Buzzword is, itself, a buzzword now.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

2. Fired4Truth - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

3. https://twitter.com/search?q=Fired4... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

The science is not the problem.

Problem is that a woman, as an individual, should not have to suffer from assumptions of a women as a collective.

Yes, 200th ranked male tennis player might beat Serena Williams but you, the average male reading this, cannot.

Same for software engineering, there is a guy out there that a woman is better than.

I find idea of fighting an individual using stereotype of a collective to be the worst possible tactic.

woman, as an individual

This is where you lost me.

You don't pay attention to anything closely. Then you loosely draw emotional conclusions from random relationships everywhere. Are you perhaps a make believe woman?

You're right. And that is literally exactly what the guy who got fired said in his manifesto....he agrees with you too!

I don't think I agree that

Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

or

Women on average are more cooperative

… to name a couple, are traits that are biological in origin.

There is no science behind this other than statistical distribution of the traits within a group.

But, I digress… I should have written something about mayocide or shit like that.

Women on average

on average

are you illiterate?

His point wasn't really whether these differences (in the distrubution) are biological in origin or not but simply that they are given and real. Rather than assume the gender gap is due to sexism, we should cater to those real differences and not simply discriminate more (his view of current diversity practices) to combat the discrimination we assume is there.

Somehow people read that 10 page white paper and concluded that 'Google sexist argues that bitches ain't nothin' but hos and tricks in all caps anti-diversity rant', which is the most baffling thing about the whole affair. The media are jackals.

I’ve talked to female developers about the paper, some think they should be held to the same work standards as men where others like my wife would love the idea of making part time programming gigs more common to make the work life balance easier. From my experience a lot of developers support the paper and find it completely reasonable and an efficient means to correct the gap without quotas.

Unfortunately the vast majority of women complaining about a lack of Women in Tech ^TM aren't programmers in any way and most of this screeching is to get more diversity consultants and easy gigs in HR.

I'd say this whole charade hasn't actually been about getting more women interested in programming since the late 2000's.

I'm trying to measure this, I think watching biology deniers flounder is actually almost as stupid and cringy as watching a flat earthr flail about. It's so close it maybe even-steven.

He isn't arguing he's better than every female software engineer, that would be idiocy. He's saying the underepresentation of women in software engineering is a reflection of something other than "the patriarchy."

He's saying the underepresentation of women in software engineering is a reflection of something other than "the patriarchy."

Where does biology stop and "the patriarchy" takes over is probably not his forte.

Pretty sure the feminist argument is that the patriarchy never stops and is good for infinite victim points and affirmative action tokens in all industries. Quota systems, plenty of spending on "diversity" initiatives to incentivize women (i.e. overpaying them relative to similarly qualified men), etc.

I'd say feminists also don't know where does biology stop and "the patriarchy" takes over.

On the other hand, one would kind of hope that after 10,000 years of dominance, average male would be okay with few decades of bullshit from another side, no?

On the other hand, one would kind of hope that after 10,000 years of dominance, average male would be okay with few decades of bullshit from another side, no?

Given that nobody alive today was alive for the vast majority of those 10k years, I'm not sure what your point is.

(he feels guilty and thinks flagellating himself for things he never did will soothe that guilt complex and maybe even get him laid)

Male feminists are secular Catholics at this point.

Not really ok with anything since I'm dead within a few decades. Fortunately I don't work in a job where I have to give much of a fuck about this kind of shit. But I don't blame engineers for being frustrated by the growing trend of affirmative action and victim complexes for women in STEM fields.

On the other hand, one would kind of hope that after 10,000 years of dominance, average male would be okay with few decades of bullshit from another side, no?

The class consciousness is weak in this one.

As a disclaimer, I did just wake up, but that's the stupidest thing I've read today.

Why should we be? Do you think i have a conscience or sense of responsibility for dead men?

Yaaaas slay queen

average male would be okay with few decades of bullshit from another side, no?

This is rather retarded. See I don't care about the past injustices, those people at best are elderly and most are dead. I only have a few decades to live my life and somehow fucking me up makes up for past injustices?

Pretty sure the feminist argument is that the patriarchy never stops and is good for infinite victim points and affirmative action tokens in all industries. Quota systems, plenty of spending on "diversity" initiatives to incentivize women (i.e. overpaying them relative to similarly qualified men), etc.

Wew lad.

The default feminist position comes from Simone De Beauvoir (Jean-Paul Sartre's wife): women are made not born. Where biology stops and "the patriarchy" takes over is a question that evolutionary biology embraces but feminist philosophy avoids.

s/biology/psychology/. Not that I even find their arguments convincing. The google memo even says evo-psych predicted that well known gender stereotypes had a basis in reality as if these stereotypes weren't known to begin with.

The patriarchy has a biological origin. Go tell a silverback gorilla that his masculinity is toxic.

Hmmmmm...

People tend to be good at things they enjoy because they put effort into them. Women generally don't enjoy programming and therefore are not as good at it. The women who do enjoy programming are as competent as anybody else... unless they were pushed through to meet a quota.

Problem is that a woman, as an individual, should not have to suffer from assumptions of a women as a collective.

And this is why we need 50/50 hiring representation!

we need a 50/50 male to trap ratio

Yeah, imagine being a woman at Google who felt discriminated against because you couldn't understand what "on average" means.

Problem is that a woman, as an individual, should not have to suffer from assumptions of a women as a collective.

Women are more collectivists than men. To a degree they bring it on themselves. (Or the oppressive biology or oppressive culture brings it on them — whatever.)

There is a greater prospensity of reading “women” into “woman” than it is reading “men” into “women”. If you call a man an asshole, you called a man an asshole. If you call a woman an asshole, you’re a misogynist (woman → women). Slightly depending on the mood of the day.

Get the picture?

Live by the tribe, die by the tribe.

It's a good thing no one is asking for that besides the "yes all men" crowd.

Literally everyone agrees with this. This is not in contention.

Uh huh. Sure ya do.

I think the original memo was very careful to avoid saying anything about any individual woman's life. It was strictly about probabilities. Also if you are trans (as the name newcomer_ts suggests), and don't believe in gender differences, please explain your own existence.

Yes but this means there will be less women. He is saying that to get more women, jobs should adjust to suit their skills

Reasons why women should NOT be able to vote (1910)

BECAUSE 90% of the women either do not want it, or do not care.

BECAUSE it means competition of women with men instead of co-operation.

BECAUSE 80% of the women eligible to vote are married and can only double or annul their husband's votes.

BECAUSE it can be of no benefit commensurate with the additional expense involved.

BECAUSE in some States more voting women than voting men will place the Government under petticoat rule.

And my favourite:

BECAUSE it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur.

He's arguing how we can get more women in tech rather than saying they shouldn't be there, total opposite of your false equivalence

Actually, his set of "suggestions" boils down to:

it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur.

The heart of his suggestion is this - to make women happy we need to destroy man’s world.

If you read carefully his set of proposals on how to reduce the gap, he is essentially saying that to have more women in coding, you’d need to completely redefine what coding is:

We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration.

.. or what it means to be a leader:

Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful.

... and what it means to be a male:

If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

tbqfh with you, he sounds like a really smart troll

Women don't seem to be interested in the job roles as they currently are, so why not change some of them to suit women better?

I mean, there is already a push for changing the requirements for a job in order to suit women better - such as in the army - so why would changing the general makeup of a job itself be an issue?

Why construct an artificial demand when that same demand can be encouraged organically?

Furthermore, if the jobs have to change to the extent that they become completely different in purpose, then that is a pretty good argument that women in generally are unsuited for that particular job, no?

Those are all valid reasons.

In the end we know that women voting is better for society, and fears were not confirmed, but it might not be that clear in 1910.

Just as it wasn't clear in 1917 in Russia that socialism and revolution were for better or for worse. It turned out as a disaster.

Questions from past should not be judged today because we know much more than people did in the past.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/drama] /u/newcomer_ts seriousposts, accidentally baits everyone

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

ahh here comes his attempt to keep his 15 minutes of fame like a cheap whore. too bad he's not a hot blond cause he might succeed if he was.

lmao he's loving this

The account looks fake as fuck

His fucking noooooose. It's so SilVal it's awful.

Just looking at his nose I understand why he resents women. That is the face of a man who didn't enjoy high school and any women that ever like him will do because he worked at google and not real attraction. He looks exactly how I imagined e would look.

It is ironic how description of an average feminist woman and average MRA dude converge at the same side of spectrum.

It's essentially people who think they should date without alcohol involved.

It's essentially people who think they should date without alcohol involved.

Damn, how else am I going to engage in risque recreational sex that I later regret due to how initially drunk I was in doing it?

This guy's a genius. Why work with a bunch of people who annoy the shit out of you at google when you can start a shitshow and get books and fan donations all because you "stood up" to google?

It's like that Ahmed clock kid, but instead of the left swooning over him its a bunch of alt right twitter people.

Yeah alt right youtube is the reality tv of the 2010's such a bunch of money grubbing agenda advantagists.

Unlike intersectiional youtube? Look at Laci Green: she didn't think the other side was saner, she just noticed a lack of hate-clicks and adjusted accordingly.

Cool memo James, want to bring it to the White House?

it is pretty genious. You know he is getting the shit harassed out of him. Let's see if twitter suspends the account of those people (lol no they won't). He should just retweet the harassment all day.

He should write a book about his experience at google and make some money off interview deals.

Have the whole freedom of speech crowd rally behind him for a couple months, shower him in donations when he makes up a sob story about being poor and losing his job because of free speech.

Then maybe move to somewhere that isn't California or overly liberal. Or change his name. Plastic surgery would help him not look like a dweeb:

yeah but he was probably earning $250k+ at goog and as long as he kept his mouth shut he could have phoned it in and kept the gravy train flowing.

wtf isnt this guy just a low level programmer who lives in cali? he didnt even get a phd at harvard and i thought google programmers made like 150k at the most, which isnt too much in california

150k would have you living quite well in California honestly. Maybe it wouldn't go as far as other states, but I live in the Bay Area and I can tell you that it'd still get you pretty far.

A senior coder at Google? Between $140k to $300k depending on how important he was.

Ah, the Peterson model.

get books and fan donations all because you "stood up" to google

Except the money will dry up after his 5 minutes of fame, but he'll never be able to interview for a job again without this shit being brought up.

He's been offered a lot of jobs already

Any significant companies or just small outfits? I can see him getting offers from people who sympathize with him, but no major company will ever touch him again.

Not sure, I heard mention of it on his interview with the shitlord scientist

When someone stirs up that much shit, most companies don't want to touch them because they don't want to risk having to deal with that shit in the future. it doesn't matter what the politics/issue is, it's the volume. The that fact he's going around giving interviews and talking shit on Twitter does not help him whatsoever.

There's a lot of cash to be made in the professional victim game these days, SJWs started it, now everyone wants a piece.

Ahmed's clock is exactly the same thing.

His follow list feels like he isn't alt-right, but he does retweet Cernovich and all those kind of people.

Well they both seem to like attention.

It was going so well, but he ruined it by associating with colossal morons.

Yeah, most people outside the SJW-sphere were like "some food for thought there, no need to fire his ass like that", then he went full mong.

Just an angry incel making a fool of himself.

Get that nose away from my coke.

Holy shit this is autistic gold

https://twitter.com/BurningRomeInc/status/895737638724001793

He is the hero we don't deserve