The liberal faggot tree must be refreshed with the blood of autists and allies.
This guy didn't write a single word wrong. There was nothing sexist in his memo despite every lame fake news headline about it. I WILL be voting for Trump again and so will all my dead relatives.
How surprising. I was really expecting that the entire HR department and diversity committee were going to admit that they were wrong and resign. What a strange world we live in that it would come to this instead.
Gen-Z will have their own Google, running on the Ethereum block chain, uncensorable, uncontrollable, and it will replace both Google and the government as we know it. It will be sci-fi level shit.
Based on not knowing a single teenager that is socially conservative. I'm sure they exist, but not in large enough numbers for a socially conservative party to be one of the two mainstream parties in the us after the boomers die out.
society always seems to be moving forward, socially
That's exactly why conservatives of the future will probably have social views that seem liberal today.
Well it's kind of a facile point because the nature of conservativism is necessarily going to be different over time and from place to place. Social conservative views are based largely on the desire for things to stay the way they are now or were when you were a child. For future conservatives that'll mean something different than it means to the current politically powerful generations.
I was much more socially liberal until college. The conservatives used to be the busy bodies, but now it's the liberals/left. That turns people off pretty hard
Lmao, neocons are really going to use their weapon of choice, social media.... to take out google. Middle America vs. ~$90 bil in cash assets alone plus the most data out there, and everything else they own. Even match.
Except you didn't go up against Google then. It was up against Hillary and her shills. Google can wipe out Trump and build multiple mini versions of him that are less orange and friendlier to bussy.
Uh, the government does a lot of business with Google and gets a significant say in how the company operates as a result, not to mention the ongoing investigation into the G's hiring practices and possible discrimination.
Massive corporate entity makes financially sound decision.
Eh, it's sound from a PR POV, but i wouldn't call it financially sound. Hiring people for the sake of diversity instead of competence is pretty bad, especially for tech companies.
The first step to admitting you were wrong is nothing happening to you, then you live your life normally, then you whisper on your death bed to your rival who is there for seemingly no reason.
I was really expecting that the entire HR department and diversity committee were going to admit that they were wrong and resign. What a strange world we live in that it would come to this instead.
How surprising! They were up to date on the latest scientific research in gender studies which is always double plus good!
I don't think it's working so well, lately I've been getting plenty of ads for makeup and a product against smelly vaginas or some shit on the Youtube Android app. Most of the videos I watch these days are about electronics, metalworking and scifi.
But, isn't "there should be perfect representation" also a "gender stereotype"? Wouldn't "let them do whatever the fuck they want" be the only not gender-stereotyping position, which is kinda what he stood for?
Dude was fired for producing a 10 page load of horseshit in a company that doesn't take kindly to rethinking it's move to diversity. Google doesn't have to hold onto retards.
Dude was fired for discussing workplace policy that is against Google practices based on a workplace forum for discussing workplace policy with co-workers. Of course he was fired. You can't just sperg out & post your ideas on internal message boards and expect to keep your job.
Since you play LoL and believe in Myers Briggs I'm going to assume you're not old enough to have a real job that would expect you to abide by company policies and understand that posting huge rants shitting on said policies would get you fired virtually anywhere.
In other words you do odd jobs and don't work at a larger company that expects you to produce work and not 10 page rants about your company.
Myers Briggs is based on outdated psychology and playing LoL likely means you're not old enough for older games nor young enough to jump on the newer fad games out there. Just took a solid guess.
That rant was posted on a message-board that specifially meant for "controversial" views.
I don't believe in MBTI, but I find it fascinating to interact with people on those forums. It's simply fun. And I follow Lol for esports. You really got it wrong.
There's a difference between "controversial" and shitting on your companies policies outright with some bitter sperg rant. He made himself a martyr. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Doesn't matter; the firing ensures that anything remotely controversial will not be discussed on Google's internal groups ever, thereby making them useless.
They did the right thing. This whole issue was a dumpster fire and from a business standpoint, there's no reason to put up with shit like this if it's going to impact the bottom line. This dude was a dumbshit for circulating a fucking memo outlining his political views. You don't do that shit as an employee.
"Perpetuating gender stereotypes" which is part of their employee code of conduct which I'm sure he signed as a condition of his employment.
Employers have very wide latitude to fire employees in the US. There's approximately a 0% chance he has any legal leg to stand on to contest this. "Angry about affirmative action" isn't a protected class.
California law protects an employee from being reprimanded for discussing company policies among themselves.
No, excuse me, this is just false. There are specific protections for things like whistleblowing or union-organizing activity. There is no general protection for "discussing company policies."
I mean, I don't think even he believes any of these theories have a more than passing chance of succeeding. But in any case it's irrelevant, because this link doesn't support anything you just said. He's talking about federal law (you claimed California law has protections for "discussing company policies," so I checked the relevant California laws and found out they don't exist.) And he's talking about protected concerted activity which is a specific thing not a "general protection for 'discussing company policies.'" There are so many specific hurdles that this case would have to cross before it earned the employee protection under this theory. He wrote a public blog post (employers have greater latitude in disciplining for conduct which embarrasses them in public) that was not primarily about working conditions (the intent of the act is to protect workplace organizing, not general criticism of your boss,) etc.
The thing is that you actually do have to discuss laws in an "autistic," ie specific and nitpicky, way. You can't make a statement like "California law protects an employee from being reprimanded for discussing company policies among themselves" and then try and save it by arguing that under certain specific and somewhat creative theories of interpretation, laws of a different jurisdiction might apply in a different way that kind-of-sort-of amounts to protecting this case of "employees discussing company policies." That's not how this works.
Nah, he gave up and started to nitpick my original phrase like an autismo so he could 'technically be correct' after I revealed the guy has a decent case under employee protection laws. Over all I'd say my ass smells like roses here.
The problem will come in that the retard Divershitty VP (lots of redundancy there) came out and said in response to this other moron -
Google is tolerant of opposing viewpoints. “Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions,
So that kinda makes the "perpetuating gender stereotypes" stupid when they addressed it as they did the first time around.
it's pretty clear that the memo was politically charged
I'll take a line from you here, and add that it's pretty clear that the author (with whom I disagree on many points) has not been punished only for what he said, but more importantly for what certain readers and respondents fervently believe someone who writes such things must surely ALSO think.
The author has been punished perhaps the most for what he didn't say – and quite possibly does NOT believe.
On the other hand, Danielle Brown's
I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender
is both every bit as definitive as the author's most strident points, and it virtually confirms my above theory.
Judges make findings. We have the original author's "false assumptions" vs Ms Brown's "incorrect assumptions". The author's main point however was much milder and not definitive: "may in part explain why..."
Ms Brown's phrasing though is what's most interesting: She says the author "advanced incorrect assumptions". Note that Ms Brown doesn't simply accuse the author of stating the incorrect – she goes further: His writing has "advanced" those assumptions. I suspect this may be more than just a common English phrase (it may be unintentionally revealing language): He's not actually said those worst things he's suspected of thinking, but the things he has said, those are deemed to have "advanced" those worse, incorrect assumptions. (There is a chance I'm over-analysing, but still.)
That said, my (quite probably wrong, but funny) personal pet theory on this is that this memo was deliberately formulated to ensure a comfortable retirement, because it made it politically impossible not to fire him, for PR reasons, but equally impossible to deny him a golden parachute, for unfair dismissal legal reasons.
The /r/Drama is indeed strong with this one, and sadly it appears none of the dramatis personæ are excellent to each other.
I'll take a line from you here, and add that it's pretty clear that the author (with whom I disagree on many points) has not been punished only for what he said, but more importantly for what certain readers and respondents fervently believe someone who writes such things must surely ALSO think.
Discussion of politics at Google isn't just common, it's constant. The flaw is that he has the wrong kind of politics, not that he's being political in the first place. You won't get fired for a strongly politically charged memo that talks about how they need to implement more diversity policies.
pretty sure if I wrote a 10-page manifesto talking about how Google needed to be dissolved because capitalism is evil and communism is the only one true way, I'd be fired.
conservatives are playing the victim card (again) because conservatives love to act like openly being a conservative is like being a Jew in 1940s Germany.
Well, you'd be wrong. We have a forum on the intranet for "Controversial Opinions" there are plenty of anarchist and communist screeds on there. Nobody cares, nobody cared about this one either until it was leaked to the media.
If it was for example, and external blog post that he had written, then you might be correct, but since it was an "internal memo" then I think they can fire him without legal repercussions.
The case law on this section of the California Labor Code is really limited, but I can imagine he'd have a case if he'd written an external blog post criticizing workplace diversity policies in the abstract. Hard to believe courts would step in to protect a guy from being fired after specifically criticizing his company's culture and management decisions, unless it related to something specifically protected like union organizing.
He very clearly is not, for multiple reasons, not least being that whistleblower laws protect people who go to the authorities, not people who write callout blog posts.
That's not right. He is still protected by Labor Code 1101 et seq. because he can plausibly allege that he was fired for the fact of having those views.
Hard to believe courts would step in to protect a guy from being fired after specifically criticizing his company's culture and management decisions, unless it related to something specifically protected like union organizing.
This isn't an explanation. I'm trying not to strawman here but if you refuse to explain it... as far as I can tell you're saying that he could, theoretically, make the argument that Google fired him not for specific criticisms of Google's culture and Google's management decisions, out of a generalized sense that nobody who holds his broad opinions about political correctness (or whatever) should be allowed to work for Google? And that this would sidestep questions of whether his manifesto was really "political activities" in the sense of 1101?
Yes. It would survive a special motion to strike, at the very least, which means it goes to trial unless there is literally no evidence that supports his contention.
Unfortunately, the most fitting opinion on this subject, Nava v. Safeway Inc. (a person who was fired for tearing down pro-gay posters at work could establish that he could prevail on a Labor Code violation because he may have been fired because of his anti-homosexual views), is unpublished; still, the same reasoning should hold as in Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, which was the primary opinion cited and relied upon in Nava.
So... you agree that it's unlikely that courts would rule that specific criticism of your employer's corporate culture and management decisions is protected "political activity" in the sense of 1101?
So... you agree that it's unlikely that courts would rule that specific criticism of your employer's corporate culture and management decisions is protected "political activity" in the sense of 1101?
No clue, because I'm not being paid to find out. I'm just saying it's a cognizable claim and could probably see a jury, especially since discovery could reveal the specific communications that led to his firing.
Edit: Also, why do you keep talking about special motions to strike? How does that even have any relevance here?
Google would argue that it's their right to express their political opinion as a company or something or the other. It's the quickest way to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit, so obviously they'll file it.
OK, looked into that case... an employee tore down a company poster because he didn't agree with what it said, then sued Safeway when they fired him for it. Seems reasonable that Safeway would argue he was trying to interfere with their freedom of expression.
How does this apply when Google fired a guy for writing a thing? Is Google going to argue that ideologically policing their workforce is a kind of speech? It really does not seem like an analogous situation. I doubt that any SLAPP issue will arise here.
You know, maybe you're right. I honestly have never filed a special motion to strike, but I do know it costs sixty bucks to file and rarely loses you anything when you fail.
I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what happens.
Honestly this dumbfuck put them in a position where they had to fire him. This was never going to end any other way. They're in the middle of a high-profile gender discrimination lawsuit, and this one-man autism pride parade attached his real name to a manifesto about how women are biologically inferior and circulated it within the company. That shit could easily constitute a hostile work environment and Google could be held liable if they allowed it to continue.
On top of that, even if they didn't have to fire him, they'd definitely want to. No big company wants this kind of dumbshit drama and terrible publicity. They look awful to the public, and all their employees are busy LITERALLY SHAKING or preparing for the oncoming androcide or whatever instead of actually fucking doing their jobs.
On top of that, this guy is a lawsuit waiting to happen at anywhere he applies next. Congratulations, he's made himself essentially unemployable in one of the most cushy and lucrative job markets in the developed world.
It was so transparent that he had to be fired for this that I rather suspect he wanted/planned to be. Either that or he really is as browbeatingly-retarded as his rambling made him look.
They are when you don't go into the underlying details of them, it's like writing a manifesto of how black people commit more crimes than average and thus are less suited to work at google.
I mean it may be factually correct, but it doesn't get into the 'why' (poverty and more police scrutiny, among other things), so even though it isn't technically wrong, you've outed yourself as a complete and utter retard edgelord and it would/should get you fired.
t's like writing a manifesto of how black people commit more crimes than average and thus are less suited to work at google.
Depends what you say. If you say "and thus may at times limit our pool of readily available eligible applicants at any given moment" what would be so bad about that?
(poverty and more police scrutiny, among other things),
Police scrutiny actually helps poor communities more than lack of police scrutiny. You can see this with the dramatic increase in homicides in chiraq with police simply saying they'll "keep on driving"
you've outed yourself as a complete and utter retard edgelord and it would/should get you fired.
Being dumb enough to bring it up this way is certainly grounds for firing. But I'm betting a smart dude like this wanted a severance package or something. Wouldn't have taken the time if he didn' thave at least a few eggs in his basket, know what i mean?
Depends what you say. If you say "and thus may at times limit our pool of readily available eligible applicants at any given moment" what would be so bad about that?
Because it still makes you sound like an ass, cause you still haven't gone into the underlying issues. And also this is google, they have no dearth of qualified (female/black/etc) people applying.
Police scrutiny actually helps poor communities more than lack of police scrutiny.
I'm just going to have to say you need to do more research on this, I don't have the energy to go at you on this one.
But I'm betting a smart dude like this wanted a severance package or something.
Evidently he's not so smart after all, sure a severance package maybe, but nothing too big. And now he's infamous for creating a hostile workplace, not something employers like. And not the kind of thing that attracts clients, albeit a small niche.
Because it still makes you sound like an ass, cause you still haven't gone into the underlying issues. And also this is google, they have no dearth of qualified (female/black/etc) people applying.
True, but this isn't really about google itself, it's kind of about their practices in general
I'm just going to have to say you need to do more research on this, I don't have the energy to go at you on this one.
I mean, we could always chalk it up to blacks commit 50% of homicide even though theres way more poor whites than poor blacks. Raw numbers there shouldve made it at least a little bit closer than it is. But i think that's a bit reductionist.
Evidently he's not so smart after all, sure a severance package maybe, but nothing too big. And now he's infamous for creating a hostile workplace, not something employers like. And not the kind of thing that attracts clients, albeit a small niche.
A small niche is better than a large, apathetic consumer base, if you're motivated to maintain your position. You can fuck up pretty hard and not be totally abandoned by your niche.
True, but this isn't really about google itself, it's kind of about their practices in general
So google's practices in general? Which is specifically about google. Unless you mean in tech in general, in which case it's a byproduct of fucking it up in the first place.
But i think that's a bit reductionist.
I mean yea you're also forgetting the government literally trying to destroy your communities through drugs, literal division by highway, and other assorted methods.
A small niche is better than a large
Sure, but is it really the niche you want to be associated with? If it is by all means have tho, you deserve it.
Unless you mean in tech in general, in which case it's a byproduct of fucking it up in the first place.
Yes thats what i meant, googles just a thought leader/innovator
I mean yea you're also forgetting the government literally trying to destroy your communities through drugs, literal division by highway, and other assorted methods.
Tbh you'd be better arguing about fatherlessness rates. But even so, an argument people like to bring up about racist arrest practices is that whites and blacks do the same amount of drugs, which means whites as a population do a shitload more drugs total. Shouldn't that be causing problems? From a meth addicted state: it really should, but somehow isn't as big a problem as it seems it should be.
Sure, but is it really the niche you want to be associated with? If it is by all means have tho, you deserve it.
Depends how much you're willing to sell out and what your options are. But tbh I'd just recommend that as long as you're mostly doing you, and your niche really enjoys you, then who really cares?
arrest practices is that whites and blacks do the same amount of drugs, which means whites as a population do a shitload more drugs total
Racist arrest practices are more about punishing/incarcerating more black people than white people for the same thing, like crack vs coke, crack being used mainly by blacks, the other mainly by whites. But crack is more severely punished, even though they're the same thing. And also black people getting worse sentences then white people for the same crime. That sort of stuff.
Shouldn't that be causing problems?
Its more about the combination of everything leading to the problems, worse input -> worse output, and black communities have more shit to deal with especially with the fatherlessness you mentioned.
From a meth addicted state:
I mean there's other drugs, coke(both forms) and marijuana. One was introduced to destroy black communities by the cia, the other one was criminalized to suppress the black and hippie vote/power.
But tbh I'd just recommend that as long as you're mostly doing you, and your niche really enjoys you,
Besides niches like nazis and the kkk I generally agree with this.
You and a retard are literally the same thing if you believe that. Crack is cheaper, easier to make in large quantities, has more addicting qualities and is more cost-efficient for the pushers.
The laws that had those sentencing guidelines were originally passed at the behest of black, urban lawmakers who didn't like seeing Bed-Stuy, Compton, and Columbia Heights turn into fucking Mogadishu.
If racist sentencing guidelines were a real thing, then we'd be sentencing meth, which is mostly used by fucking mayos, the same as we do coke. But we don't, we sentence mayo-meth exactly the same as we do crack.
So why don't you gear up 20cc's of carfent, and slam it up your taint, you walking enema.
Racist arrest practices are more about punishing/incarcerating more black people than white people for the same thing, like crack vs coke, crack being used mainly by blacks, the other mainly by whites. But crack is more severely punished, even though they're the same thing
That was because black communities begged for there to be worse punishment for crack use/making/distribution because it was destroying their communities.
And most drug incarcerations (like for weed) are really just plead downs to that charge instead of like assault or whatever else there may be. As it turns out, criminals like to do drugs.
Its more about the combination of everything leading to the problems, worse input -> worse output, and black communities have more shit to deal with especially with the fatherlessness you mentioned.
I would say fatherlessness makes up at least 80% of the problems. Before the welfare state supplanted the man's role in the family, blacks actually had lower illegitimacy rates than whites, black youth unemployment was lower than white youth unemployment, and class mobility was quite realistic.
Besides niches like nazis and the kkk I generally agree with this.
Pretty sure only actual incidents of harassment have to take place which requires complaints without something being done about it by the company. The dude was auto fired, so this isn't grounds for hostile work environment.
They waited a few days and there was an uproar in their staff.
Sure, but thats kind of necessary to make sure you're not just kneejerking and making sure the pr team is fully aware
that would have been much more powerful if he hadn't started off his essay with a crapload of biotruths.
Arguably not, because if you're going to go for "diversity" for its own sake then you won't get the best of the best. If you're going to engage in tribalism, then you're necessarily cutting out the individual.
There's a big difference between "treat people as individuals because meritocracy" and "treat people as individuals because let's face it, women aren't built for coding", and his essay veers into the latter because of his stupid biotruths crap.
Not really. It's explaining why making tribalist assumptions isn't the best thing to do if you want the best of the best. If we're going to make assumptions about people, then the best people to hire would be white males.
He's really not. He shot gigantic holes in his libertarian-lite individualism rant and showed it for what it was - a "poor me, I'm a conservative working for Google" pitch. Why do you imagine is it so popular with the alt-right and not libertarians? Kek.
It was so transparent that he had to be fired for this that I rather suspect he wanted/planned to be. Either that or he really is as browbeatingly-retarded as his rambling made him look.
Definitely the latter. It was the kind of spectacularly autistic diatribe that a school shooter types up, except this guy was a middle-aged virgin working for Google.
You're a person who has no idea how that law works. It is still a violation of Labor Code section 1101 et seq. and will survive a special motion to strike.
No big company wants this kind of dumbshit drama and terrible publicity.
maybe they shouldn't have hosted a "Controversial Topics" forum for their employees
This fiasco is exactly why companies should strive to keep work and personal lives of their employees separate rather than encourage workers to bring the later to the former.
to a manifesto about how women are biologically inferior
it would take the reading comprehension of a retard to find that claim in his memo. It's still available online, feel free to point out where exactly he said that.
itll be an entirely different group of pathetic losers because by the time theres a settlement everyone who was screaming at him for being problematic will have burned out and become boring liberals
Same shit, couple tribunals or hearings. Worth checking out. Know exactly what the problem is. There Dean. Never seen such an incompetent over educated leader. Feel sorry for their chief of police, not big fan of white women but this women I would consider an ally. True leadership in her. But that dean my god.
I mean, maybe there should be laws protecting the kind of workplace expression that Meritocracy Screed Guy engaged in, but trying to apply this particular labor law to the case would be... extremely ventursome to say the least.
Honestly I'm reminded of the GamerGate memes going around in 2014 that tried to prove that critical e-mail threads on the GameJournoPros list amounted to an illegal employment blacklist or some shit lol
If the guy had stuck to a pro-meritocracy platform he might have been okay. But the dude brought out the biotruths angle right in the very first paragraph. He was toast from then on.
He cherry picked sources, and not for everything; a lot of it was ad hoc reasoning presented as fact. Not to mention that even more of it was just unsupported stereotype. So yeah, it was like posts on right wing forums.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.
Not crying any tears over this A U T I S T B O Y E who is forty years late to realizing that the politics-in-the-public-sphere war is over and democrats won.
For all intents and purposes if you are not a Democrat or Non affiliated when it comes to the office, your public social media, and interactions with co-workers outside of work, you are usually stifling your career.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just that HR is run by Democrats who have at the least subconscious biases. Also, most companies situate their larger offices in coastal workplaces stuffed with Democrats; interviewers have to think about "culture fit"
Everyone already knows this, and it's not going to change any time soon. His "brave stand" restating it is him volunteering to be another head on the pike for Democrats to show "see! Don't argue for being a republican in public or this will happen to you!" good job.
This goes beyond "stating your political opinion", lol. He wrote and circulated a multi-page political diatribe throughout his company. Unless his goal was to get fired and attempt to matyr himself (which I'm almost certain he will try), then gets a goddam idiot.
I mean, if this were a Democrat leaning 10-page-memo, the end result would have been the same. They would have just used the more subtle corporate methods of forcing out an employee. Passing around an explicitly political essay at any company will get you shit-canned.
I never said he wrote some general statement about his political beliefs. I said he wrote a politicized memo. If you fancy see that when looking at what he wrote then there's not much anyone can do to help you.
Yes, anything this autistic (10 pages) is an insta-pink-slip. But working in tech and my entire social circle being in the industry, I can assure you that less autistic, open support for Democrat policy agenda is pro-forma in coastal tech companies.
It's completely routine to be in an open desk area 2/3rds the office is talking about how crazy and wrong and evil Trump is, and mentioning that you don't think everything he does is crazy is a fast track to getting most people in the office to hate your guts.
The only winning move for a conservative in these situations is to just not play this particular game.
I was mostly commenting on the fact that it was 10 pages long. Expressing a political opinion that lines up with the company's is one thing. Circulating a political dissertation is another. There's also the issue of this being in writing, in a form that could be easily circulated.
Right. If nothing else, this dude comes across as a bit of a self-important clown. Who the hell thinks your co-workers want to read 10 pages of anything you have to say?
I don't think that would be the case. For one, people on the right aren't as inclined to go into a rabid frenzy when somebody inconsequential challenges their worldview. The recent Lena Dunham drama about the transphobic stewardesses comes to mind as a smaller example.
Like u/I_DRINK_TO_FORGET pointed out, this also wasn't a political screed completely unrelated to Google. The memo was just a big counterjerk against the push for more gender diversity in tech. I'd wager that someone sending out a company-wide memo lamenting the lack of diversity among engineers would either get no media attention or be lauded for their bravery by sites like Gizmodo.
this also wasn't a political screed completely unrelated to Google
I never said it was. Still, it doesn't matter that it was related to Google. It was filled with this guy is opinions, a number of which were political.
I'd wager that someone sending out a company-wide memo lamenting the lack of diversity among engineers would either get no media attention or be lauded for their bravery by sites like Gizmodo.
I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case. I also wouldn't be surprised if that person were quietly forced out of the company a few months afterward for stirring the pot.
The whole thing boils down to PR. Regardless of which side the person is on, if there's no media attention, I'd say a company would be more inclined to tell someone to knock it off than to let them go.
People on the right never freak out about things like homosexuality or religion. They always discuss things calmly and look at all sides of the issues. "Freedom Fries" was a serene and measured response.
I guess I wasn't clear, but I'm specifically talking about the witch hunt mentality regarding individuals. Obviously the right loses their shit over stuff like Starbucks cups.
LOL, you are aware of the rather large Super Skeptical Le Rationals® whose entire format for Twitter and YouTube is, "Look at this awkward 16 year old girl who says wage gap shit. She is a dumbshit slut cunt who is unattractive or odd in some way, likely unpleasant and unloved by family. Be sure to dislike and comment, link in description."
There are definitely not multiple articles published every day on major, profitable conservative websites mongering outrage over dumb actions taken by someone inconsequentual who you've never heard of
He didn't circulate it throughout the company, he sent it to some other people in a small group he was in, which then got leaked to the rest of the company.
Define "small". Clearly it wasn't small enough, or he didn't know those people as well as he thought he did. Regardless, sending something like that to anyone you work worth is beyond idiotic. I bet he used his company email address to send it, too.
I did, he's angry because he cannot discuss things that are happening in the company, he wouldn't even wrote it if those things were discussed and debated at meetings and shit.
he's angry because he cannot discuss things that are happening in the company
He went far beyond that. If he really wanted to only express this dissatisfaction then he could have easily done so without writing 10 pages filled with his personal opinions.
Women, on average, have more:
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Don't forget that he's telling about women in general, while there are enough outliners to fill jobs in tech, it's nowhere near 50%. Same goes for everything he said. He even started with "women, on average".
A lot of woman are known to be bad negotiators when it comes to salary, at some point there even was a proposition to forbid salary negotiation because of that.
Statistical differences between sexes are real, that's why fair system have to be meritocratic, not what google is leaning to.
You don't get it: nobody gives a fuck about this guy's opinions on women and the whole gender pay issue, especially not 10 pages worth of them. If he wanted to vocalize his concern about discussion being stifled, then that's all fine and good. However, not only did he do much more than that, but he is also expressing a bunch of opinions about something that doesn't even personally affect him.
It's not his job to be concerned about the overall company's performance due to its hiring policies, nor is it his job to formulate a new policy to address any alleged pay gap. The whole "discussion of internal policies" legal protections are there to allow employees to voice concerns with company policy that directly impacts their employment, not to give employees a soapbox. If this guy is working with a female employee who is impacting his own work, then he should discuss that with his manager or HR. He has no say over general hiring policies, though, because that's not his goddam job.
So you telling that guy should shut the fuck up about topics that he wants to speak about? That's exactly why he wrote that shit. When people perceive something wrong is happening, they want to speak about it.
If I go and kill everyone in some foreing country, will you be concerned? It does not affects you. And if you speak about that I'll say it's non of your business. How bout that?
So you telling that guy should shut the fuck up about topics that he wants to speak about?
Yes. As I said before, this dude's job was to write software, not scrutinize Google's overall hiring practices.
When people perceive something wrong is happening, they want to speak about it.
The key word here is "perceive". This far from some kind of whistleblower situation.
If I go and kill everyone in some foreign country, will you be concerned? It does not affects you. And if you speak about that I'll say it's non of your business. How bout that?
This is one time J actually get to say this unironically:
In developed countries people care about what they see. If you visit some shitholes you can see rich people build mansions with high walls near poor people who live in shit and it's ok because what's behing fence doesn't bother them.
What's really going on here is that google took a position that it cannot defend (and no one can), and thus the only option is to supress discussion. For every other situation you can just call people who disagree idiots and exactly explain why. Here it doesn't really work anymore so you have to use words like bigot, nazi, and so on, to scare people out of conversations.
In developed countries people care about what they see. If you visit some shitholes you can see rich people build mansions with high walls near poor people who live in shit and it's ok because what's behing fence doesn't bother them.
This is so laughably far from some guy voicing 10-pages worth of his opinions on gender and hiring practices.
What's really going on here is that google took a position that it cannot defend (and no one can)
Google is currently under investigation for not paying women as much as they pay men. Their position is completely understandable to anyone over the age of 20.
Here it doesn't really work anymore so you have to use words like bigot, nazi, and so on, to scare people out of conversations.
What is here? What are you talking about?
At this point I'm certain you've never been employed in a salaried position because all of this is very obvious to employed adults.
This dude's job was to write software, not scrutinize Googlers overall hiring practices.
prove that he wrote it on company time than before condemning it. Than prove that Google didn't solicit this writing - companies tend to have written policies that encourage feedback.
This was feedback. It may have been scientifically wrong, misinformed etc... doesn't really matter. What matters is that it was a) polite (b) genuine attempt at an informed opinion.
You are arguing that discussion about company policies should be justifiable cause to fire people.
Most of his memo is filled pseudoscientific generalizations mixed in with his own personal impressions and opinions. I highlighted that particular portion to demonstrate how laughably far he went beyond expressing that he was "angry because he cannot discuss things that are happening in the company".
when you're disagreeing with the most privileged group in the USA, even well-established scientific results, that have been replicated dozens of times, become pseudo-science automatically.
it's hilarious that chucklefucks like these fags brand themselves as the r/esitance when they're only powerful due to unpleasantries and right wing incompetence.
Yeah, I guess I'm just not sure how "resistance" applies here. Like, can you "resist" having less taxes, or "resist" having less government subsidies in your life?
I guess enforcing immigration laws is a thing you can resist, but then you're just resisting a law that's been on the books for decades - and that pretty much every other country has an equivalent of.
Nah, I don't agree. Drama-production is closely related to status-seeking behavior, which is inherently relative, and thus not closely tied to objective conditions. Put people in segregated perfectly homogenous silos and they'll just ratchet up their standards for what counts as minimally acceptable social conformity. Drusilla sang the Diversity Song intentionally too loud, implying subtle sarcasm. Convene the Self-Criticism Circle.
It's true that diversity is very relative, but in every situation excluding someone with different opinion who doesn't have any power leads to less drama.
If you've never lived in the Pacific Northwest you have no idea how true this is. When everyone is white, the witch hunts to find people who are secretly racist just get crazier and crazier.
multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.
“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company,”
The blackwhite thinking in this article is double plus good
haha r/latestagecapitalism is such a joke. I seriously hope it's modded by undercover cops, because it's just depressing to think "socialists" so obsessed with dividing workers against each other based on irrelevant biological categories do it for free.
“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company,” Brown said in the statement. “We’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul.”
When company directly states that they cannot achieve something without proper skin color distribution of their workers you know that nazi level of race obsessiveness is achieved.
Comparing encouraging diversity to Nazism is like the verbal equivalent of sucking your own dick. I don't know how you got that twisted up, I'm a little disgusted you've done it, but deep down I'm secretly impressed and a little jealous.
It's not and never been critical to any company to have certain racial distribution of workers. They say that success is impossible without hiring certain races. If you agree to that you are obsessed with race.
First of all, through God all things are possible.
Good PR =\= Nazism you great, big mongoloid. Google wants everyone to think that they value them deeply, and that's because everybody's money spends the same.
Good PR among who? Who besides SJW and nazis will ever think that race of workers contributes to company's success? Does that mean you can't be successfull in india because there are no black people there?
So SJW. If you follow their sources and actually read what they were based on, you'll find things like:
This correlation does not prove that the relationship is causal
and
In latin america, increace in diversity of executive team does not have a statistically significant effect on profits. Same goes for increacing ethnicity diversity in UK and gender diversity in US.
So there's that, SJW read only what they want to read and actuall things are much different in unbiased reality even by their own sources.
"Correlation does not prove causation" is not some flaw in this study, that's how statistics works. Unironically, you should take a stats class, stats literacy would make the world a better place.
No one gives a shit about mexicans, europoors, or women.
The rest of your comment is just a boring rant about how you think your totally unsourced point of view is better than an argument you don't even understand.
It is though. The only diverse thing about acompany that hires based on race is the distribution of skin tone, might as well focus on having employees with a diverse set og eye and hair colors too. But having different opinions and thoughts? nah, thats not real diversety.
He... really isn't. The essay was poorly argued. He equivocates between a) modestly criticising an extreme social-constructionist view that all observed differences are due to culture and b) claiming, or at least heavily implying, that observed differences are mostly due to innate biology. He cites evidence that only supports (a) as if it supports (b). And his discussion of squishier, social / history-of-ideas type issues is full of 4chan-level howlers like "the gender wage gap is a myth that disappears when you properly control for the causes of the gender wage gap," conservative victimhood bullshit, etc.
I mean, if you're actually interested in this, the problem is that the causal factors adduced to make the gender wage gap go away aren't actually separable from discrimination.
A simple model can illustrate this. Imagine a world where men and women are exactly identical in all respects, socially and biologically and everything. They make decisions about work-life balance completely independent of gender, purely based on cost-benefit considerations. Gender literally don't real, it might as well be an arbitrary label assigned at random.
Now perturb the model by introducing an unfounded belief among employers that women are more likely to take time off for family. Employers don't have perfect information or perfect precommitment mechanisms so they're forced to, to some extent, treat women as a whole as less reliably committed to the job.
In this scenario, employers rationally prefer men, depressing female wages. Women in turn, independently of any actual preference for 'life' over 'work', reduce their supply of paid labor and take on a greater share of 'life' responsibilities like child-raising, because the tradeoff they're facing has changed in favor of 'life' over 'work.'
This is honestly 101 stuff, which is why it's so infuriating to hear people whose entire acquaintance with wage gap issues is Christina Hoff Sommers videos confidently discursing on the unreality of the wage gap. They literally just ignore all well-informed definitions of the wage gap and pretend that "I heard from my geography teacher in tenth grade that women only make 70 cents on the dollar!" is the entirety of the feminist case.
I agree with you, but it's still a lot more nuanced than women getting 77 cents for work a man works get a dollar for and a lot of people think that. It's a complex topic
I agree there is some value in correcting the popular misconception that the 70 (or 77, or whatever) figure describes a gap ultimately caused by direct gender-based employer discrimination. But come on, this is not the main thing going on here. I've seen Reddit fly off the handle at Obama for discussing the Mythical Wage Gap in a speech where he specifically stated that the wage gap should be addressed by encouraging women to enter traditionally male-dominated fields like computer programming and trying to alter social norms around caregiving responsibilities. That's not correcting misconceptions, it's intentionally exploiting them to sidestep a discussion that you wan't to avoid.
I'd say that's mainly because a lot of people don't actually understand the substance behind the wage gap, that all they see is the generalized claim being debunked and just assume the entire thing's bullshit
Hilariously you've cited the exact speech I was referring to, where Obama goes on to state that the wage gap is not only due to employer discrimination but needs to be addressed in terms of career paths and social expectations:
This [just announced measure to deal with employer discrimination] won’t solve every problem. We’ve still got to get more women and girls into high-paying fields like science and technology, engineering and math. We’ve still got to make sure that women are not penalized or held back in the workplace simply for starting a family. Guys, we’re responsible for the family thing, too. And they’re already doing more work than we are in getting that thing going. They shouldn’t be penalized twice or three times.
And your "verbatim quote" in fact excerpts the qualifier "oftentimes." What he actually said was "We’re talking about oftentimes folks doing the same job and being paid differently."
We’ve still got to make sure that women are not penalized or held back in the workplace simply for starting a family.
Okay but like you understand that the rhetoric of "penalization" is ridiculous here, right?
And your "verbatim quote" in fact excerpts the qualifier "oftentimes."
Doesn't change the objection. Saying that it happens with any frequency worth mentioning, is attributing a difference in pay to direct gender-based employer discrimination, because the claim is explicit that it's the same work.
In this scenario, employers rationally prefer men, depressing female wages. Women in turn, independently of any actual preference for 'life' over 'work', reduce their supply of paid labor and take on a greater share of 'life' responsibilities
So the remaining women who don't on average are better than men and are content with lower wages, and the market just like sits in the corner drooling.
I understand your point, I just don't see how it could be in any way stable, because the employers who pay women more than average but still less than men get women who are more reliably committed to the job than men, due to survivor bias. Like, factually.
the problem is that the causal factors adduced to make the gender wage gap go away aren't actually separable from discrimination.
Now perturb the model by introducing an unfounded belief among employers that women are more likely to take time off for family. Employers don't have perfect information or perfect precommitment mechanisms so they're forced to, to some extent, treat women as a whole as less reliably committed to the job.
In this scenario, employers rationally prefer men, depressing female wages. Women in turn, independently of any actual preference for 'life' over 'work', reduce their supply of paid labor and take on a greater share of 'life' responsibilities like child-raising, because the tradeoff they're facing has changed in favor of 'life' over 'work.'
Wait, hold on. Are you seriously arguing that the problem is that we somehow can't tell whether the belief is founded or not?
Like, seriously? There's some magic barrier that prevents us from studying the relative likelihood of men and women to take time off for family?
Yes this is exactly what I'm saying in this simplified toy model that I explicitly introduced as a simplified toy model to illustrate a point. Fuck you are one dense motherfucker.
in this simplified toy model that I explicitly introduced as a simplified toy model to illustrate a point.
I mean, you could try actually saying what the problem is, instead of presenting some long-winded analogy and then expecting people to magically come up with the interpretation you intended instead of the most obvious one.
Like, if "the causal factors aren't actually separable from discrimination", then perhaps you could identify a specific causal factor and explain why it actually isn't separable from discrimination, instead of giving an example where discrimination could maybe look the same if you squint the right way, but is trivially separable if you apply a grade-schooler's level of critical thinking?
Yeah. I actually don't think he should have been fired tbh, and the pearl-clutching about his OUTRAGEOUS SCREED is obviously overdone. But at the same time, he's not a Genious Science Man destroying the politically correct SJW dogmas. He's an /r/TumblrInAction tier dumbass, laboriously taking down an uninteresting strawman of "PC ideology."
He literally claims that Google's diversity initiatives amount to a form of psychological oppression akin to physical violence, dude.
The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
And his footnote 11 is a great example of what a fucking duffer he is because he gives therein a definition of "political correctness" that clearly doesn't say what he think it does:
Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.
Holy shit your reading comprehension is terrible, and yet you're trying to criticize others on the same grounds.
While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
How the everloving fuck did you read that and extract "he thinks this is a form of psychological oppression akin to physical violence"?
Well, for many reasons, but I'll give one example for now. This is all in the context of Google, a company based on engineering and computer science. The gender gap in those fields has been strangely refractory compared to in mathematics and the natural sciences. Do we really think that math has been discriminatory in a way that compsci has not, and also that math is accessible to squishy female brains in a way that compsci isn't? Strains credulity. Seems much more plausible that these fields have especially bad cultural problems, especially in the light of other evidence.
How many computer autists do you know that are women?
No one is stopping a women from building her own computer or programming her own scripts at home where culture is not a factor, and yet, something tells me women are not the biggest consumer group of computer parts.It's clear that women don't have as much interest in computer related activity.
I couldn't tell you how much of it is biological as opposed to cultural, but to claim that none of it? That's retarded, genetics have huge impacts on all human behavior. Hell, 75% of iq is said to be genetic.
Seems much more plausible that these fields have especially bad cultural problems, especially in the light of other evidence.
So for some reason, the "patriarchy" was happy to allow as many women into the medical field, into law school, into literally anything they wanted to do - but the autists in tech are keeping women out?
Worse, for some reason, the countries where the patriarchy is strongest (india for example) have more women in tech than countries that are more feminist (norway for example) - in fact, there's a negative correlation between allowing women to do whatever the want, and their interest in tech.
So for some reason, the "patriarchy" was happy to allow as many women into the medical field, into law school, into literally anything they wanted to do - but the autists in tech are keeping women out?
This is a really creative way of trying to make the concept of "one field has bigger problems with sexism than another" sound like some wildly objectionable hypothesis
This is a really creative way of trying to make the concept of "one field has bigger problems with sexism than another" sound like some wildly objectionable hypothesis
It is a wildly objectionable hypothesis, and no effort or creativity is required to point that out. It is objectionable because it makes no sense, because it either predicts the opposite of several other trivially observed phenomena, or else is a catastrophic failure of Occam's Razor.
If you'd prefer a less creative way, try this: what you did is called begging the question. Specifically, you assumed sexism explains the gender gap. Then you pointed to the gender gap and said, "see? sexism!"
Scott Alexander has never made a good case for anything
You've got that backwards. Every time he makes a case, it's a good one. The article I linked to handily disproves your position.
...if you have some response to Alexander's argument, then I encourage you to present it. But just dismissing it out of hand isn't going to cut it. Here, I'll quote some of Alexander's post - this is something you need to address:
women conquered one of these fields after another. 51% of law students are now female. So are 49.8% of medical students, 45% of math majors, 60% of linguistics majors, 60% of journalism majors, 75% of psychology majors, and 60% of biology postdocs. Yet for some reason, engineering remains only about 20% female.
There were negative stereotypes about everything! Somebody has to explain why the equal and greater negative stereotypes against women in law, medicine, etc were completely powerless, yet for some reason the negative stereotypes in engineering were the ones that took hold and prevented women from succeeding there.
what you did is called begging the question. Specifically, you assumed sexism explains the gender gap. Then you pointed to the gender gap and said, "see? sexism!"
I... what? I'm sorry, this leaves me at a loss. This strikes me as sincere rather than a highly clever form of trolling but it's also just staggeringly dumb. I have no idea how you think I'm "begging the question" here. My argument is that innate-capacity or innate-interest-based explanations are going to have a very difficult time explaining how the gender gap could have narrowed so strikingly in mathematics but not at all (actually, widening) in computer science. The intellectual content of the two disciplines are too similar, if there's an inherent sex-determined male/female gap in one there should be a similar gap in the other. This may be a good or a bad argument but it's just obviously wrong to claim it's no argument at all, or some kind of trivial circular argument.
I've specifically addressed the portion of Scott's bloviations that so impresses you elsewhere in this thread, I'll just quote it:
Scott does attempt to address this point in his blog post but his argument is hilariously bad, amounting to the following:
I can't think of a reason why negative stereotypes might have been stronger or more persistent in one field than in another.
If we imagine gender stereotypes as being consciously propagated by a scheming Victorian villain for the purpose of oppressing women, it doesn't make sense to me that the villain would prioritize oppressing women engineers over women doctors.
I have talked to some people who have proposed a naively economical reason for the disparity that doesn't hold up.
Points (1) through (3), plus a bunch of rhetoric and hyperbole, show that obviously sexism isn't to blame, QED
Seriously, Scott does not have a good argument here, no matter how confidently he deploys italics and exclamation points.
It's not that math is not accessible to women, one of my high school classmates has a PhD in neurobiology and is a woman. It's just that the general interest doesn't seem to be there.
Out of my high school class only 4 women entered maths/sciences. 1 went for neurobiology, the other 3 went to school for nursing. The rest of the female class took environmental studies, language, music, or entered the workforce right away. The guys generally worked, took engineering, entered trades, or entered math programs.
We had lots of electives in this high school, there was cooking, art, auto shop, manufacturing, woodworking, music, languages, philosophy, religion, and maths. You had mainly free choice of which you wanted to take (though everyone had to take cooking, a trades elective, and languages/philosophy/art/music at least once) yet programming, and the shop-type programs all were heavily male dominated. Girls just weren't interested in replacing axels or programming. Three years you had to take some electives and for those three years the girls did what they absolutely had to and didn't take the trades again. The teachers didn't discriminate, nor did the class. The interest just wasn't there.
For the same reason there aren't many male early childhood educators there aren't many female programmers or tradespeople. Generally the interest just isn't there and that can't be disregarded as a major part of why a pay gap exists.
Scott does attempt to address this point in his blog post but his argument is hilariously bad, amounting to the following:
I can't think of a reason why negative stereotypes might have been stronger or more persistent in one field than in another.
If we imagine gender stereotypes as being consciously propagated by a scheming Victorian villain for the purpose of oppressing women, it doesn't make sense to me that the villain would prioritize oppressing women engineers over women doctors.
I have talked to some people who have proposed a reason for the disparity that doesn't hold up.
Points (1) through (3), plus a bunch of rhetoric and hyperbole, show that obviously sexism isn't to blame, QED
I can't think of a reason why negative stereotypes might have been stronger or more persistent in one field than in another.
Can you? If his argument is so easy to knock down, why don't you actually do it?
The theory that blames this all on negative stereotyping pretty much requires the stereotypes to be of roughly equal strength, because it dictates that they have the same motivation and are essentially the same stereotype.
If we imagine gender stereotypes as being consciously propagated by a scheming Victorian villain for the purpose of oppressing women, it doesn't make sense to me that the villain would prioritize oppressing women engineers over women doctors.
This is an elaboration of how he presents the first point, not a separate logical plank.
I have talked to some people who have proposed a naively economical reason for the disparity that doesn't hold up.
Well, yes, if you want to present an argument that X might be the cause of Y, one prerequisite for that is having the idea that X might be the cause of Y. People suggesting to you, "could X be the cause?" is a pretty common way for that to happen. Holy shit, revelations here. Your contributions to the fields of logic and psychology will win you awards, as soon as we invent time travel and send you back to ancient Greece.
Funny, that's not what we've been told about climate change. Do we need a survey that shows that 97% of Harvard PhDs think you're a dumbass to end the conversation?
eh. A bunch of people are going to use this post as a means to agendapost, sure. But this is an actually somewhat dramatic event, and the OP has a neutral title and is not getting involved with either side
Nonsense. Google is simply too big to fail. If safe spaces really do negatively affect productivity, they still can easily afford it; hell, they have enough money to employ little dancing monkeys on their desks for entertainment. They will continue attracting the best talent simply by paying the best salaries. Guess what, the most skilled people don't give about any of this. They do their job and they get their money.
Have you ever asked women about their experiences with sexual harassment? You get a shitload of stories. Catcalling, groping, etc, all starting for some at the age of 13 already.
No, more like being groped, catcalled from a very young age and being sexually assaulted. Again, if you're interested, you should ask some women about their experiences. I did a while back in my national subreddit and the responses were pretty interesting. If you're interested, here are the Google translated responses, though again, it is Google Translate so I don't know how intelligeble it will be to you.
Yah says the guy who's clearly never talked to a woman. If you think women don't get harassed quite a bit on the streets by scumfucks like yourself you're either purposefully oblivious or have never spoken to a woman who's not a 0/10 ham planet. The drunk pollack trash in my neighborhood are constantly complimenting my fiance on her rack. I mean obviously poland wasn't sending their best as it's a country of garbage humans, but still it's pretty ridiculous
It does happen a lot, but there's a reason other than being an [insert buzzword] for men to have difficulty coming to terms with this.
Most guys would never dream of treating women like that. We're simply not brought up that way. In the majority of those stories the perpetrators come from a very macho culture (north Africa or Poland for example). That or they're surrounded by their drunken dumbfuck bros and think they have to prove how manly they are.
These are the same people who'd gang up on males and beat the shit out of them for looking at them the wrong way, which is the other side of the coin.
Yah I agree with that, but the majority of the fools in here arguing that harassment isn't a thing are those redpill dumbfucks who argue they aren't being harassing creeps, they were just trying to give that feminazi bitch a "nice compliment."
I know to someone like yourself, interacting with a woman seems an impossible task, but it really isn't that hard if you're not a complete autismo. There's plenty of mentally addled women out there, I'm sure one of them will be able to relate to you
Lol dude you literally spent last night arguing about the mental facilities of trans people in /r/confuseboners last night and spent 2 hours doing so. You're obviously a mentally deficient sperg
Imagine having so little of a life, you unironically care about people trolling on the Internet. If I already didn't believe you had a fiance, I definitely don't know. Don't worry though, your engagement to Yuki from SAO is totally valid though, your parents are so proud of you!
awww it's the "i'm only pretending to be retarded excuse!" Don't worry johnny boy, I'm sure you'll be taken serious and respected as a person soon enough!
ou realize most people shower more than once a week right?
I don't have that high expectations of you yet, so I started off small. Maybe afterwards, once you've mastered that, I can teach you to use deodorant on a regular interval. After a few months, you'll finally be clean enough to get a blowjob from a filthy crackhead for $20.
Losing your virginity will have to wait though, no one really wants to fuck a 40 year old neckbeard whose breath smells like loneliness and neglect
It's sad to see you bare your soul to the world like this. You know all the steps to take to stop being a basement dwelling NEET, you communicate them to the world. But you're unable to follow them yourself. It's like a dweeb version of that awful movie hitch
Your insults are so shitty, it's kind of embarrassing even replying to them. Imagine have so little human interaction, you can barely coherently roast someone back after being violated. Oh no, wait, you don't need to imagine, /u/JumbledFun's posting history is right there.
Man you're deluded if you think that was "violating" me.
Oh yeah, I'm sorry, you have different definitions of a violation after your uncle molested you during summer break. Poor kiddo. I'd blame your autism on the trauma but the truth is you've always been like this.
yep, this is why girls from teenage years onward are famous for not purposefully seeking out the most macho kind of males who engage in the most offensive kinds of behaviors.
They always strive for the company of quiet guys, but those jocks just won't quit going after them. Go to any high school or college and all you will see are the girls trying to hide in libraries while football teams ram the doors.
psst - if you choose to associate with assholes, you end up with tons of stories about assholes behaving like assholes
In my heart I am on the side of this guy, not because I agree with him particularly, or because I like the look of him, (he seems like kind of an idiot and his pompous opinions seem half-baked at best), but simply because I believe in freedom of expression and I don't like to see it eroded.
Well, the word I used was eroded, and you don't have to go to jail to have your freedom of expression gradually eroded, till you live in an atmosphere where you're scared to say anything.
Of course you're wrong. Clearly the threat of being fired, punched, whatever for expression inhibits expression. The "it's not freedom from consequences!!!!" thing is obviously nonsensical.
Clearly the threat of being fired, punched, etc. for expression inhibits expression.
It inhibits freedom of expression just as much as removing slur-yelling person from your private property. Or should that too be illegal?
The concept of free expression extends beyond government protection.
Does it, though?
here's a weird and dumb assumption that any time one talks positively about freedom of speech that he must be referring to the first amendment, and all the limitations that apply to a very particular piece of law.
Because that's what freedom of expression is. A law.
It inhibits freedom of expression just as much as removing slur-yelling person from your private property.
Err, no it doesn't. Completely different context, dissemination method, audience, and so on.
Or should that too be illegal?
Please identify where I said it should be illegal for Google to fire him. What the previous commentor said was that it erodes freedom of expression, and that's lamentable. It does and it is. I can think it's shitty Google fires for mere expression without thinking there should be a law against it.
Does it, though?
Because that's what freedom of expression is. A law.
Yes, obviously ideas, tenets and principles can extend beyond the law. Otherwise Google wouldn't have fired him in the first place for violating theirs.
Nice sperg out but Google also has a right to freedom of expression and the right to fire retards who post 10 page manifestos attacking their policies.
I'm sorry. I should have sperged out & posted a huge serious post about a concept of freedom of speech that doesn't exist in the real world. That would have been really contributing.
Very smart of you to use words to describe a concept that doesn't exist in any tangible way. I'm sure you're very smart when discussing concepts that do not exist. You may even be top in your field of hypothetical opinions.
Are you hindering my freedom of speech?! I'll have you know I have hundreds of serious posts based on imaginary concepts ready to roll at a moment's notice if my right to a soapbox is denied!
You're not supposed to counter my opinions. Who do you think you are, google? It's included in the articles of free speech in the context of internet debates that you're not allowed to disagree with me.
Funny how corporate "freedom of expression" consists of a small, elite minority deciding which people get to make a living, while worker "freedom of expression" consists of criticizing corporate policy. Your ideas are radically anti-worker.
Genuine freedom for the overwhelming majority of people is incompatible with this broad view of private property "rights".
Freedom of expression is a value of Western liberal society. There are many places where it is in eched in the founding document, laws or bylaws of specific organizations. One of those happens to be the first amendment, but that is not the be-all and end-all of the societal value.
"okay i work at google, we control the flow of information and it's time to set the record straight. let's see if we can get everyone on the same page"
He was probably thinking "I have google on my resume and I can actually fucking code and every other company on earth that wants real work done instead of some HR bullshit will throw money at me."
And even if they did, that's irrelevant. He's a liability from a business standpoint. Legally and otherwise. And the fact that he thought this was a smart thing to do doesn't speak well for either his social skills or common sense, both of which are actually pretty important in a collaborative business environment like software development. The dudes who run SV didn't get to where they are by being stupid enough to take on a poor employee who'll get them sued just because they agree with his ideology.
For instance, the dorkatrons at Mozilla were all fired up to fight for ass-fuck-gendered marriage rights, until one of their beloved founders was publicly attacked for donating to Prop 8 causes. Now their whole company is suffering because of the political correctness they once subscribed to, and a lot of the employees don't know what they believe.
ok your LARP is suffering a bit now. You've got to remember to do your research my dude. You don't have to be entirely accurate, but try for the right ballpark or you'll pull the viewer out of the story.
I dunno about tech but I worked with C-level execs at an F500 during a previous job and the public/private about face was definitely real. Some of them had truly horrifying attitudes towards woman, especially the younger ones.
The guy got fucked by Google policies and fostered culture of openness. He posted the manifesto on internal Google skeptic group for a critic, somebody got offended and leaked to public with massive smear campaign to follow. This is how leftist work, they infiltrate open discussion environments and silence the dissenting opinions with smear campaigns. Happens all the time
Well there absolutely are generally differences in each genders interests. Of course exceptions do exist and as far as I'm concerned the only thing that should restrict you to a job is your personal interest and effort.
He's jobless with Google on his resume, he can work for pretty much any company and will likely get double pay for a month or more. Then he'll have someone ghost right a book for him and make tons of money off the growing group of feminism skeptics/edge lords. This guy is not in dire straits.
This is written like some autistic fan theory. Mr Manifesto will definitely find work but it won't be near the level of working for Google. No employee dumb enough to write 10 page cited rants about his job will go very far in the professional world.
I don't live in an area that costs over 6 figures to have an average life in nor do I get myself fired posting social justice rants on company forums so I'll be just fine. Thanks for the concern 😘
Double the average income in an area you can live comfortably in with under half the average. My main hobbies include hating people, food, video games, and the gym. Do you wanna meet up? PM me your bussy if you think we're a match. I'm a Scorpio byw
Google doesn't pay as well as many of its competitors because it doesn't have to. I would be very surprised if he didn't get a pay bump when moving to some other tech giant.
This was his first job apparently so of course he would be getting paid shit but it's unlikely he's going to get some huge pay pump after being fired for rocking the boat instead of doing his job.
He's jobless with Google on his resume, he can work for pretty much any company and will likely get double pay for a month or more
any employer will start out by googling his name and seeing a social shitstorm with this guy front and center - don't think he will be all the employable.
That said, if the civil courts of the state do their jobs, he shouldn't need to work ever again after the settlement for wrongful dismissal.
I can't imagine he wasn't planning on staying long anyway. By his own admission he was already relinquishing all prospect of advancing in that culture. This might actually be better for him because he probably gets a sweet severance package.
I don't know the law in California, but considering the pro-worker culture of the state I think it's likely they have some mandated compensation unless the employer can prove good cause for the firing. Whether this counts or not probably falls to lawyers, but does Google really want to go through that?
->Write the most moderate and considerate memo to share your worries about your company's repressive culture.
->Get death threats, firing threats, news outlet misrepresenting your points and accusing you of sexism, bigotry, nazism etc...
->Get fired.
yes, he was 100% responsible for that !!!HOSTILE!!! work environnement, famalam.
Dis you read it? He said women in general aren't as interested in coding or high stress positions and went out of his way to explain and re-explain how he was talking about statistical averages as a way to explain why there is a gender gap not as a way of declaring all women unfit.
The argument is whether or not the gender gap in programming is caused by women just on average being less interest in high stress highly technical isolated jobs or the innate sexism of a company that fired a guy for daring to suggest it wasn't being sexist.
If I ran a company I would absolutely fire someone who spammed everyone's inbox with their political manifesto, pretty much regardless of its content. Send that shit to family members and friends who also don't care on your own time.
This guy either intentionally stirred up shit, or is too dumb to know he was going to stir up shit. Either way...
If you say "I'm going on Fox and writing columns for Breitbart if you don't give me some fat stacks" you might. I imagine he'll have invites from both by the end of the day.
You are assuming that Google cares what the Fox/Breitbart crowd thinks of them. Google also has teams of lawyers working for them and the guy probably had to sign watertight agreements preventing him from disclosing their internal policies etc. I agree though he is going to make the rounds of the anti-SJW circuit.
I don't think Google as a company is quite so stupid that they think it's just fine if Fox viewers start hating them. There's plenty of things Google already does that are public but not common knowledge that could be used to make conservatives stop supporting them.
There is probably a team at google who could tell you the average age of the fox viewer, average income, how many electronic devices they own, how much they spend shopping on line each year, etc.,etc. My guess would be that, based on this kind of information, they aren't going to lose any sleep if these people are mad at them. If they are worried, they have a PR team on staff full of people experienced with getting companies out of much stickier messes.
Now as far as conservatives go, the higher up the hierarchy of power you go the more you're going to find "big business" conservatives. They aren't going to want to do anything to/about google that might come back and bite them in the ass. Pass a law that you can't fire someone for their political beliefs? Well, now your biggest donor is pissed at you because he has tons of paperwork and hoops to jump through because the lazy loser he fired is saying she was fired for talking about feminism at work.
That's just my 2cents. God knows what's going to happen. As long as drama is caused I don't care.
You massively underestimate conservative web use and purchasing power if you think it's not worthwhile to pay this guy off so he doesn't drag the company through the mud. Giving him a couple million is absolutely nothing for them as a company, whereas if this goes nuclear (even if you think that's unlikely), the costs would be many multiples of the bung.
Incidentally, California does have some quite extensive protections for people fired for their political beliefs. I suspect he wouldn't win such a case, but you don't need to be likely to win a case to get a payout if the company stands to lose more just in reputational damage if you follow through with it.
Well, sure. Why not give the guy a couple million to head off a potential headache. Unless their legal team advises against it. Like maybe if paying the guy off could be misconstrued as a type of admission on Google's part if he sues.
I think conservatives are going to use this to fire up their base. I also don't think conservatives are the type to want to expand employment laws/protections so Google can reasonably expect nothing significant will come of the outrage machine. I could be very wrong though, it's just my half-baked opinion.
Obviously any such payoff would involve forfeiture of his right to sue the company or to make media appearances denouncing them.
The nightmare scenario for Google isn't employment laws being changed, it's antitrust laws actually being applied, but that's very unlikely so long as it keeps laying those golden eggs, and it's not the kind of thing Trump himself is actually interested in.
yeah, I've heard rumblings about breaking up google or treating it like a public utility. They wouldn't be talking about it though if it was being run by the Koch Brothers.
This is a no-win for Google unfortunately, which just shows how fucked up our society is. Stupid employee decides to voice opinion he could have just left out of the workplace, and now the company's hands are tied. They will be bitches at by the alt-right for discrimination against this "engineer", and the alt-left will bitch that 80% of their engineering group is male and that's just unacceptable.
I don't even know why I read the news anymore, it's just a bunch of people yelling at clouds not helping anyone, reporting on people that are just horrible human beings.
DAE Right wing ideology is a mental illness, so protected by neurodiversity
DAE protection against visible discrimination evil, protect against choosen discrimination only
....sigh like every aspect of this is a shitshow, the memo isn't that evil, it's not threatening as some paint it as, it's full of pseudo science though, but should that be sackable...probably not, you should be free to criticise your employer, but fucking hell acting like this is "all white men being oppressed and "diversity only welcome"" is victimhood from the right usually reserved for those they criticise. It's shit all the way down, project humanity was a mistake, post natal abortions for all please.
When the CEO has to come back from vacation to deal with your shit, you are super-fired. This political scientist/programmer won't be working anywhere near Silicon Valley any time soon. Time to pack up your shit and move to India or the Phillipines.
This is either a brilliant or a moronic move. While companies in California are not allowed to fire you for political statements outside of work, they are perfectly free to do so for stuff you say in the office.
However, many companies have an employee handbook that details more extensive protections than the law covers. If Google's employee handbook protects something like "open internal dialogue" then a case could be made that this is promissory estoppel - in other words, they failed to live up to their promises causing him substantial material harm. Since his memo was very polite, they can't really make a legal argument that he's bigoted since the law still operates by the legal definition of racism, not the academic one.
If I were this guy, I would have downloaded a copy of my employee handbook and read through it cover to cover before posting anything publically. Google is a shit company full of SJWs, and I know a few conservatives who work there and keep their views very quiet. So the main point of the memo was actually very accurate.
I expect that this guy will turn out to just be an idiot rather than a secret genius, but this may open the door to future lawsuits against Google, particularly if they can show a pattern of discrimination. (Which shouldn't be too hard to find.) Sometimes, to bring down a person/group of influence, you need one crazy person to serve as the "tip of the spear."
What would happen if a female Google employee would write that men are more criminal and violent in every country than women and that they probably must be something wrong with them? Freedom of speech, truth or ''omg that's like so misandrist why do you hate us menz :'( fucking feminists''?
620 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-08-08
Neat.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 take_a_dumpling 2017-08-08
The liberal faggot tree must be refreshed with the blood of autists and allies.
This guy didn't write a single word wrong. There was nothing sexist in his memo despite every lame fake news headline about it. I WILL be voting for Trump again and so will all my dead relatives.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
So you are voting for Trump to reinforce worker protections and reign in these private corporations? Yeah that sounds like it will work.
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-08
The new purpose of voting is actually to troll.
1 DeepDickedHillybilly 2017-08-08
This but unironically
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
This but with salty librul tearz down my face
1 glmox 2017-08-08
sam hyde 2020
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-08
Deez nuts 2020
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
Buttered Toast 2020 🍞
1 shitpersonality 2017-08-08
Sam hyde holds the rest of mde back. Nick and Charls 2020 to infinity.
1 Myrsephone 2017-08-08
How surprising. I was really expecting that the entire HR department and diversity committee were going to admit that they were wrong and resign. What a strange world we live in that it would come to this instead.
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-08
Massive corporate entity makes financially sound decision.
Really makes you think.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
Not really.
1 GARBAGE_MACHINE 2017-08-08
It's almost like he was joking or something...
1 Re_LE_Vant_UN 2017-08-08
Redditards have to be explicitly told that something is a joke.
"Here, you dropped this //s"
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
You didn't understand my comment now did you? I'm not even making fun of him lol. Try reading harder.
1 Re_LE_Vant_UN 2017-08-08
You didn't understand my comment now did you? I'm not even making fun of you lol. Try reading harder.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
reading intensifies
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
It's almost likeyou didn't understand what i meant1 GARBAGE_MACHINE 2017-08-08
Hey, fair enough, man.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
ಠ_ಠ
/s
1 _white_lives_matter_ 2017-08-08
This might not be financially sound in the long run. This news will be all over the conservative media.
1 LefthandedLunatic 2017-08-08
Sorry bae, Fox News userbase isn't well known for their use of google products.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Gen Z is famously conservative. They're losing future market share
1 theantirobot 2017-08-08
Gen-Z will have their own Google, running on the Ethereum block chain, uncensorable, uncontrollable, and it will replace both Google and the government as we know it. It will be sci-fi level shit.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Stop. I can only get so erect
Etheriums fuckin weird tho
1 JustThall 2017-08-08
We already have troubles scaling blockchain for transaction volume. When normies jump on board it would be interesting
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
The tangle and sharding is the future, old school block chains are already dinosaurs waiting to become extinct.
1 FieryChickenSkeleton 2017-08-08
Right I'm gonna make a Google competitor named Booble. Wish me luck
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
Presearch ico? Should I get in?
1 bytewake 2017-08-08
tfw I can't even escape block chain in r/drama
1 justcool393 2017-08-08
Don't worry; we're a crypto-hate subreddit.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
hahahahahahahaha
1 pizzashill 2017-08-08
Uh, that depends on what you mean by conservative. They're pretty socially liberal, it's debatable if they're even really conservative.
Trump will also likely turn many of them off the republican party.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-08
Research seems to suggest they are the most conservative Generation since those who grew up in WW2 i,e the Silent Generation
1 pizzashill 2017-08-08
No, random internet surveys, but those same surveys also show they're very clearly socially liberal.
1 ghoti_styx 2017-08-08
It will be when they grow up.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-08
Based on what? Why exactly do you think society always seems to be moving forward, socially?
1 ghoti_styx 2017-08-08
Based on not knowing a single teenager that is socially conservative. I'm sure they exist, but not in large enough numbers for a socially conservative party to be one of the two mainstream parties in the us after the boomers die out.
That's exactly why conservatives of the future will probably have social views that seem liberal today.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-08
that's my point - the new generation of "conservatives" aren't going to be anything like the current conservatives in the US at least.
Which is probably for the best.
1 ghoti_styx 2017-08-08
Well it's kind of a facile point because the nature of conservativism is necessarily going to be different over time and from place to place. Social conservative views are based largely on the desire for things to stay the way they are now or were when you were a child. For future conservatives that'll mean something different than it means to the current politically powerful generations.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-08
And my point is, this generation isn't going to agree with today's conservatives on diversity, the exact opposite is true.
And like I said - it's probably pretty likely Trump turns them off the conservative worldview anyway.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
I was much more socially liberal until college. The conservatives used to be the busy bodies, but now it's the liberals/left. That turns people off pretty hard
1 seshfan 2017-08-08
No, they're highschoolers. Most liberal people now did the whole "edgy post on 4chan" thing when they were 14 too. Most of them will grow out of it.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Yeah and people only voted for trump as a joke right?
1 seshfan 2017-08-08
there's a difference between trump voters and people who scream on the internet about SJWs
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
I mean I guess?
1 grungebot5000 2017-08-08
Gen Z isn't really conservative, they're just lil straight-edge faggots
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-08
This opinion is so stupidly uninformed that it could only come from a woman
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
"What? You think women are provably different than men? Go back to FoxNews you bigoted altrighter!"
I'm paraphrasing.
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
Yes, they have no bussy. None at all.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
The guy he's replying to specifically mentioned "conservative media".
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
Fox news is a pile of hot shit tbh.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
Right, not disagreeing with you, here. It looked like you were mocking the previous guy for mentioning Fox News.
1 PURINBOYS2002 2017-08-08
Lmao, neocons are really going to use their weapon of choice, social media.... to take out google. Middle America vs. ~$90 bil in cash assets alone plus the most data out there, and everything else they own. Even match.
1 tomprimozic 2017-08-08
And look who won last time (in November 2016).
1 BellyCrawler 2017-08-08
Except you didn't go up against Google then. It was up against Hillary and her shills. Google can wipe out Trump and build multiple mini versions of him that are less orange and friendlier to bussy.
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
Wait is that technology currently available to consumers?
1 riemann1413 2017-08-08
are you saying hillary clinton is google?
1 tomprimozic 2017-08-08
Google tried helping Hilllary to win. They failed.
1 riemann1413 2017-08-08
...because google employees donated to the clinton campaign? this is a really rough train of thought to follow
1 tomprimozic 2017-08-08
Google management. You know, the people who make pretty much every major decision within the company.
https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-team-hillarys-election-tech/
1 riemann1413 2017-08-08
ohhhh. so you didn't mean google. you meant eric schmidt. easy mistake
1 bytewake 2017-08-08
I wish tbh
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
Uh, the government does a lot of business with Google and gets a significant say in how the company operates as a result, not to mention the ongoing investigation into the G's hiring practices and possible discrimination.
Who controls the government right now?
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
90% of Google's revenue stream comes from ads. The government won't do shit, anyways, because money talks, not whiny internet NEETs.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
Yes, this will surely be the end of Google. Just like Amazon no longer exists thanks to Daddy.
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
A decision doesn't have to be fatal to be a bad decision.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
"Bad decision" lul like anyone will even remember this idiot in a year
1 newprofile15 2017-08-08
Wow well we know how threatened Google is by the conservative media... They definitely rely on them.
1 jorio 2017-08-08
Yeah, sure, Google is really going to soar now that they've cornered the purple haired ham beast market.
1 augieseagle 2017-08-08
Sure, keep thinking SJWs are all neon hair tumblerites no one takes seriously. Meanwhile, Google has a VP of Diversity.
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-08-08
Eh, it's sound from a PR POV, but i wouldn't call it financially sound. Hiring people for the sake of diversity instead of competence is pretty bad, especially for tech companies.
1 PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2017-08-08
Wouldn't want my mutual funds holdings in Google to take a hit.
1 WorldStarCroCop 2017-08-08
The first step to admitting you were wrong is nothing happening to you, then you live your life normally, then you whisper on your death bed to your rival who is there for seemingly no reason.
1 antilysenkoism 2017-08-08
How surprising! They were up to date on the latest scientific research in gender studies which is always double plus good!
1 King-Achelexus 2017-08-08
I just find it funny that the title of the memo was "Google's ideological echo-chamber" and that it resulted in him being fired.
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
They won't admit it, but Google sure as hell know gender differences do exist.
Their entire business model is based on differentiating males and females to sale their ads.
1 niczar 2017-08-08
I don't think it's working so well, lately I've been getting plenty of ads for makeup and a product against smelly vaginas or some shit on the Youtube Android app. Most of the videos I watch these days are about electronics, metalworking and scifi.
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
And the problem is ?
1 niczar 2017-08-08
Well I was eating cheese and ... wait a minute, that means my Android tablet's got a smell-o-scope!
1 canine_canestas 2017-08-08
Price check on Vagiclean?
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
They won't admit it, but Google sure as hell know gender differences do exist.
Their entire business model is based on differentiating males and females to sale their ads.
1 letumblrfaec 2017-08-08
So not only did they end up kinda proving the dude right, they might have violated California labor code lol.
But Google's gonna come out of this with a slap on the wrist at the very worst. They're fucking Google after all.
1 Sasukefan99 2017-08-08
There is 0 chance the "political opinions" law will apply since he was fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes" according to them.
1 cojoco 2017-08-08
You can't be in the patriarchy if you acknowledge the existence of the patriarchy.
1 Barrrcode 2017-08-08
But, isn't "there should be perfect representation" also a "gender stereotype"? Wouldn't "let them do whatever the fuck they want" be the only not gender-stereotyping position, which is kinda what he stood for?
1 JustAThrowaway4563 2017-08-08
Yes? So what? Being a hypocrite isn't illegal.
1 carthoris26 2017-08-08
In a courtroom it is.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2017-08-08
Try that in a court of law, it can end really poorly.
That goes double if what's debated are your intentions and not your acts.
1 telandrias 2017-08-08
Dude was fired for discussing workplace policy on a workplace forum for discussing workplace policy with co-workers.
Could fit in a NRLB definition of unlawful firing.
But I'm betting on google having the better lawyer in this case.
1 letumblrfaec 2017-08-08
Christ, thank you.
1 telandrias 2017-08-08
HOW ABOUT SOME UNNECESSARY UNCALLED FOR AGGRESSION REEEEEEEEE
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
Dude was fired for producing a 10 page load of horseshit in a company that doesn't take kindly to rethinking it's move to diversity. Google doesn't have to hold onto retards.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
Dude was fired for discussing workplace policy that is against Google practices based on a workplace forum for discussing workplace policy with co-workers. Of course he was fired. You can't just sperg out & post your ideas on internal message boards and expect to keep your job.
1 fluoroamine 2017-08-08
Bullshit.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
Since you play LoL and believe in Myers Briggs I'm going to assume you're not old enough to have a real job that would expect you to abide by company policies and understand that posting huge rants shitting on said policies would get you fired virtually anywhere.
1 fluoroamine 2017-08-08
Nope. I'm a professional programmer currently doing a graduate program.
What is wrong with playing games on the side?
And helping people on personality forums?
Get off your high horse.
1 tiananmenbear 2017-08-08
im spr progrmr
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
In other words you do odd jobs and don't work at a larger company that expects you to produce work and not 10 page rants about your company.
Myers Briggs is based on outdated psychology and playing LoL likely means you're not old enough for older games nor young enough to jump on the newer fad games out there. Just took a solid guess.
1 fluoroamine 2017-08-08
That rant was posted on a message-board that specifially meant for "controversial" views.
I don't believe in MBTI, but I find it fascinating to interact with people on those forums. It's simply fun. And I follow Lol for esports. You really got it wrong.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
There's a difference between "controversial" and shitting on your companies policies outright with some bitter sperg rant. He made himself a martyr. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Are you as autistic as this guy?
1 fluoroamine 2017-08-08
He has a PhD in Systems Biolgy from Harvard and two published papers with 100+ citations. I'm sure he will sue them if he finds it reasonable.
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
No amount of lawyering can save a company from an adverse verdict in California, whose rules of civil procedure are incredibly plaintiff-friendly.
1 theantirobot 2017-08-08
I like how perpetuating gender stereotypes means citing scientific studies.
1 SpilledKefir 2017-08-08
Did he cite a study when he said that women like people and men like things?
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
Yes
1 FieryChickenSkeleton 2017-08-08
Holy fuck no wonder he was fired.
1 fluoroamine 2017-08-08
They deleted all links and graphs from the gizmodo article on purpose to hide his citations! It's digusting.
1 FieryChickenSkeleton 2017-08-08
Why would he get fired for stating the two genders? 🤔
1 circumcised_clitoris 2017-08-08
If I fire my lazy black employee for being lazy, I'm pretty sure I'll have to actually prove he was fired for being lazy and not for being black.
1 Sasukefan99 2017-08-08
Except that's for a protected class
1 circumcised_clitoris 2017-08-08
And Damore's argument will be that he was discussing potentially illegal business practices.
1 augieseagle 2017-08-08
Prove to whom?
1 circumcised_clitoris 2017-08-08
Whomever he is presenting his legal case against me before.
1 haikubot-1911 2017-08-08
Whomever he is
Presenting his legal case
Against me before.
- circumcised_clitoris
I'm a bot made by /u/Eight1911. I detect haiku.
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
Doesn't matter; the firing ensures that anything remotely controversial will not be discussed on Google's internal groups ever, thereby making them useless.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
They did the right thing. This whole issue was a dumpster fire and from a business standpoint, there's no reason to put up with shit like this if it's going to impact the bottom line. This dude was a dumbshit for circulating a fucking memo outlining his political views. You don't do that shit as an employee.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
His memo strictly discusses internal policies though, lmao.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
First of all, it's pretty clear that the memo was politically charged. Second of all, his opinion on internal company policy is worth fuck-all.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
California law protects an employee from being reprimanded for discussing company policies among themselves.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
This is a bit more than "discussion".
1 riemann1413 2017-08-08
you're not discussing this with people who care about what might have actually happened lmao
1 trj820 2017-08-08
Google's already in the middle of a gender discrimination suit. How did they get there if they knew how to safely shitcan people they don't like?
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
"Perpetuating gender stereotypes" which is part of their employee code of conduct which I'm sure he signed as a condition of his employment.
Employers have very wide latitude to fire employees in the US. There's approximately a 0% chance he has any legal leg to stand on to contest this. "Angry about affirmative action" isn't a protected class.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Do you even know affirmative action is illegal my dude?
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
w e w
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
He will presuumabely try to argue he wasnt perpetuating gender stereotypes and the most likely reason for the firing was illegal
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
He will presuumabely try to argue he wasnt perpetuating gender stereotypes and the most likely reason for the firing was illegal
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
No, excuse me, this is just false. There are specific protections for things like whistleblowing or union-organizing activity. There is no general protection for "discussing company policies."
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Excuse me while i laugh at your tightly gripped armchair and blank wall lacking a law degree.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html
1 DeepDickedHillybilly 2017-08-08
Kewl
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
I mean, I don't think even he believes any of these theories have a more than passing chance of succeeding. But in any case it's irrelevant, because this link doesn't support anything you just said. He's talking about federal law (you claimed California law has protections for "discussing company policies," so I checked the relevant California laws and found out they don't exist.) And he's talking about protected concerted activity which is a specific thing not a "general protection for 'discussing company policies.'" There are so many specific hurdles that this case would have to cross before it earned the employee protection under this theory. He wrote a public blog post (employers have greater latitude in disciplining for conduct which embarrasses them in public) that was not primarily about working conditions (the intent of the act is to protect workplace organizing, not general criticism of your boss,) etc.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Oh shit you are actually this retarded.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
The thing is that you actually do have to discuss laws in an "autistic," ie specific and nitpicky, way. You can't make a statement like "California law protects an employee from being reprimanded for discussing company policies among themselves" and then try and save it by arguing that under certain specific and somewhat creative theories of interpretation, laws of a different jurisdiction might apply in a different way that kind-of-sort-of amounts to protecting this case of "employees discussing company policies." That's not how this works.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
How this works is you keep posting autistic paragraphs of nonsense pretending to be intellectually ordained until i get bored and stop responding.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-08-08
Your seriousposting got BTFO and now youre upset.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Nah, he gave up and started to nitpick my original phrase like an autismo so he could 'technically be correct' after I revealed the guy has a decent case under employee protection laws. Over all I'd say my ass smells like roses here.
1 DeepDickedHillybilly 2017-08-08
The problem will come in that the retard Divershitty VP (lots of redundancy there) came out and said in response to this other moron -
So that kinda makes the "perpetuating gender stereotypes" stupid when they addressed it as they did the first time around.
1 PortonDownSyndrome 2017-08-08
I kinda think that's what they did. See my second-last paragraph.
1 PortonDownSyndrome 2017-08-08
I'll take a line from you here, and add that it's pretty clear that the author (with whom I disagree on many points) has not been punished only for what he said, but more importantly for what certain readers and respondents fervently believe someone who writes such things must surely ALSO think.
The author has been punished perhaps the most for what he didn't say – and quite possibly does NOT believe.
On the other hand, Danielle Brown's
is both every bit as definitive as the author's most strident points, and it virtually confirms my above theory.
Judges make findings. We have the original author's "false assumptions" vs Ms Brown's "incorrect assumptions". The author's main point however was much milder and not definitive: "may in part explain why..."
Ms Brown's phrasing though is what's most interesting: She says the author "advanced incorrect assumptions". Note that Ms Brown doesn't simply accuse the author of stating the incorrect – she goes further: His writing has "advanced" those assumptions. I suspect this may be more than just a common English phrase (it may be unintentionally revealing language): He's not actually said those worst things he's suspected of thinking, but the things he has said, those are deemed to have "advanced" those worse, incorrect assumptions. (There is a chance I'm over-analysing, but still.)
That said, my (quite probably wrong, but funny) personal pet theory on this is that this memo was deliberately formulated to ensure a comfortable retirement, because it made it politically impossible not to fire him, for PR reasons, but equally impossible to deny him a golden parachute, for unfair dismissal legal reasons.
The /r/Drama is indeed strong with this one, and sadly it appears none of the dramatis personæ are excellent to each other.
1 vintermann 2017-08-08
Keynesian masochism contest.
1 Harradar 2017-08-08
Discussion of politics at Google isn't just common, it's constant. The flaw is that he has the wrong kind of politics, not that he's being political in the first place. You won't get fired for a strongly politically charged memo that talks about how they need to implement more diversity policies.
1 seshfan 2017-08-08
pretty sure if I wrote a 10-page manifesto talking about how Google needed to be dissolved because capitalism is evil and communism is the only one true way, I'd be fired.
conservatives are playing the victim card (again) because conservatives love to act like openly being a conservative is like being a Jew in 1940s Germany.
1 ThatMormonMike 2017-08-08
Well, you'd be wrong. We have a forum on the intranet for "Controversial Opinions" there are plenty of anarchist and communist screeds on there. Nobody cares, nobody cared about this one either until it was leaked to the media.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
you should leak the commie comments to breitbart, oh man the shit storm. The google brass would be super thrilled
1 ThatMormonMike 2017-08-08
I don't work there anymore. The work environment at Google is toxic.
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
you fucking idiot, gooaaaalposts moved. admit you were wrong fag
1 Hellkyte 2017-08-08
What is he some kind of aspie Jerry McGuire?
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-08-08
You dont understand, he was a white techbro with VALUABLE INSIGHT into whats really wrong with women and uppity morities stealing white male jobs.
1 grafton29 2017-08-08
Wait does that mean you can't fire people for political ideologies? Thats fucking lame.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-08
Le South park neutral
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-08
Yep, when you learn to shit on everything you will know peace.
1 UGoBoom 2017-08-08
The Indians were on to something
1 grafton29 2017-08-08
I support democrats, come at me with bitch. 💅
1 oshnyve 2017-08-08
l a s a g a
1 grafton29 2017-08-08
1 oshnyve 2017-08-08
bich lasagna
1 grafton29 2017-08-08
What the did you just call me? You beter stop or im gonna report you to the mods.
1 oshnyve 2017-08-08
what you're doing is cyberbullying and it is not oky
1 glmox 2017-08-08
i dont wanna come anywhere near a pedophile
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-08
Why are you so short unsuccessful unattractive unathletic and unhappy ?
1 Stuntman119 2017-08-08
Le nazi
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
Do you think the only people between Commies and Nazis are south park neutrals?
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-08
Yes
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
I'm ok with only .000001% of the population not being south park neutral, that's the kind of world I can get behind.
1 theantirobot 2017-08-08
Bake that cake!
1 darichtt 2017-08-08
I'd think firing and not hiring are different things.
1 Fucking_Christ 2017-08-08
If it was for example, and external blog post that he had written, then you might be correct, but since it was an "internal memo" then I think they can fire him without legal repercussions.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
The case law on this section of the California Labor Code is really limited, but I can imagine he'd have a case if he'd written an external blog post criticizing workplace diversity policies in the abstract. Hard to believe courts would step in to protect a guy from being fired after specifically criticizing his company's culture and management decisions, unless it related to something specifically protected like union organizing.
1 JohnnyLargeCock 2017-08-08
He's protected under whistle blower laws.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
He very clearly is not, for multiple reasons, not least being that whistleblower laws protect people who go to the authorities, not people who write callout blog posts.
1 JohnnyLargeCock 2017-08-08
It's a joke, stupid.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
You were only pretending to be retarded.
1 JohnnyLargeCock 2017-08-08
Lol, making jokes is trolling guiz!
You got me Evan.
1 ason 2017-08-08
This is an autism friendly sub. Please tag insincere comments with a /s. [nods respectfully in your direction]
1 telandrias 2017-08-08
He literally an hero'ed for our civil rights.
1 FieryChickenSkeleton 2017-08-08
press f to pay respects. F
1 PayRespects-Bot 2017-08-08
F
1 kermit_was_right 2017-08-08
Bwahahaha no he isn't.
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
That's not right. He is still protected by Labor Code 1101 et seq. because he can plausibly allege that he was fired for the fact of having those views.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
I'm... not sure how this contradicts anything I've said?
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
This isn't an explanation. I'm trying not to strawman here but if you refuse to explain it... as far as I can tell you're saying that he could, theoretically, make the argument that Google fired him not for specific criticisms of Google's culture and Google's management decisions, out of a generalized sense that nobody who holds his broad opinions about political correctness (or whatever) should be allowed to work for Google? And that this would sidestep questions of whether his manifesto was really "political activities" in the sense of 1101?
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
Yes. It would survive a special motion to strike, at the very least, which means it goes to trial unless there is literally no evidence that supports his contention.
Unfortunately, the most fitting opinion on this subject, Nava v. Safeway Inc. (a person who was fired for tearing down pro-gay posters at work could establish that he could prevail on a Labor Code violation because he may have been fired because of his anti-homosexual views), is unpublished; still, the same reasoning should hold as in Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, which was the primary opinion cited and relied upon in Nava.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
So... you agree that it's unlikely that courts would rule that specific criticism of your employer's corporate culture and management decisions is protected "political activity" in the sense of 1101?
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
No clue, because I'm not being paid to find out. I'm just saying it's a cognizable claim and could probably see a jury, especially since discovery could reveal the specific communications that led to his firing.
Google would argue that it's their right to express their political opinion as a company or something or the other. It's the quickest way to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit, so obviously they'll file it.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
That last point just seems completely insane tbh.
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
It's what Safeway did in response to Nava's lawsuit, so I wouldn't exactly call it insane.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
OK, looked into that case... an employee tore down a company poster because he didn't agree with what it said, then sued Safeway when they fired him for it. Seems reasonable that Safeway would argue he was trying to interfere with their freedom of expression.
How does this apply when Google fired a guy for writing a thing? Is Google going to argue that ideologically policing their workforce is a kind of speech? It really does not seem like an analogous situation. I doubt that any SLAPP issue will arise here.
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
You know, maybe you're right. I honestly have never filed a special motion to strike, but I do know it costs sixty bucks to file and rarely loses you anything when you fail.
I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what happens.
1 JustThall 2017-08-08
It wasn't even a memo. The guy posted the document on internal skeptic group to get criticism and challenge of his viewpoints.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
no dude that's not at all how that law works kek
Honestly this dumbfuck put them in a position where they had to fire him. This was never going to end any other way. They're in the middle of a high-profile gender discrimination lawsuit, and this one-man autism pride parade attached his real name to a manifesto about how women are biologically inferior and circulated it within the company. That shit could easily constitute a hostile work environment and Google could be held liable if they allowed it to continue.
On top of that, even if they didn't have to fire him, they'd definitely want to. No big company wants this kind of dumbshit drama and terrible publicity. They look awful to the public, and all their employees are busy LITERALLY SHAKING or preparing for the oncoming androcide or whatever instead of actually fucking doing their jobs.
On top of that, this guy is a lawsuit waiting to happen at anywhere he applies next. Congratulations, he's made himself essentially unemployable in one of the most cushy and lucrative job markets in the developed world.
It was so transparent that he had to be fired for this that I rather suspect he wanted/planned to be. Either that or he really is as browbeatingly-retarded as his rambling made him look.
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-08
This is the level or trolling that trump can only dream of. The kind that requires a true education.
1 kaiise 2017-08-08
gold, jerry.
1 DannyLee90 2017-08-08
I've met plenty soon-to-be-grads fitting that over-opinionated mold. And these are people going into well-paying jobs.
idk how old that dude is, but I'm willing to bet there's plenty of people willing to do the same exact thing thinking they're "protected".
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
my money's on him starting his own garage-shop company and wanted the severance package
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
Given Silicon Valley's well known and very aggressive age discrimination he might well have been out the door on account of being over 27
1 TraurigAberWahr 2017-08-08
which he never said
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
He did tho, albeit in a super long-winded /r/iamverysmart way. Did you read it?
1 TraurigAberWahr 2017-08-08
yup. did you read it?
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
I did. I'd ask you how you got your interpretation but my doc says I should avoid talking to retards for extended periods.
1 0987654231 2017-08-08
Not being able to visit your parents must suck
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
faggot
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
Legends of your debating skills will pass down through the ages.
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
I'm not debating you idiot, I'm insulting. What kind of dumb faggot can't even tell the differencr.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
lmfao obamacare user? of all the retarded salt in my inbox this morning, i think this is the most hilarious.
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
called a joke loser
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
It's a fucking retarded one kek. Did you just delete your comment? So you're retarded and thin-skinned huh?
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
nah I'm trolling in another sub and can't be seen dropping fbombs
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
this is your brain on lesbianism
1 youcanteatbullets 2017-08-08
People think he said it, and from a PR perspective that's all that matters.
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
What a bright shining future we live in
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-08
I find myself reassured by the fact it was probably never really any better
1 SuperBloops 2017-08-08
which he never fucking said, you SJW piece of shit
Don't bother u/TraurigAberWahr, nuanced conversation isn't possible, at least not with these issues.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-08
/u/TraurigAberWahr's unedited comment
Your quote. Hmmmmmmmm...
1 TraurigAberWahr 2017-08-08
lol you're such a phony
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Facts aren't hostile tho
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
ya go ahead and use that one in front of a judge 👌
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
I prefer the "suck my dick" approach
1 JohnBlind 2017-08-08
The lawyer classic
1 SovietWarfare 2017-08-08
Using facts and evidence in front of a judge in court. What type of wacko world is this allowed to happen in?
1 imaghostspooooky 2017-08-08
They are when you don't go into the underlying details of them, it's like writing a manifesto of how black people commit more crimes than average and thus are less suited to work at google.
I mean it may be factually correct, but it doesn't get into the 'why' (poverty and more police scrutiny, among other things), so even though it isn't technically wrong, you've outed yourself as a complete and utter retard edgelord and it would/should get you fired.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Depends what you say. If you say "and thus may at times limit our pool of readily available eligible applicants at any given moment" what would be so bad about that?
Police scrutiny actually helps poor communities more than lack of police scrutiny. You can see this with the dramatic increase in homicides in chiraq with police simply saying they'll "keep on driving"
Being dumb enough to bring it up this way is certainly grounds for firing. But I'm betting a smart dude like this wanted a severance package or something. Wouldn't have taken the time if he didn' thave at least a few eggs in his basket, know what i mean?
1 imaghostspooooky 2017-08-08
Because it still makes you sound like an ass, cause you still haven't gone into the underlying issues. And also this is google, they have no dearth of qualified (female/black/etc) people applying.
I'm just going to have to say you need to do more research on this, I don't have the energy to go at you on this one.
Evidently he's not so smart after all, sure a severance package maybe, but nothing too big. And now he's infamous for creating a hostile workplace, not something employers like. And not the kind of thing that attracts clients, albeit a small niche.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
True, but this isn't really about google itself, it's kind of about their practices in general
I mean, we could always chalk it up to blacks commit 50% of homicide even though theres way more poor whites than poor blacks. Raw numbers there shouldve made it at least a little bit closer than it is. But i think that's a bit reductionist.
A small niche is better than a large, apathetic consumer base, if you're motivated to maintain your position. You can fuck up pretty hard and not be totally abandoned by your niche.
1 imaghostspooooky 2017-08-08
So google's practices in general? Which is specifically about google. Unless you mean in tech in general, in which case it's a byproduct of fucking it up in the first place.
I mean yea you're also forgetting the government literally trying to destroy your communities through drugs, literal division by highway, and other assorted methods.
Sure, but is it really the niche you want to be associated with? If it is by all means have tho, you deserve it.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Yes thats what i meant, googles just a thought leader/innovator
Tbh you'd be better arguing about fatherlessness rates. But even so, an argument people like to bring up about racist arrest practices is that whites and blacks do the same amount of drugs, which means whites as a population do a shitload more drugs total. Shouldn't that be causing problems? From a meth addicted state: it really should, but somehow isn't as big a problem as it seems it should be.
Depends how much you're willing to sell out and what your options are. But tbh I'd just recommend that as long as you're mostly doing you, and your niche really enjoys you, then who really cares?
Except for like, MLP type fandoms. Like, fuck.
1 imaghostspooooky 2017-08-08
Yea that too, thanks for bringing that up.
Racist arrest practices are more about punishing/incarcerating more black people than white people for the same thing, like crack vs coke, crack being used mainly by blacks, the other mainly by whites. But crack is more severely punished, even though they're the same thing. And also black people getting worse sentences then white people for the same crime. That sort of stuff.
Its more about the combination of everything leading to the problems, worse input -> worse output, and black communities have more shit to deal with especially with the fatherlessness you mentioned.
I mean there's other drugs, coke(both forms) and marijuana. One was introduced to destroy black communities by the cia, the other one was criminalized to suppress the black and hippie vote/power.
Besides niches like nazis and the kkk I generally agree with this.
1 Ennui2778 2017-08-08
You and a retard are literally the same thing if you believe that. Crack is cheaper, easier to make in large quantities, has more addicting qualities and is more cost-efficient for the pushers.
The laws that had those sentencing guidelines were originally passed at the behest of black, urban lawmakers who didn't like seeing Bed-Stuy, Compton, and Columbia Heights turn into fucking Mogadishu.
If racist sentencing guidelines were a real thing, then we'd be sentencing meth, which is mostly used by fucking mayos, the same as we do coke. But we don't, we sentence mayo-meth exactly the same as we do crack.
So why don't you gear up 20cc's of carfent, and slam it up your taint, you walking enema.
1 imaghostspooooky 2017-08-08
Lmao, real compelling argument there, too bad you didn't use more insults, that would've drove it in.
1 Ennui2778 2017-08-08
Yeah, okay.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
That was because black communities begged for there to be worse punishment for crack use/making/distribution because it was destroying their communities.
And most drug incarcerations (like for weed) are really just plead downs to that charge instead of like assault or whatever else there may be. As it turns out, criminals like to do drugs.
I would say fatherlessness makes up at least 80% of the problems. Before the welfare state supplanted the man's role in the family, blacks actually had lower illegitimacy rates than whites, black youth unemployment was lower than white youth unemployment, and class mobility was quite realistic.
Sure, but that's a bit of a jump from this guy:
https://i.redd.it/znr6khepajez.jpg
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
Severance package as a reward for creating a hostile work environment? Lol.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Pretty sure only actual incidents of harassment have to take place which requires complaints without something being done about it by the company. The dude was auto fired, so this isn't grounds for hostile work environment.
I mean, look at this absolute nazi:
https://i.redd.it/znr6khepajez.jpg
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
They waited a few days and there was an uproar in their staff. Plus the shitty PR shouldn't be ignored.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Sure, but thats kind of necessary to make sure you're not just kneejerking and making sure the pr team is fully aware
Arguably not, because if you're going to go for "diversity" for its own sake then you won't get the best of the best. If you're going to engage in tribalism, then you're necessarily cutting out the individual.
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
There's a big difference between "treat people as individuals because meritocracy" and "treat people as individuals because let's face it, women aren't built for coding", and his essay veers into the latter because of his stupid biotruths crap.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Not really. It's explaining why making tribalist assumptions isn't the best thing to do if you want the best of the best. If we're going to make assumptions about people, then the best people to hire would be white males.
He's pointing out the flaw in their logic
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
He's really not. He shot gigantic holes in his libertarian-lite individualism rant and showed it for what it was - a "poor me, I'm a conservative working for Google" pitch. Why do you imagine is it so popular with the alt-right and not libertarians? Kek.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
Alt right has kind of absorbed libertarians. All thats left now are lolbertarians that only care about getting weed legalized
1 BlueishMoth 2017-08-08
Which he never says.
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
I never said he did.
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
Definitely the latter. It was the kind of spectacularly autistic diatribe that a school shooter types up, except this guy was a middle-aged virgin working for Google.
1 Ennui2778 2017-08-08
Want to know how I know you've never taken fifteen minutes of a law class in your life?
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
You're a person who has no idea how that law works. It is still a violation of Labor Code section 1101 et seq. and will survive a special motion to strike.
1 flupo42 2017-08-08
maybe they shouldn't have hosted a "Controversial Topics" forum for their employees
This fiasco is exactly why companies should strive to keep work and personal lives of their employees separate rather than encourage workers to bring the later to the former.
it would take the reading comprehension of a retard to find that claim in his memo. It's still available online, feel free to point out where exactly he said that.
1 kane4life4ever 2017-08-08
this is what happens when you hire PR people with an education from evergreen
1 JohnnyLargeCock 2017-08-08
What ever happened with all the evergreen drama? Kinda fell of the media interest. Any update?
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Lawsuits.
1 JohnnyLargeCock 2017-08-08
Is that true? Who's suing who?
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Weinstein sueing Evergreen.
1 JohnnyLargeCock 2017-08-08
That makes sense. I bet he's gonna make a decent amount of money from this.
1 lifesbrink 2017-08-08
The salt from those pathetic losers when he wins will be delicious
1 glmox 2017-08-08
itll be an entirely different group of pathetic losers because by the time theres a settlement everyone who was screaming at him for being problematic will have burned out and become boring liberals
1 the_popcorn_pisser 2017-08-08
They won’t give a shit. It’s not their money.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-08
As well he should, if campus cant guarantee your safety as a professor from their own students...
1 ghostchamber 2017-08-08
Might be more drama when the school semester starts, as he is still a teacher there.
1 Miguk_Saram 2017-08-08
As if Evergreen drama was one specific event. It's not. Olympia, WA is a perpetual fountain of this kind of drama.
1 kane4life4ever 2017-08-08
Same shit, couple tribunals or hearings. Worth checking out. Know exactly what the problem is. There Dean. Never seen such an incompetent over educated leader. Feel sorry for their chief of police, not big fan of white women but this women I would consider an ally. True leadership in her. But that dean my god.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
I mean, maybe there should be laws protecting the kind of workplace expression that Meritocracy Screed Guy engaged in, but trying to apply this particular labor law to the case would be... extremely ventursome to say the least.
Honestly I'm reminded of the GamerGate memes going around in 2014 that tried to prove that critical e-mail threads on the GameJournoPros list amounted to an illegal employment blacklist or some shit lol
1 augieseagle 2017-08-08
Ha. That was one of the most hilarious things to come out of gamergate.
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
If the guy had stuck to a pro-meritocracy platform he might have been okay. But the dude brought out the biotruths angle right in the very first paragraph. He was toast from then on.
1 the_popcorn_pisser 2017-08-08
Not that it will happen but, a slap on the wrist for Google might just the retirement fund for this dude.
1 Barrrcode 2017-08-08
Burn it all to the ground.
1 theantirobot 2017-08-08
And I'm sure California is going to enforce the law in defense of a white male.
1 antihexe 2017-08-08
They didn't violate shit. Also they didn't prove him right in the least.
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
cuck
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
Jesus Christ, are you full-on retarded?
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
His flair
1 JustThall 2017-08-08
The guy cited scientific sources so it wasn't just a conspiracy like posts on right-wing subs
1 antihexe 2017-08-08
He cherry picked sources, and not for everything; a lot of it was ad hoc reasoning presented as fact. Not to mention that even more of it was just unsupported stereotype. So yeah, it was like posts on right wing forums.
1 WikiTextBot 2017-08-08
Cherry picking
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.24
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
HR and cultural sensitive blah blah shit is really cool and good, I am so sad that the country didn't go more that direction in November.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-08
We did it twitter!
Not crying any tears over this A U T I S T B O Y E who is forty years late to realizing that the politics-in-the-public-sphere war is over and democrats won.
For all intents and purposes if you are not a Democrat or Non affiliated when it comes to the office, your public social media, and interactions with co-workers outside of work, you are usually stifling your career.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just that HR is run by Democrats who have at the least subconscious biases. Also, most companies situate their larger offices in coastal workplaces stuffed with Democrats; interviewers have to think about "culture fit"
Everyone already knows this, and it's not going to change any time soon. His "brave stand" restating it is him volunteering to be another head on the pike for Democrats to show "see! Don't argue for being a republican in public or this will happen to you!" good job.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
This goes beyond "stating your political opinion", lol. He wrote and circulated a multi-page political diatribe throughout his company. Unless his goal was to get fired and attempt to matyr himself (which I'm almost certain he will try), then gets a goddam idiot.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-08
As I said:
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
I mean, if this were a Democrat leaning 10-page-memo, the end result would have been the same. They would have just used the more subtle corporate methods of forcing out an employee. Passing around an explicitly political essay at any company will get you shit-canned.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
His 'diatribe' was in regards to their internal policies being made political, not general politics you fucknut.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
I never said he wrote some general statement about his political beliefs. I said he wrote a politicized memo. If you fancy see that when looking at what he wrote then there's not much anyone can do to help you.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-08
Yes, anything this autistic (10 pages) is an insta-pink-slip. But working in tech and my entire social circle being in the industry, I can assure you that less autistic, open support for Democrat policy agenda is pro-forma in coastal tech companies.
It's completely routine to be in an open desk area 2/3rds the office is talking about how crazy and wrong and evil Trump is, and mentioning that you don't think everything he does is crazy is a fast track to getting most people in the office to hate your guts.
The only winning move for a conservative in these situations is to just not play this particular game.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
I was mostly commenting on the fact that it was 10 pages long. Expressing a political opinion that lines up with the company's is one thing. Circulating a political dissertation is another. There's also the issue of this being in writing, in a form that could be easily circulated.
1 augieseagle 2017-08-08
Right. If nothing else, this dude comes across as a bit of a self-important clown. Who the hell thinks your co-workers want to read 10 pages of anything you have to say?
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-08-08
I don't think that would be the case. For one, people on the right aren't as inclined to go into a rabid frenzy when somebody inconsequential challenges their worldview. The recent Lena Dunham drama about the transphobic stewardesses comes to mind as a smaller example.
Like u/I_DRINK_TO_FORGET pointed out, this also wasn't a political screed completely unrelated to Google. The memo was just a big counterjerk against the push for more gender diversity in tech. I'd wager that someone sending out a company-wide memo lamenting the lack of diversity among engineers would either get no media attention or be lauded for their bravery by sites like Gizmodo.
Anyway, enough with the serious posting. Here's some bussy.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
I never said it was. Still, it doesn't matter that it was related to Google. It was filled with this guy is opinions, a number of which were political.
I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case. I also wouldn't be surprised if that person were quietly forced out of the company a few months afterward for stirring the pot.
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-08-08
The whole thing boils down to PR. Regardless of which side the person is on, if there's no media attention, I'd say a company would be more inclined to tell someone to knock it off than to let them go.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
are you fucking kidding me dude
1 kermit_was_right 2017-08-08
People on the right never freak out about things like homosexuality or religion. They always discuss things calmly and look at all sides of the issues. "Freedom Fries" was a serene and measured response.
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-08-08
I guess I wasn't clear, but I'm specifically talking about the witch hunt mentality regarding individuals. Obviously the right loses their shit over stuff like Starbucks cups.
1 DeepDickedHillybilly 2017-08-08
Bad news. I got the test results back from your post.
You are definitely retarded.
1 Geisterjager 2017-08-08
LOL, you are aware of the rather large Super Skeptical Le Rationals® whose entire format for Twitter and YouTube is, "Look at this awkward 16 year old girl who says wage gap shit. She is a dumbshit slut cunt who is unattractive or odd in some way, likely unpleasant and unloved by family. Be sure to dislike and comment, link in description."
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-08-08
Theyre truly the Socrates of the new millennia
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
There are definitely not multiple articles published every day on major, profitable conservative websites mongering outrage over dumb actions taken by someone inconsequentual who you've never heard of
1 kermit_was_right 2017-08-08
Bwahahaha sure why not.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
This is a good point that I must've missed.
1 HivemindBuster 2017-08-08
He didn't circulate it throughout the company, he sent it to some other people in a small group he was in, which then got leaked to the rest of the company.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
Define "small". Clearly it wasn't small enough, or he didn't know those people as well as he thought he did. Regardless, sending something like that to anyone you work worth is beyond idiotic. I bet he used his company email address to send it, too.
1 HivemindBuster 2017-08-08
Yeah, it's pretty stupid given the current reality, I won't argue that. Not sure how much I approve of this perverse reality we live in though.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Is it really? Why can't people discuss company's decisions?
1 Sarge_Ward 2017-08-08
why would you ever do it through a 10 page manifesto?
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
That whole shit built up in him for a long time, and there probably were no options to discuss it with other people.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
Go read what he wrote. It goes well beyond "discussing company decisions".
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
I did, he's angry because he cannot discuss things that are happening in the company, he wouldn't even wrote it if those things were discussed and debated at meetings and shit.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
He went far beyond that. If he really wanted to only express this dissatisfaction then he could have easily done so without writing 10 pages filled with his personal opinions.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Don't forget that he's telling about women in general, while there are enough outliners to fill jobs in tech, it's nowhere near 50%. Same goes for everything he said. He even started with "women, on average".
A lot of woman are known to be bad negotiators when it comes to salary, at some point there even was a proposition to forbid salary negotiation because of that.
Statistical differences between sexes are real, that's why fair system have to be meritocratic, not what google is leaning to.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
You don't get it: nobody gives a fuck about this guy's opinions on women and the whole gender pay issue, especially not 10 pages worth of them. If he wanted to vocalize his concern about discussion being stifled, then that's all fine and good. However, not only did he do much more than that, but he is also expressing a bunch of opinions about something that doesn't even personally affect him.
It's not his job to be concerned about the overall company's performance due to its hiring policies, nor is it his job to formulate a new policy to address any alleged pay gap. The whole "discussion of internal policies" legal protections are there to allow employees to voice concerns with company policy that directly impacts their employment, not to give employees a soapbox. If this guy is working with a female employee who is impacting his own work, then he should discuss that with his manager or HR. He has no say over general hiring policies, though, because that's not his goddam job.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
So you telling that guy should shut the fuck up about topics that he wants to speak about? That's exactly why he wrote that shit. When people perceive something wrong is happening, they want to speak about it.
If I go and kill everyone in some foreing country, will you be concerned? It does not affects you. And if you speak about that I'll say it's non of your business. How bout that?
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
Yes. As I said before, this dude's job was to write software, not scrutinize Google's overall hiring practices.
The key word here is "perceive". This far from some kind of whistleblower situation.
This is one time J actually get to say this unironically:
Did a child write this?
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
In developed countries people care about what they see. If you visit some shitholes you can see rich people build mansions with high walls near poor people who live in shit and it's ok because what's behing fence doesn't bother them.
What's really going on here is that google took a position that it cannot defend (and no one can), and thus the only option is to supress discussion. For every other situation you can just call people who disagree idiots and exactly explain why. Here it doesn't really work anymore so you have to use words like bigot, nazi, and so on, to scare people out of conversations.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
This is so laughably far from some guy voicing 10-pages worth of his opinions on gender and hiring practices.
Google is currently under investigation for not paying women as much as they pay men. Their position is completely understandable to anyone over the age of 20.
What is here? What are you talking about?
At this point I'm certain you've never been employed in a salaried position because all of this is very obvious to employed adults.
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
shut up you nazi cunt
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
lol cry moar
1 flupo42 2017-08-08
prove that he wrote it on company time than before condemning it. Than prove that Google didn't solicit this writing - companies tend to have written policies that encourage feedback.
This was feedback. It may have been scientifically wrong, misinformed etc... doesn't really matter. What matters is that it was a) polite (b) genuine attempt at an informed opinion.
You are arguing that discussion about company policies should be justifiable cause to fire people.
1 _12345 2017-08-08
That's not personal opinions, almost all of them are bland (scientifically speaking) findings in psychology
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
Most of his memo is filled pseudoscientific generalizations mixed in with his own personal impressions and opinions. I highlighted that particular portion to demonstrate how laughably far he went beyond expressing that he was "angry because he cannot discuss things that are happening in the company".
1 _12345 2017-08-08
I have only glanced at the memo (version with links and graphs intact) once, but no, there is absolutely no pseudoscience in it.
1 GrovelingPeasant 2017-08-08
Uhhhh things I don't like to hear are pseudoscience, bitch
1 TraurigAberWahr 2017-08-08
when you're disagreeing with the most privileged group in the USA, even well-established scientific results, that have been replicated dozens of times, become pseudo-science automatically.
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
"Theudothientific generithathons," sneers the Redditor at the Havard PhD
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
"REEEEE" screams the internet NEET at the multimillion dollar corporation.
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-08
But did you know that on average men have a penis?!?!?
1 DannyLee90 2017-08-08
I would like to subscribe to your mailing list, please.
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
Men have less than one on average, actually
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
How is stating facts an opinion? Why are you sperging so hard all over this thread to try and make a Harvard pHD out to be a MAGA anime avatar?
Why are you scared of people finding out the truth about diversity /u/UpvoteIfYouDare ??
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
Yes, "facts" like this:
Did a child write this?
Lol, when did he become a holder of a PHD?
Oh, man, you got me. Why did you tag me when replying to me?
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Yes, basic facts about humans.
So when you mass delete your epic thesis of spergling agenda posts everyone will still know you were retarded.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
I would expect a list of "facts" like that from a teenager.
> thinking anyone will bother reading your comments beyond two days from now
1 CharlesChrist 2017-08-08
https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-damore-b277b62b
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
Wow, I'd expect a much better memo from someone with a PhD in biology.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-08
Maybe it's because your opinions on biology were informed by reading twitter?
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
all true facts you dumbass nazi faggot
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
cut ur wrists you whiney sjnazi snowflake.
1 flupo42 2017-08-08
in r/technology discussion it was claimed that he posted it to a forum entitled something like 'Controversial Topics'
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
shut up with your lies faggot
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
No, that's still a violation of Labor Code section 1101 et seq.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
Where did you get your law degree from?
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
The school of hard knocks. You don't need a law degree to become a lawyer in California.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-08
Why am I not surprised you're a wannabe lawyer.
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
Hey, you can call me a wannabe lawyer all you like. At least I've never lost a motion hearing to a lawyer that did go to a third-tier 'law school'.
1 WorldStarCroCop 2017-08-08
it's hilarious that chucklefucks like these fags brand themselves as the r/esitance when they're only powerful due to unpleasantries and right wing incompetence.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-08
Yeah, I guess I'm just not sure how "resistance" applies here. Like, can you "resist" having less taxes, or "resist" having less government subsidies in your life?
I guess enforcing immigration laws is a thing you can resist, but then you're just resisting a law that's been on the books for decades - and that pretty much every other country has an equivalent of.
1 mmzznnxx 2017-08-08
this gon b gud
1 Pepperglue 2017-08-08
This is good for drama.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Not really. More segregated people become, less drama they produce.
Firing that redneck certainly decreases diversity and increaces segregation.
1 clarkeff 2017-08-08
He had a PhD from Harvard, dude was hardly a redneck
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Jokes on you. Only rednecks write womxyn hating manifests.
1 AnnArchist 2017-08-08
Like Obummer amiright?
1 DeepDickedHillybilly 2017-08-08
Trite
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
nigger
1 cincilator 2017-08-08
Class is more of a behavior than education, I think.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Nah, I don't agree. Drama-production is closely related to status-seeking behavior, which is inherently relative, and thus not closely tied to objective conditions. Put people in segregated perfectly homogenous silos and they'll just ratchet up their standards for what counts as minimally acceptable social conformity. Drusilla sang the Diversity Song intentionally too loud, implying subtle sarcasm. Convene the Self-Criticism Circle.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
It's true that diversity is very relative, but in every situation excluding someone with different opinion who doesn't have any power leads to less drama.
1 Miguk_Saram 2017-08-08
If you've never lived in the Pacific Northwest you have no idea how true this is. When everyone is white, the witch hunts to find people who are secretly racist just get crazier and crazier.
1 Allahu_Laysa_Akbar 2017-08-08
multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.
“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company,”
The blackwhite thinking in this article is double plus good
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
Anyone who says stuff like "fire this guy or I leave" is dead weight tbh
1 Deutschbag_ 2017-08-08
Yeah, they should have just fired the assholes who said that.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
This proves that conservatives aren't cut out for tech.
If you censor me with downvotes and bullying, the liberals win.
Checkmate cucks.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
i'll fite you irl how bout that
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-08-08
Greco-Roman style? 😉
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
so much for the tolerant whatever the fuck you are.
1 Thulean-Dragon 2017-08-08
You deserve to be bullied because you're autistic.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
not an argument
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
It is a good argument.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
Pls off yourself
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
Sorry, I'm not a tranny.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
Do it regardless of that FAKE NEWS statement
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
No need. Everything has been pure joy since before November, and business has been booming since the new President took office.
Leftists have been suffering literal mental breakdowns, though. Perhaps you can help some of them transition to the next plane of existence.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
Wtf are you rambling about?
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
Americans are happy, leftists are necking themselves. You should keep yourself safe.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
Mmmm k sweetie 😘
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
Remember, slicing off your dick can only delay your inevitable slicing of your wrists.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
Slicing across for attention, slicing along for results (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
1 shitpersonality 2017-08-08
It cant be an argument if everyone agrees.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
Fair.
1 bytewake 2017-08-08
strawman
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
don't assume my gender and material
1 bytewake 2017-08-08
tinwoman
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
I identify as a brick house
1 bytewake 2017-08-08
solid choice tbh
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-08-08
1 damn_it_so_much 2017-08-08
You're still here huh? Cheers
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-08-08
He's gonna be here for at least 3 more years.
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
19 more years at this rate
1 CondeTrocola 2017-08-08
7*
1 ProphetRith 2017-08-08
Literally who
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
🍆
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-08
Seeing latestagecapitalism parrot a corporate VP warms my heart.
1 ThePathToOne 2017-08-08
oh my god
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-08-08
Hahahahahahahaha GOOD point.
1 birdboy2000 2017-08-08
haha r/latestagecapitalism is such a joke. I seriously hope it's modded by undercover cops, because it's just depressing to think "socialists" so obsessed with dividing workers against each other based on irrelevant biological categories do it for free.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
When company directly states that they cannot achieve something without proper skin color distribution of their workers you know that nazi level of race obsessiveness is achieved.
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-08
You have to have a sample from everywhere to really learn how to control them all.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Yeah because one dude with skin tone represents everyone else with the same skin tone. Heil hydra.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-08-08
White pearl clutching autist
"No one should care skin colour i sure dont"
Company.
Doesnt give whites preferentially hiring
White autist
Shatters pears
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Hey Adolf is that you?
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-08-08
Those poor pearls
1 Bonzalez 2017-08-08
So wait. Not giving minorities preference in hiring is giving whites preference? What does the absence of a preference look like?
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
truly living up to the predicted post quality from a guy with "kekistan" in his username
1 the_popcorn_pisser 2017-08-08
a bloo bloo
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
Comparing encouraging diversity to Nazism is like the verbal equivalent of sucking your own dick. I don't know how you got that twisted up, I'm a little disgusted you've done it, but deep down I'm secretly impressed and a little jealous.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
It's not and never been critical to any company to have certain racial distribution of workers. They say that success is impossible without hiring certain races. If you agree to that you are obsessed with race.
1 StingAuer 2017-08-08
1.) Source?
2.) As opposed to you saying success is impossible when you do hire certain races.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Btw did you know that for google to represent racial distribution of california they have to fire asians and replace them with black and white people?
1 StingAuer 2017-08-08
So what you're saying is that they don't enforce racial quotas.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
I'm saying they obsessed with race and very sjw.
1 StingAuer 2017-08-08
Sounds like you're just upset about brown people having an income.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
I very very dislike anyone who doesn't look or think like me!
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
First of all, through God all things are possible.
Good PR =\= Nazism you great, big mongoloid. Google wants everyone to think that they value them deeply, and that's because everybody's money spends the same.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Good PR among who? Who besides SJW and nazis will ever think that race of workers contributes to company's success? Does that mean you can't be successfull in india because there are no black people there?
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
The Harvard Business Review
In my eyes everyone darker than Sylvester Stallone is black.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
So SJW. If you follow their sources and actually read what they were based on, you'll find things like:
and
So there's that, SJW read only what they want to read and actuall things are much different in unbiased reality even by their own sources.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
"Correlation does not prove causation" is not some flaw in this study, that's how statistics works. Unironically, you should take a stats class, stats literacy would make the world a better place.
No one gives a shit about mexicans, europoors, or women.
The rest of your comment is just a boring rant about how you think your totally unsourced point of view is better than an argument you don't even understand.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
If you know your sources don't imply causation between diversity and company's performance why do you show them as an aswer to
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
lol, you legit don't even know how statistics work. The rest of your beliefs make more sense now.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
I'm the most stupid and mean person in the world. Next question.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
You're half right.
1 Jarl_Aeric 2017-08-08
I only hire black women and fire anyone with a non conforming opinion, nice to have a diverse workplace right?
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
What you are describing is not diversity but an Atlanta strip club and yes they are amazing.
1 Jarl_Aeric 2017-08-08
Yes you somehow think aa is "encouraging diversity".
/>Liking women
What are you? a faggot?
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
It literally is mandating diversity. That's not the part people argue over, they argue over if that is a good idea. You are fucking this up.
1 Jarl_Aeric 2017-08-08
It is though. The only diverse thing about acompany that hires based on race is the distribution of skin tone, might as well focus on having employees with a diverse set og eye and hair colors too. But having different opinions and thoughts? nah, thats not real diversety.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
You can wig out all you want but I just don't see anyone instituting an illiterate retards quota for you to fill.
1 Jarl_Aeric 2017-08-08
Wig out? i prefer to nig out tbh.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2017-08-08
And that's fine. I support your interracial cuckoldry, because I value diversity.
1 Thulean-Dragon 2017-08-08
Oh man, the guy has a PhD from Harvard in biology and everything. He even cited the hell out of it, the copy I read had none,
I originally thought it was just some intern writing down his opinions.
1 recruit00 2017-08-08
One I thing for certain is that academia is still pretty sexist.
1 Raving_Dave 2017-08-08
Halle Berry's Catwoman taught us that years ago
1 captainpriapism 2017-08-08
maybe men are just smarter
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
He... really isn't. The essay was poorly argued. He equivocates between a) modestly criticising an extreme social-constructionist view that all observed differences are due to culture and b) claiming, or at least heavily implying, that observed differences are mostly due to innate biology. He cites evidence that only supports (a) as if it supports (b). And his discussion of squishier, social / history-of-ideas type issues is full of 4chan-level howlers like "the gender wage gap is a myth that disappears when you properly control for the causes of the gender wage gap," conservative victimhood bullshit, etc.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Funny you should accuse someone of making poor arguments and believe that women make 70 cents to a mans dollar for the same job.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
strawman
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Not an argument.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
ok stefan
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
Not an argument.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
PBR > Cosmos
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
Buttered Toast > Garlic Bread
fite me ._.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
garlic bread is a subset of buttered toast
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
DID YOU JUST DOWNBOAT ME? 😡😡😡
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
I never downvote people in one-on-one arguments, I only pile on once the herd has spoken
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-08
So you're basically a 🐏? Now isn't that flattering :D Thanks for the uptoast pal!
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-08-08
Wow. Mind blown.
1 Gtyyler 2017-08-08
Well imagine my shock
1 mtg_liebestod 2017-08-08
Doesn't sound like a strawman to me.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
I mean, if you're actually interested in this, the problem is that the causal factors adduced to make the gender wage gap go away aren't actually separable from discrimination.
A simple model can illustrate this. Imagine a world where men and women are exactly identical in all respects, socially and biologically and everything. They make decisions about work-life balance completely independent of gender, purely based on cost-benefit considerations. Gender literally don't real, it might as well be an arbitrary label assigned at random.
Now perturb the model by introducing an unfounded belief among employers that women are more likely to take time off for family. Employers don't have perfect information or perfect precommitment mechanisms so they're forced to, to some extent, treat women as a whole as less reliably committed to the job.
In this scenario, employers rationally prefer men, depressing female wages. Women in turn, independently of any actual preference for 'life' over 'work', reduce their supply of paid labor and take on a greater share of 'life' responsibilities like child-raising, because the tradeoff they're facing has changed in favor of 'life' over 'work.'
This is honestly 101 stuff, which is why it's so infuriating to hear people whose entire acquaintance with wage gap issues is Christina Hoff Sommers videos confidently discursing on the unreality of the wage gap. They literally just ignore all well-informed definitions of the wage gap and pretend that "I heard from my geography teacher in tenth grade that women only make 70 cents on the dollar!" is the entirety of the feminist case.
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-08
I agree with you, but it's still a lot more nuanced than women getting 77 cents for work a man works get a dollar for and a lot of people think that. It's a complex topic
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
I agree there is some value in correcting the popular misconception that the 70 (or 77, or whatever) figure describes a gap ultimately caused by direct gender-based employer discrimination. But come on, this is not the main thing going on here. I've seen Reddit fly off the handle at Obama for discussing the Mythical Wage Gap in a speech where he specifically stated that the wage gap should be addressed by encouraging women to enter traditionally male-dominated fields like computer programming and trying to alter social norms around caregiving responsibilities. That's not correcting misconceptions, it's intentionally exploiting them to sidestep a discussion that you wan't to avoid.
1 uniqueguy263 2017-08-08
I'd say that's mainly because a lot of people don't actually understand the substance behind the wage gap, that all they see is the generalized claim being debunked and just assume the entire thing's bullshit
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
blatantly engaged in
.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Hilariously you've cited the exact speech I was referring to, where Obama goes on to state that the wage gap is not only due to employer discrimination but needs to be addressed in terms of career paths and social expectations:
And your "verbatim quote" in fact excerpts the qualifier "oftentimes." What he actually said was "We’re talking about oftentimes folks doing the same job and being paid differently."
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
Okay but like you understand that the rhetoric of "penalization" is ridiculous here, right?
Doesn't change the objection. Saying that it happens with any frequency worth mentioning, is attributing a difference in pay to direct gender-based employer discrimination, because the claim is explicit that it's the same work.
In reality, it is not the same work.
1 mtg_liebestod 2017-08-08
You're comfortable employing a model where a false belief exists and is never corrected through normal competitive forces?
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Oh, so you're just an idiot then. Noted.
1 mtg_liebestod 2017-08-08
Well, then I'd ask that you be so kind as to explain what I'm missing here.
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-08
So the remaining women who don't on average are better than men and are content with lower wages, and the market just like sits in the corner drooling.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
I fucking specifically addressed this you autist
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-08
I understand your point, I just don't see how it could be in any way stable, because the employers who pay women more than average but still less than men get women who are more reliably committed to the job than men, due to survivor bias. Like, factually.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Sure but efficiency wages are a thing all across the board, there's no obvious reason to expect they'd apply especially to women.
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
Wait, hold on. Are you seriously arguing that the problem is that we somehow can't tell whether the belief is founded or not?
Like, seriously? There's some magic barrier that prevents us from studying the relative likelihood of men and women to take time off for family?
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Yes this is exactly what I'm saying in this simplified toy model that I explicitly introduced as a simplified toy model to illustrate a point. Fuck you are one dense motherfucker.
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
I mean, you could try actually saying what the problem is, instead of presenting some long-winded analogy and then expecting people to magically come up with the interpretation you intended instead of the most obvious one.
Like, if "the causal factors aren't actually separable from discrimination", then perhaps you could identify a specific causal factor and explain why it actually isn't separable from discrimination, instead of giving an example where discrimination could maybe look the same if you squint the right way, but is trivially separable if you apply a grade-schooler's level of critical thinking?
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Except that's against the law.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Trying to introduce a dead-simple toy economic model to you guys in this conversation has been really enlightening.
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
faggot nigger
1 faultydesign 2017-08-08
The funny part is you not knowing the argument behind the wage gap
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-08-08
You must be retarded or something.
1 faultydesign 2017-08-08
Spicy meme my fellow memester
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
Women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-08-08
Federal reserve system is that makes 100% of dollars and everyone else make 0%
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
Culture is a second-order effect of material circumstances, my dude.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
C'mon, even I can tell this is trolling
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
That is the most serious statement I have ever made here, brosef.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
Right? If he does have a PhD from Harvard they've got egg on their face rn because that was an embarrassingly badly-constructed argument.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Yeah. I actually don't think he should have been fired tbh, and the pearl-clutching about his OUTRAGEOUS SCREED is obviously overdone. But at the same time, he's not a Genious Science Man destroying the politically correct SJW dogmas. He's an /r/TumblrInAction tier dumbass, laboriously taking down an uninteresting strawman of "PC ideology."
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
What claim of "PC ideology" did he attribute that is not actually made? Where did he do so? What is your supporting evidence for it not being made?
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
He literally claims that Google's diversity initiatives amount to a form of psychological oppression akin to physical violence, dude.
And his footnote 11 is a great example of what a fucking duffer he is because he gives therein a definition of "political correctness" that clearly doesn't say what he think it does:
lmao this is the new brave oppressed truth teller
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
Holy shit your reading comprehension is terrible, and yet you're trying to criticize others on the same grounds.
How the everloving fuck did you read that and extract "he thinks this is a form of psychological oppression akin to physical violence"?
1 jerry101246 2017-08-08
how is this even remotely implausible?
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Well, for many reasons, but I'll give one example for now. This is all in the context of Google, a company based on engineering and computer science. The gender gap in those fields has been strangely refractory compared to in mathematics and the natural sciences. Do we really think that math has been discriminatory in a way that compsci has not, and also that math is accessible to squishy female brains in a way that compsci isn't? Strains credulity. Seems much more plausible that these fields have especially bad cultural problems, especially in the light of other evidence.
1 jerry101246 2017-08-08
How many computer autists do you know that are women? No one is stopping a women from building her own computer or programming her own scripts at home where culture is not a factor, and yet, something tells me women are not the biggest consumer group of computer parts.It's clear that women don't have as much interest in computer related activity.
I couldn't tell you how much of it is biological as opposed to cultural, but to claim that none of it? That's retarded, genetics have huge impacts on all human behavior. Hell, 75% of iq is said to be genetic.
TLDR: you dumb
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
> at home where culture is not a factor
1 jerry101246 2017-08-08
at least my claim isn't anti-science retard speak
1 sombresobriquet 2017-08-08
I mean, by definition, "hostile workplace culture" ceases to apply at home.
1 circumcised_clitoris 2017-08-08
U DUMB.
1 JohnBlind 2017-08-08
Computers and vidya games have historically been marketed towards men breh, that alone has a pretty significant impact
1 nicethingyoucanthave 2017-08-08
So for some reason, the "patriarchy" was happy to allow as many women into the medical field, into law school, into literally anything they wanted to do - but the autists in tech are keeping women out?
Worse, for some reason, the countries where the patriarchy is strongest (india for example) have more women in tech than countries that are more feminist (norway for example) - in fact, there's a negative correlation between allowing women to do whatever the want, and their interest in tech.
Here's an article that makes a really, really good case that you are completely wrong here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
Specifically (if you want to just scroll down) it's section IV.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
This is a really creative way of trying to make the concept of "one field has bigger problems with sexism than another" sound like some wildly objectionable hypothesis
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
It is a wildly objectionable hypothesis, and no effort or creativity is required to point that out. It is objectionable because it makes no sense, because it either predicts the opposite of several other trivially observed phenomena, or else is a catastrophic failure of Occam's Razor.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
this is a good demonstration of the principle that people who explicitly invoke "Occam's Razor" are basically always wrong and stupid
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
wew lad
1 nicethingyoucanthave 2017-08-08
Thanks.
If you'd prefer a less creative way, try this: what you did is called begging the question. Specifically, you assumed sexism explains the gender gap. Then you pointed to the gender gap and said, "see? sexism!"
You've got that backwards. Every time he makes a case, it's a good one. The article I linked to handily disproves your position.
...if you have some response to Alexander's argument, then I encourage you to present it. But just dismissing it out of hand isn't going to cut it. Here, I'll quote some of Alexander's post - this is something you need to address:
women conquered one of these fields after another. 51% of law students are now female. So are 49.8% of medical students, 45% of math majors, 60% of linguistics majors, 60% of journalism majors, 75% of psychology majors, and 60% of biology postdocs. Yet for some reason, engineering remains only about 20% female.
There were negative stereotypes about everything! Somebody has to explain why the equal and greater negative stereotypes against women in law, medicine, etc were completely powerless, yet for some reason the negative stereotypes in engineering were the ones that took hold and prevented women from succeeding there.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
I... what? I'm sorry, this leaves me at a loss. This strikes me as sincere rather than a highly clever form of trolling but it's also just staggeringly dumb. I have no idea how you think I'm "begging the question" here. My argument is that innate-capacity or innate-interest-based explanations are going to have a very difficult time explaining how the gender gap could have narrowed so strikingly in mathematics but not at all (actually, widening) in computer science. The intellectual content of the two disciplines are too similar, if there's an inherent sex-determined male/female gap in one there should be a similar gap in the other. This may be a good or a bad argument but it's just obviously wrong to claim it's no argument at all, or some kind of trivial circular argument.
I've specifically addressed the portion of Scott's bloviations that so impresses you elsewhere in this thread, I'll just quote it:
Seriously, Scott does not have a good argument here, no matter how confidently he deploys italics and exclamation points.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-08
It's not that math is not accessible to women, one of my high school classmates has a PhD in neurobiology and is a woman. It's just that the general interest doesn't seem to be there.
Out of my high school class only 4 women entered maths/sciences. 1 went for neurobiology, the other 3 went to school for nursing. The rest of the female class took environmental studies, language, music, or entered the workforce right away. The guys generally worked, took engineering, entered trades, or entered math programs.
We had lots of electives in this high school, there was cooking, art, auto shop, manufacturing, woodworking, music, languages, philosophy, religion, and maths. You had mainly free choice of which you wanted to take (though everyone had to take cooking, a trades elective, and languages/philosophy/art/music at least once) yet programming, and the shop-type programs all were heavily male dominated. Girls just weren't interested in replacing axels or programming. Three years you had to take some electives and for those three years the girls did what they absolutely had to and didn't take the trades again. The teachers didn't discriminate, nor did the class. The interest just wasn't there.
For the same reason there aren't many male early childhood educators there aren't many female programmers or tradespeople. Generally the interest just isn't there and that can't be disregarded as a major part of why a pay gap exists.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
cool story
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
Sigh.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Scott does attempt to address this point in his blog post but his argument is hilariously bad, amounting to the following:
I can't think of a reason why negative stereotypes might have been stronger or more persistent in one field than in another.
If we imagine gender stereotypes as being consciously propagated by a scheming Victorian villain for the purpose of oppressing women, it doesn't make sense to me that the villain would prioritize oppressing women engineers over women doctors.
I have talked to some people who have proposed a reason for the disparity that doesn't hold up.
Points (1) through (3), plus a bunch of rhetoric and hyperbole, show that obviously sexism isn't to blame, QED
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-08
To refute any of it, just show some empirical data showing sexism keeps women out of IT/CS more strongly than in medicine, law, and math.
Shouldn't be hard.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
This is dumb on multiple levels.
1 zwiebelhans 2017-08-08
Yet you fail to deliver
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-08
Be specific.
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
Level 1 of the dumbness is that you're actually expecting him to provide evidence for a claim in /r/Drama.
...Levels 2-N are duplicates of that idea, really.
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
Can you? If his argument is so easy to knock down, why don't you actually do it?
The theory that blames this all on negative stereotyping pretty much requires the stereotypes to be of roughly equal strength, because it dictates that they have the same motivation and are essentially the same stereotype.
This is an elaboration of how he presents the first point, not a separate logical plank.
Well, yes, if you want to present an argument that X might be the cause of Y, one prerequisite for that is having the idea that X might be the cause of Y. People suggesting to you, "could X be the cause?" is a pretty common way for that to happen. Holy shit, revelations here. Your contributions to the fields of logic and psychology will win you awards, as soon as we invent time travel and send you back to ancient Greece.
If by "hyperbole" you mean statistics.
1 Shatterbrain 2017-08-08
Lol what?
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
unironically shut up
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
This is not how scientific expertise works.
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
Sorry but the only PHD you have is in autism
1 jubbergun 2017-08-08
Funny, that's not what we've been told about climate change. Do we need a survey that shows that 97% of Harvard PhDs think you're a dumbass to end the conversation?
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-08
Try harder, this is self-refuting
1 jubbergun 2017-08-08
You have clearly forgotten where you are, good xer.
1 stopspammingme 2017-08-08
source? I couldn't find any info about the dude, especially not in that article
1 TotesMessenger 2017-08-08
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 damn_it_so_much 2017-08-08
Nice agendapost
1 Sarge_Ward 2017-08-08
eh. A bunch of people are going to use this post as a means to agendapost, sure. But this is an actually somewhat dramatic event, and the OP has a neutral title and is not getting involved with either side
1 damn_it_so_much 2017-08-08
Sidebar rules tho
1 IAmAN00bie 2017-08-08
This will surely be the end of Google.
1 Sarge_Ward 2017-08-08
This is good for Bing
1 cbeak 2017-08-08
Nonsense. Google is simply too big to fail. If safe spaces really do negatively affect productivity, they still can easily afford it; hell, they have enough money to employ little dancing monkeys on their desks for entertainment. They will continue attracting the best talent simply by paying the best salaries. Guess what, the most skilled people don't give about any of this. They do their job and they get their money.
1 excitebyke 2017-08-08
I wonder if there are any other good manifestos floating around on Google back channels
1 DannyLee90 2017-08-08
I'm betting it's just lame shit like bitching about Ruby on Rails.
1 crefakis 2017-08-08
About how Ruby on Rails gets paid 30% less than other languages?
1 neutralvoter 2017-08-08
this is what happens when you politely attack the most privileged group in modern society. Keep that in mind.
1 shitINtheCANDYdish 2017-08-08
Feminism wasn't as "transformational", as much as it was a daddy upgrade for middle class women.
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
fucking nazis
1 NotYetRegistered 2017-08-08
What, a woman? I wouldn't want to be a woman, the sexual harassment is off the scales.
1 fluoroamine 2017-08-08
In your mind.
1 NotYetRegistered 2017-08-08
Have you ever asked women about their experiences with sexual harassment? You get a shitload of stories. Catcalling, groping, etc, all starting for some at the age of 13 already.
1 oss_spy 2017-08-08
"Hi"
4 hours later on Tumblr
"Omg I was greeting raped"
1 NotYetRegistered 2017-08-08
No, more like being groped, catcalled from a very young age and being sexually assaulted. Again, if you're interested, you should ask some women about their experiences. I did a while back in my national subreddit and the responses were pretty interesting. If you're interested, here are the Google translated responses, though again, it is Google Translate so I don't know how intelligeble it will be to you.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fthenetherlands%2Fcomments%2F6bornx%2Fvrouwen_van_rthenetherlands_in_welke_mate_worden%2F&edit-text=&act=url
1 oss_spy 2017-08-08
Anecdotes are not data
1 NotYetRegistered 2017-08-08
http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/
1 oss_spy 2017-08-08
I wonder if one of the statistics used is the CDC study that counts "attempted forced kissing" as rape...
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Oh cute its retarded
1 oss_spy 2017-08-08
Hey look a white knight that hasn't felt a vagina
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Yah says the guy who's clearly never talked to a woman. If you think women don't get harassed quite a bit on the streets by scumfucks like yourself you're either purposefully oblivious or have never spoken to a woman who's not a 0/10 ham planet. The drunk pollack trash in my neighborhood are constantly complimenting my fiance on her rack. I mean obviously poland wasn't sending their best as it's a country of garbage humans, but still it's pretty ridiculous
1 oss_spy 2017-08-08
Wow, racist much? Are you projecting because you never got to meet the father of your girlfriends son?
Don't worry I'm sure she'll put out soon (well, for you too anyway).
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
You honestly think anyone has been cucked by a polski? Lol...talk about reaching
1 oss_spy 2017-08-08
Hey man, there's always room for a first
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
That would first require them peeling themselves off the sidewalk, so seems still a long ways off
1 oss_spy 2017-08-08
Doesn't mean they can't snatch your flesh light when you're not looking
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Eh I don't think they are quick enough for that, they move at a slower pace than the rest of the world
1 satanismyhomeboy 2017-08-08
It does happen a lot, but there's a reason other than being an [insert buzzword] for men to have difficulty coming to terms with this.
Most guys would never dream of treating women like that. We're simply not brought up that way. In the majority of those stories the perpetrators come from a very macho culture (north Africa or Poland for example). That or they're surrounded by their drunken dumbfuck bros and think they have to prove how manly they are.
These are the same people who'd gang up on males and beat the shit out of them for looking at them the wrong way, which is the other side of the coin.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Yah I agree with that, but the majority of the fools in here arguing that harassment isn't a thing are those redpill dumbfucks who argue they aren't being harassing creeps, they were just trying to give that feminazi bitch a "nice compliment."
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
Don't mock /u/JumbledFun, they've touched their cat's fur and imagined it was somewhat similar to a woman's bush - that counts too!
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Lol you're still slinking around? Make any groundbreaking rants about trans people in random subs lately?
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
lol, made up any stories online about your waifu fiance fleshlight? She'll become 3D if you stay a virgin until you're 40!
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
I know to someone like yourself, interacting with a woman seems an impossible task, but it really isn't that hard if you're not a complete autismo. There's plenty of mentally addled women out there, I'm sure one of them will be able to relate to you
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
The problem is you're a complete autismo.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Lol dude you literally spent last night arguing about the mental facilities of trans people in /r/confuseboners last night and spent 2 hours doing so. You're obviously a mentally deficient sperg
1 SubAutoCorrectBot 2017-08-08
It looks like "/r/confuseboners" is not a subreddit.
Maybe you're looking for /r/confuedboner with a 77.5% match.
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to DELETE. | Contact me | Opt-out | Feedback
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
Imagine having so little of a life, you unironically care about people trolling on the Internet. If I already didn't believe you had a fiance, I definitely don't know. Don't worry though, your engagement to Yuki from SAO is totally valid though, your parents are so proud of you!
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
awww it's the "i'm only pretending to be retarded excuse!" Don't worry johnny boy, I'm sure you'll be taken serious and respected as a person soon enough!
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
Where did you infer this one from. I believe I say about trannies, you sperg
Please, /u/JumbledFun, if you showered once a week and actually brushed your teeth, you might be able to smile at a girl and not be told to fuck off. Your life is literally as sad as AngryDMs except everyone secretly laughs at you behind your back like this.
Yes, even your fleshlight waifu.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Ah the truth comes out. You realize most people shower more than once a week right? No wonder you're such an angsty little incel
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
I don't have that high expectations of you yet, so I started off small. Maybe afterwards, once you've mastered that, I can teach you to use deodorant on a regular interval. After a few months, you'll finally be clean enough to get a blowjob from a filthy crackhead for $20.
Losing your virginity will have to wait though, no one really wants to fuck a 40 year old neckbeard whose breath smells like loneliness and neglect
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
It's sad to see you bare your soul to the world like this. You know all the steps to take to stop being a basement dwelling NEET, you communicate them to the world. But you're unable to follow them yourself. It's like a dweeb version of that awful movie hitch
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
Your insults are so shitty, it's kind of embarrassing even replying to them. Imagine have so little human interaction, you can barely coherently roast someone back after being violated. Oh no, wait, you don't need to imagine, /u/JumbledFun's posting history is right there.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Man you're deluded if you think that was "violating" me. The only people you've ever violated were your younger siblings
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
Oh yeah, I'm sorry, you have different definitions of a violation after your uncle molested you during summer break. Poor kiddo. I'd blame your autism on the trauma but the truth is you've always been like this.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
You're right, i'm over here shaking after you said i'm like angrydm, the horror! You're just a limp wrist it's hilarious
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
TFW your uncle rubs his hands together when looking at your bussy.
This level of booty blastedness will be recorded in the annals of /r/drama
1 Will0saurus 2017-08-08
You think 14 year old drama NEETs have spoken to a woman?
1 flupo42 2017-08-08
yep, this is why girls from teenage years onward are famous for not purposefully seeking out the most macho kind of males who engage in the most offensive kinds of behaviors.
They always strive for the company of quiet guys, but those jocks just won't quit going after them. Go to any high school or college and all you will see are the girls trying to hide in libraries while football teams ram the doors.
psst - if you choose to associate with assholes, you end up with tons of stories about assholes behaving like assholes
1 AltRightRulesReddit 2017-08-08
You would know, future rapist.
1 NotYetRegistered 2017-08-08
Okay...
1 seshfan 2017-08-08
it's so hard being a straight white man in today's society :( :( :(
1 michaelnoir 2017-08-08
In my heart I am on the side of this guy, not because I agree with him particularly, or because I like the look of him, (he seems like kind of an idiot and his pompous opinions seem half-baked at best), but simply because I believe in freedom of expression and I don't like to see it eroded.
1 faultydesign 2017-08-08
How was his freedom of expression violated?
1 michaelnoir 2017-08-08
Well, the word I used was eroded, and you don't have to go to jail to have your freedom of expression gradually eroded, till you live in an atmosphere where you're scared to say anything.
1 faultydesign 2017-08-08
I think NDAs damage your version of freedom of expression way more than being fired for disparaging female employees
1 VatiasMellerman 2017-08-08
Because Google fired him for his expression? Are you retarded?
1 faultydesign 2017-08-08
Pardon my retardation but I don't remember freedom of expression protecting you from being fired for said expression.
Am I wrong?
1 VatiasMellerman 2017-08-08
Of course you're wrong. Clearly the threat of being fired, punched, whatever for expression inhibits expression. The "it's not freedom from consequences!!!!" thing is obviously nonsensical.
1 faultydesign 2017-08-08
It inhibits freedom of expression just as much as removing slur-yelling person from your private property. Or should that too be illegal?
Does it, though?
Because that's what freedom of expression is. A law.
1 VatiasMellerman 2017-08-08
Your argument is pretty dumb, dude.
Err, no it doesn't. Completely different context, dissemination method, audience, and so on.
Please identify where I said it should be illegal for Google to fire him. What the previous commentor said was that it erodes freedom of expression, and that's lamentable. It does and it is. I can think it's shitty Google fires for mere expression without thinking there should be a law against it.
Yes, obviously ideas, tenets and principles can extend beyond the law. Otherwise Google wouldn't have fired him in the first place for violating theirs.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
Nice sperg out but Google also has a right to freedom of expression and the right to fire retards who post 10 page manifestos attacking their policies.
1 VatiasMellerman 2017-08-08
Yes dumdum, we are here criticizing Google for firing him, not saying it doesn't have the "right to its own freedom of expression".
Do you have any novel thoughts to contribute?
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
I'm sorry. I should have sperged out & posted a huge serious post about a concept of freedom of speech that doesn't exist in the real world. That would have been really contributing.
1 VatiasMellerman 2017-08-08
Sorry 4 being smart
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
Very smart of you to use words to describe a concept that doesn't exist in any tangible way. I'm sure you're very smart when discussing concepts that do not exist. You may even be top in your field of hypothetical opinions.
1 VatiasMellerman 2017-08-08
Careful, sounds like you're close to sperging out with a serious reply here
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
Are you hindering my freedom of speech?! I'll have you know I have hundreds of serious posts based on imaginary concepts ready to roll at a moment's notice if my right to a soapbox is denied!
1 VatiasMellerman 2017-08-08
Now you're just being serious and pretending not to.
This is not honorable behavior. Please review the rules and decorum for respectable internet debate.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
You're not supposed to counter my opinions. Who do you think you are, google? It's included in the articles of free speech in the context of internet debates that you're not allowed to disagree with me.
1 birdboy2000 2017-08-08
Funny how corporate "freedom of expression" consists of a small, elite minority deciding which people get to make a living, while worker "freedom of expression" consists of criticizing corporate policy. Your ideas are radically anti-worker.
Genuine freedom for the overwhelming majority of people is incompatible with this broad view of private property "rights".
1 midairfistfight 2017-08-08
Freedom of expression is a value of Western liberal society. There are many places where it is in eched in the founding document, laws or bylaws of specific organizations. One of those happens to be the first amendment, but that is not the be-all and end-all of the societal value.
1 UserUnknown2 2017-08-08
Freedom of expression doesn't prevent a company like Google from firing a dude who posted a 10 page nerd rant about women.v
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
The reaction to this pretty clearly shows the exact opposite
1 UserUnknown2 2017-08-08
Heyooo
1 SpectroSpecter 2017-08-08
My word, I've never seen such respectful nodding
1 grungebot5000 2017-08-08
what the fuck was this moron thinking lmao
"okay i work at google, we control the flow of information and it's time to set the record straight. let's see if we can get everyone on the same page"
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
He was probably thinking "I have google on my resume and I can actually fucking code and every other company on earth that wants real work done instead of some HR bullshit will throw money at me."
That's what I would be thinking, probs.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
They would have before but they won't now. He's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Dude's torpedoed his career lmfao.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
75% of the men who run SV will agree with this dude, my dude.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
Kek, no they won't. SV is overwhelmingly liberal.
And even if they did, that's irrelevant. He's a liability from a business standpoint. Legally and otherwise. And the fact that he thought this was a smart thing to do doesn't speak well for either his social skills or common sense, both of which are actually pretty important in a collaborative business environment like software development. The dudes who run SV didn't get to where they are by being stupid enough to take on a poor employee who'll get them sued just because they agree with his ideology.
Dude's toast.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
Bay Area twats are liberal.
Money laughs at that shit.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
yeah I can tell your knowledge of the industry is extensive lmfao
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
It is fairly extensive.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
Dank LARP dude.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
For instance, the dorkatrons at Mozilla were all fired up to fight for ass-fuck-gendered marriage rights, until one of their beloved founders was publicly attacked for donating to Prop 8 causes. Now their whole company is suffering because of the political correctness they once subscribed to, and a lot of the employees don't know what they believe.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
ok your LARP is suffering a bit now. You've got to remember to do your research my dude. You don't have to be entirely accurate, but try for the right ballpark or you'll pull the viewer out of the story.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
I was there.
1 ahbslldud 2017-08-08
This isn't very good shitposting fam. You're just sort of boring.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
Well, I'm seriousposting and your burns are pathetic so, yeah, it is kinda boring.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Guys he reead lots about the industry on 4chan, hes an expert
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
I dunno about tech but I worked with C-level execs at an F500 during a previous job and the public/private about face was definitely real. Some of them had truly horrifying attitudes towards woman, especially the younger ones.
1 Illyana_Rasputin 2017-08-08
Is that why SV billionaires drenched Hilldawg in cash?
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
Billionaire investors don't like losers.
1 TraurigAberWahr 2017-08-08
they won't say it in public
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
And none if those people will be running a company the size of Google. Accept it, dude is a retard.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
Those people are the shareholders of companies like Google. They hire and fire people like Jack Dorsey.
1 grungebot5000 2017-08-08
oh yeah good point
and what better way to ensure gainful employment than this bit of publicity on your resume?
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-08
This motherfucker is way beyond having to grovel through a stack of resumes.
1 die_rattin 2017-08-08
Also "I probably have no future in the company given their hiring and promotion practices put me at a flat disadvantage"
Only way around that is to have some million-dollar idea, and if he had that he should be in business on his own
1 pokok2 2017-08-08
thats not what he said you supid faggot
1 AnnArchist 2017-08-08
Funny. Expected. But the guy isnt wrong.
1 JustThall 2017-08-08
The guy got fucked by Google policies and fostered culture of openness. He posted the manifesto on internal Google skeptic group for a critic, somebody got offended and leaked to public with massive smear campaign to follow. This is how leftist work, they infiltrate open discussion environments and silence the dissenting opinions with smear campaigns. Happens all the time
1 FieryChickenSkeleton 2017-08-08
Fucking scum.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
he got fired for being a social justice warrior
1 youcanteatbullets 2017-08-08
Show me where the leftists touched you
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
He isn't right either. Now he's also jobless.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-08
Well there absolutely are generally differences in each genders interests. Of course exceptions do exist and as far as I'm concerned the only thing that should restrict you to a job is your personal interest and effort.
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
He's jobless with Google on his resume, he can work for pretty much any company and will likely get double pay for a month or more. Then he'll have someone ghost right a book for him and make tons of money off the growing group of feminism skeptics/edge lords. This guy is not in dire straits.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
This is written like some autistic fan theory. Mr Manifesto will definitely find work but it won't be near the level of working for Google. No employee dumb enough to write 10 page cited rants about his job will go very far in the professional world.
1 LoquaciousLoogie 2017-08-08
and he'll still be that much ahead in life than you'll ever be lol
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
I don't live in an area that costs over 6 figures to have an average life in nor do I get myself fired posting social justice rants on company forums so I'll be just fine. Thanks for the concern 😘
1 LoquaciousLoogie 2017-08-08
So you live in a shittier area to have an average life? ;)
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
Double the average income in an area you can live comfortably in with under half the average. My main hobbies include hating people, food, video games, and the gym. Do you wanna meet up? PM me your bussy if you think we're a match. I'm a Scorpio byw
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
Google doesn't pay as well as many of its competitors because it doesn't have to. I would be very surprised if he didn't get a pay bump when moving to some other tech giant.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-08-08
This was his first job apparently so of course he would be getting paid shit but it's unlikely he's going to get some huge pay pump after being fired for rocking the boat instead of doing his job.
1 princessCuck 2017-08-08
Working for Google isn't that great.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-08
U wot m8?
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
I should hire a ghost writer to proof read my shitposts.
1 flupo42 2017-08-08
any employer will start out by googling his name and seeing a social shitstorm with this guy front and center - don't think he will be all the employable.
That said, if the civil courts of the state do their jobs, he shouldn't need to work ever again after the settlement for wrongful dismissal.
1 freet0 2017-08-08
I can't imagine he wasn't planning on staying long anyway. By his own admission he was already relinquishing all prospect of advancing in that culture. This might actually be better for him because he probably gets a sweet severance package.
1 DeepDickedHillybilly 2017-08-08
Serious question. If you are a public embarrassment of this magnitude to your company, do you reasonably expect a severance?
1 freet0 2017-08-08
I don't know the law in California, but considering the pro-worker culture of the state I think it's likely they have some mandated compensation unless the employer can prove good cause for the firing. Whether this counts or not probably falls to lawyers, but does Google really want to go through that?
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
Creating a hostile work environment and/or bringing the company into disrepute probably meet the criteria, famalam.
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
Lol.
->Write the most moderate and considerate memo to share your worries about your company's repressive culture. ->Get death threats, firing threats, news outlet misrepresenting your points and accusing you of sexism, bigotry, nazism etc... ->Get fired.
yes, he was 100% responsible for that !!!HOSTILE!!! work environnement, famalam.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
He wrote about how women are biologically inferior to the point they can't do something as stupid easy as code
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
No
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
That's exactly the point he was trying to make. You honestly don't think that stupid ass memo wasn't gaslighting?
1 eDgEIN708 2017-08-08
Did you read the memo, or just the SJW clickbait article about how it's badthink?
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
Did you notice he used actual Gamergate colors in his graphics too ?
I'm still shaking.
1 John_Kvetch 2017-08-08
he literally didn't
1 aqouta 2017-08-08
Dis you read it? He said women in general aren't as interested in coding or high stress positions and went out of his way to explain and re-explain how he was talking about statistical averages as a way to explain why there is a gender gap not as a way of declaring all women unfit.
The argument is whether or not the gender gap in programming is caused by women just on average being less interest in high stress highly technical isolated jobs or the innate sexism of a company that fired a guy for daring to suggest it wasn't being sexist.
1 Deutschbag_ 2017-08-08
What's it like being illiterate and retarded?
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
Nigga fucked up in literally the first line. Nothing good is ever "dear all".
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
Yeah that's a good point.
1 Oohlegpogle 2017-08-08
But he did also complain about workplace discrimination...
1 ComedicSans 2017-08-08
Lol.
1 Ranilen 2017-08-08
If I ran a company I would absolutely fire someone who spammed everyone's inbox with their political manifesto, pretty much regardless of its content. Send that shit to family members and friends who also don't care on your own time.
This guy either intentionally stirred up shit, or is too dumb to know he was going to stir up shit. Either way...
1 Harradar 2017-08-08
If you say "I'm going on Fox and writing columns for Breitbart if you don't give me some fat stacks" you might. I imagine he'll have invites from both by the end of the day.
1 augieseagle 2017-08-08
You are assuming that Google cares what the Fox/Breitbart crowd thinks of them. Google also has teams of lawyers working for them and the guy probably had to sign watertight agreements preventing him from disclosing their internal policies etc. I agree though he is going to make the rounds of the anti-SJW circuit.
1 Harradar 2017-08-08
I don't think Google as a company is quite so stupid that they think it's just fine if Fox viewers start hating them. There's plenty of things Google already does that are public but not common knowledge that could be used to make conservatives stop supporting them.
1 augieseagle 2017-08-08
There is probably a team at google who could tell you the average age of the fox viewer, average income, how many electronic devices they own, how much they spend shopping on line each year, etc.,etc. My guess would be that, based on this kind of information, they aren't going to lose any sleep if these people are mad at them. If they are worried, they have a PR team on staff full of people experienced with getting companies out of much stickier messes.
Now as far as conservatives go, the higher up the hierarchy of power you go the more you're going to find "big business" conservatives. They aren't going to want to do anything to/about google that might come back and bite them in the ass. Pass a law that you can't fire someone for their political beliefs? Well, now your biggest donor is pissed at you because he has tons of paperwork and hoops to jump through because the lazy loser he fired is saying she was fired for talking about feminism at work.
That's just my 2cents. God knows what's going to happen. As long as drama is caused I don't care.
1 Harradar 2017-08-08
You massively underestimate conservative web use and purchasing power if you think it's not worthwhile to pay this guy off so he doesn't drag the company through the mud. Giving him a couple million is absolutely nothing for them as a company, whereas if this goes nuclear (even if you think that's unlikely), the costs would be many multiples of the bung.
Incidentally, California does have some quite extensive protections for people fired for their political beliefs. I suspect he wouldn't win such a case, but you don't need to be likely to win a case to get a payout if the company stands to lose more just in reputational damage if you follow through with it.
1 augieseagle 2017-08-08
Well, sure. Why not give the guy a couple million to head off a potential headache. Unless their legal team advises against it. Like maybe if paying the guy off could be misconstrued as a type of admission on Google's part if he sues.
I think conservatives are going to use this to fire up their base. I also don't think conservatives are the type to want to expand employment laws/protections so Google can reasonably expect nothing significant will come of the outrage machine. I could be very wrong though, it's just my half-baked opinion.
1 Harradar 2017-08-08
Obviously any such payoff would involve forfeiture of his right to sue the company or to make media appearances denouncing them.
The nightmare scenario for Google isn't employment laws being changed, it's antitrust laws actually being applied, but that's very unlikely so long as it keeps laying those golden eggs, and it's not the kind of thing Trump himself is actually interested in.
1 augieseagle 2017-08-08
yeah, I've heard rumblings about breaking up google or treating it like a public utility. They wouldn't be talking about it though if it was being run by the Koch Brothers.
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
lol they are not paying this guy millions in severance
1 JumbledFun 2017-08-08
Doubt he gets a severance, fired with cause most likely
1 better_bot 2017-08-08
If he cared this much about who he was working with, I wonder how much he cared about his actual work.
1 bleasehalb 2017-08-08
Calm down with the seriousposts you losers.
1 zahlman 2017-08-08
Nah, fuck that. The seriousposts ITT make up some of the best drama I've seen in a while.
1 zwiebelhans 2017-08-08
Seriously , seriousposting is some of the best stuff on /r/Drama
1 shitpersonality 2017-08-08
Jimmies rustled so hard you would think their bussies just got cucked.
1 c3534l 2017-08-08
"Microaggression" just sounds like you're saying "I'm thin-skinned."
1 LefthandedLunatic 2017-08-08
Good fuck him gently
1 SuperShake66652 2017-08-08
ITT: Agendaposting faggots who need to be fucking gassed. Jesus Christ.
1 Cake_eater666 2017-08-08
Google is too big to take down.
1 cggreene2 2017-08-08
Democrats really want to lose in 2020 again
1 SurealStuff 2017-08-08
Thats it, google is fascist company.
1 fluoroamine 2017-08-08
Disgusting. :(
1 ChateauJack 2017-08-08
Holyfuck r/drama is shit during summer
1 zarakh07 2017-08-08
This is a no-win for Google unfortunately, which just shows how fucked up our society is. Stupid employee decides to voice opinion he could have just left out of the workplace, and now the company's hands are tied. They will be bitches at by the alt-right for discrimination against this "engineer", and the alt-left will bitch that 80% of their engineering group is male and that's just unacceptable.
I don't even know why I read the news anymore, it's just a bunch of people yelling at clouds not helping anyone, reporting on people that are just horrible human beings.
1 raj_69 2017-08-08
A conservative gets unfair treatment for sharing his opinion? What else is new
1 Notthehalf 2017-08-08
In the KiA thread:
DAE SWM so oppressed
DAE Right wing ideology is a mental illness, so protected by neurodiversity
DAE protection against visible discrimination evil, protect against choosen discrimination only
....sigh like every aspect of this is a shitshow, the memo isn't that evil, it's not threatening as some paint it as, it's full of pseudo science though, but should that be sackable...probably not, you should be free to criticise your employer, but fucking hell acting like this is "all white men being oppressed and "diversity only welcome"" is victimhood from the right usually reserved for those they criticise. It's shit all the way down, project humanity was a mistake, post natal abortions for all please.
1 -Banana_Cake 2017-08-08
Diversity opinions are strength, until they're the wrong ones.
1 baeb66 2017-08-08
When the CEO has to come back from vacation to deal with your shit, you are super-fired. This political scientist/programmer won't be working anywhere near Silicon Valley any time soon. Time to pack up your shit and move to India or the Phillipines.
1 wolfdreams01 2017-08-08
This is either a brilliant or a moronic move. While companies in California are not allowed to fire you for political statements outside of work, they are perfectly free to do so for stuff you say in the office.
However, many companies have an employee handbook that details more extensive protections than the law covers. If Google's employee handbook protects something like "open internal dialogue" then a case could be made that this is promissory estoppel - in other words, they failed to live up to their promises causing him substantial material harm. Since his memo was very polite, they can't really make a legal argument that he's bigoted since the law still operates by the legal definition of racism, not the academic one.
If I were this guy, I would have downloaded a copy of my employee handbook and read through it cover to cover before posting anything publically. Google is a shit company full of SJWs, and I know a few conservatives who work there and keep their views very quiet. So the main point of the memo was actually very accurate.
I expect that this guy will turn out to just be an idiot rather than a secret genius, but this may open the door to future lawsuits against Google, particularly if they can show a pattern of discrimination. (Which shouldn't be too hard to find.) Sometimes, to bring down a person/group of influence, you need one crazy person to serve as the "tip of the spear."
1 ArchHermit 2017-08-08
Google makes billions by targeting ads based on the general preferences of different groups of people.
Google fires man for suggesting that different groups of people, on average, have different interests.
Seems perfectly reasonable.
1 grungebot5000 2017-08-08
so why are all the mayos in /r/news getting worked up over this? the dude was clearly a certified faggot
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2017-08-08
So can I finally come out and say I've been using bing this whole time without being ashamed?
1 bobdylansgirl 2017-08-08
What would happen if a female Google employee would write that men are more criminal and violent in every country than women and that they probably must be something wrong with them? Freedom of speech, truth or ''omg that's like so misandrist why do you hate us menz :'( fucking feminists''?