others using it.
The classic example is the telephone, where a greater number of users increases the value to each. A positive externality is created when a telephone is purchased without its owner intending to create value for other users, but does so regardless.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.24
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
Then don't complain when the successful YouTube decides to do something you don't like. They don't not owe you anything.
1 Chicup 2017-08-05
Do you have a spare few million to get it going? Added when you invite people who want to censor frogs as hate speech into your censors, its going to be censorship.
1 backltrack 2017-08-05
Who is the feminist cunt? I know they have the ADL (of fucking course) but haven't heard anything else.
1 random_modnar_5 2017-08-05
That's just false though because most left wing political youtubers have had their revenue cut by 90%. Cons always whine about being targeted, but don't give a shit about the other side experiencing the same thing.
1 Chicup 2017-08-05
All you post is left wing talking points, not sure I believe you.
1 random_modnar_5 2017-08-05
Secular Talk, for example, is a left wing youtuber who had his revenue cut by 90% after the stricter rules. Their whole business is getting fucked, and there's no one to represent them.
1 Chicup 2017-08-05
And yet youtube is basically making left wing propaganda itself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxbdvo2vFwc
Youtube deleted the 3 million dislikes originally.
1 random_modnar_5 2017-08-05
What does that have anything to do with what I said? Is the youtuber wrong about his revenue getting cut by the algorithm?
1 Chicup 2017-08-05
You mentioned a youtuber you claimed lost revenue. Youtube is deep into the left, google is in the news for it today. I think you are wrong.
1 Thulean-Dragon 2017-08-05
Jesus.
If nothing else, more conservatives at Google might stop them from embarrassing themselves like this.
1 nanonan 2017-08-05
You do realise tech minded conservatives can also agree with Google on net neutrality? That conservatives don't adhere to every tenet of the Republican Party?
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
Sounds like those people would probably disagree with this "manifesto" in the first place. Or is misogyny a tenet of the republican party most conservatives would agree with?
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
Diversity helps with creativity and innovation. Very important for a company, let alone a tech company. Having people with diverse backgrounds brings new perspectives. It's blatantly obvious that this would apply even more so with people who have different opinions
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
Explain to me how any of the ideas that have been described in this "manifesto" will help facilitate innovation.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
I haven't read it, I just replied to your comment outlining why there is a case for it
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
Are you trying to tell me your opinion just might be, dare I say, uninformed?
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
My opinion on his manifesto is uninformed, my opinion on diversity in the workplace is not uninformed
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
Are you seriously defending stupidity for the sake of diversity? Should we tolerate racism because it's "diverse"?
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
It's not stupidity
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
You wouldn't know, because you didn't read it.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-05
You're stupidity
1 AnalogDogg 2017-08-05
You wouldn't know, because you didn't read me.
1 neutralvoter 2017-08-05
strange that no one wants to share it so we can see if it's as bad as they say it is. Then again, no one ever exaggerates on twitter, it is a good well-vetted source for journalistic integrity after all
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-05
Here
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2017-08-05
Damn those women and unmayos sure get angry when some truth floats around.
1 Chicup 2017-08-05
What google should do is listen, women generally suck at tech stuff and if you have a team thats 50-50 men and women, you probably have a shitty team.
Whats going to happen is someone is getting fired for not being bluepilled properly or doing what every non-libtard does in Silicon Valley these days which is pretend you are a libtard.
1 PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2017-08-05
The dude probably got fired, and This will all be forgotten about by Monday.
1 pointmanzero 2017-08-05
OH MY GOD WHO THE HELL CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSS
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-05
Error in fetchQuote() line 4 character 0: 400 AUTHENTICATION_ERROR - could not connect to server
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 aqouta 2017-08-05
Wtf, bad bot
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-05
r/BotsRights 😤😤😤
1 ashent2 2017-08-05
fire all men
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-05
The Gizmodo top comments saying that bringing IQ is a telltale of racism, and the comment right behind saying that people get higher IQ because they improve it by going to top school...
Never changes Gizmodo.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-05
If you live in california just forget about all non hardcore left views.
Seriously, guy should just have buried that kind of ideas. No other options. It's fukken silicon valley you moron.
1 Cake_eater666 2017-08-05
Easy way to get fired going against google's obvious ultra-marxist ideology.