>the napalmed village of /g/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo
Supriese!
Wrong think is a live and well.
>saying that he had been fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes."
You mean like all the women in the industry constantly scream at 110db about?
You know, the gender stereotypes that men are all big and strong and evil?
Why aren't they being fired too?
I'm not sure that perpetuating harmful political stereotypes is a worthwhile cost for putting down harmful gender stereotypes.
I mean if some idiot was sending company wide internal "manifestos" I would want them fired too.
"TO ALL GOOGLE EMPLOYEES FWD FWD: CHECK THIS STEFAN MOLYNEUX REDPILL VIDEO"
>>61789598
/pol/ btfo
>Shekles.exe
>>61789598
So they proved his point
>>61789624
Yeah but at least come up with a good reason, especially if you have a few days and unlimited money to give to your PR consultants. Something more than basically proving the guy right.
havent read the actual document but
>talk shit about your employer and fellow employees
>act surprised when fired
yea no thats called real life and real life has consequences for your dumbass actions
>>61789624
he sent it on a mailing list for discussions about that stuff. people send out stupid shit like this all the time.
>>61789617
It's not sexist if you're a woman, UGH
>>61789598
>write a memo about concerns that the corporate culture has become too extremely leftist
>get fired for not being extremely leftist
Pottery.
Lol so easy to get fired from the money grubbing gookle
Brings new meaning to silicon valley
>>61789642
No one is surprised about the firing. It's just exhausting that this keeps going around and around in circles.
>>61789598
Thus proving his point why people are afraid to speak their mind.
I hope this ex-employee uses his fame to start making Dr Jordan Peterson bucks. Or at the very least Sue's for wrongful termination. Last I checked you can't fire someone for being Republican.
>>61789642
He didn't talk shit about anyone. Read it, it's incredibly mild and everyone on /pol/ thought it was moot because it was so faggy
It will be funny to watch google kill itself with this.
If you don't ALWAYS hire the best person for the job, someone else will.
Even if its a goat, you hire or you die in the fire.
>>61789667
>Or at the very least Sue's for wrongful termination.
this right here, get that jewggle cash
>>61789642
>havent read the actual document but
yeah we can tell
>>61789671
>tfw it was moot and he comes back to shitpost on /pol/ after being jaded
>becomes the 2nd coming of Hitler
>>61789696
>It will be funny to watch google kill itself with this.
>this is what alt-right cretins actually believe
>>61789646
>he sent it on a mailing list for discussions about that stuff. people send out stupid shit like this all the time.
Really? I find that hard to believe. Not that there would be a "casual, talk about whatever" mailing list but a political one seems like it would cause too much internal shit all the time.
i hope some of the sane employees resign in protest, leaving google floundering with a bunch of incompetent diversity hires trying to herd decimated teams of demoralized white engineers
> forcing people to act how you'd like them to is considered both progressive and x-ophobic
>>61789744
Most of the sane employees probably have the mailing list auto send all replies
>>61789726
He was trying to make the company better by letting an issue that people are afraid to touch on get some discussion. Internal google polls showed that 50% of people thought it was good that he shared it
>>61789598
Kind of ironic how this proves him right, but whatever.
Not technology.
Good. /pol/ should be taking notes that their viewpoints are bad for business and they need to change their thinking if they want to leave their neet lifestyles.
>>61789726
>but a political one seems like it would cause too much internal shit all the time.
oh it does. there's a few lists like this. none are official lists, they're just something someone set up and they get popular. the whole "don't talk politics at work" thing flies out the window when it comes to those
>>61789763
wtf i hate making the workplace more attractive for women now
>>61789598
don't care, anything that tarnishes google is good
>>61789744
Isn't google paying really well?
Why would you ever want to give up your job due to something as minor as this?
In a week this'll be all but forgotten.
liberals have some sort of mental disability that doesn't allow them to even entertain opposing ideology
>>61789696
>It will be funny to watch google kill itself with this.
The way AB InBev killed itself after /pol/ boycotted Budweiser because that Superbowl ad triggered the shit out of them? Or the way Netflix killed itself after uploading the trailer for "Dear White People"? Or the way Stephen Colbert killed his show after assdevastated Trumpkins bitched to the FCC?
>>61789598
has he posted the manifesto online yet?
>>61789792
what is it you want?
> He was publicly outed
Just try googling his name right now
The guy is unemployable by any tech company now, in and out of silicon valley
Hopefully he will enjoy freelancing under a fake name or working at wallmart
>>61789802
Gizmodo leaked it a couple of days ago, famlam
>>61789802
http://diversitymemo.com/
>>61789792
>Or the way Stephen Colbert killed his show
Colbert left one of the most well-loved and highest rated shows on regular access cable to take over the late show.
The fucking *late show*
He killed his show by his own hand.
>>61789814
He seems old enough to have enough fuck you money to live off of for the rest of his life. I'm planning on going out with a bigger bang once I get enough fuck you money.
>>61789827
He killed it, but Trump saved him.
Now he has the highest ratings of all the late time talk shows.
>these media conglomerates who are funded by military industrial complex are still doing well selling propaganda kool-aid
>RESIST DRUMPF
>>61789671
Did you actually read it? Because he said that women are inferior, which is equivalent to "talk shit" about half of your company.
>>61789722
You're not dealing with your average trump voter my friend.
I'm one of that terrifying norton supporters, and well, as soon you turn the door to anyone skilled, you're just sabotaging yourself.
Be man, be woman, be dog, if can do the job better than anyone else in that room, then it should be the person you hire.
You don't reject a Corine Yu you know.
>>61789889
I don't remember that part
>>61789889
Literally didn't happen
>>61789889
Are you retarded?
>>61789598
/pol/ eternally BTFO
>>61789617
feminists exhibit teh most stereotypically feminine, maternal behavior to the point that it's just a creepy caricature of average women, what's craziest is that they can't see that's what they are
>>61789889
Did you actually read it? Because it never said anything close to that.
>>61789914
>>61789927
For instance, he wrote that women have lower tolerance to stress than men.
>>61789814
kek
>>61789889
>Did you actually read it? Because he said that women are inferior
t. guy who only read CNN's report on the memo and not the memo itself
>>61790037
>women have lower tolerance to stress than men
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2010/gender-stress.aspx
>>61790037
? that's true. however it's only true on average, there's quite a bit of overlap.
>>61789980
>>61790038
if you're actually celebrating this you're just working against yourself.
>>61790067
Elaborate
>>61790048
So now you agree he in fact wrote that women are inferior to men, but it doesn't mater because he is "right"?
>>61790037
>he wrote that women have lower tolerance to stress than men
How dare he write a thing that is known to be true from several scientific studies.
When did "there are differences between these two things" start being "this thing is inferior to this other thing"
>>61789598
This is why you do this shit anonymously
>>61789598
>whites purging themselves over liberal purity again
Fucking love being Asian desu.
>>61790075
How is having different stress levels equivalent of being to women being inferior?
>>61790075
I...I can't tell if you are trolling or just really dumb.
maybe read the study done by the American Psychological Association is see if it says anything about all women being inferior
>>61789855
>'dude this is the best smelling turd out of all of them!'
>>61790073
because it's basically forcing the same type of subculture to organize that allowed gamergate to exist but in real life.
>>61790037
Does it surprise you to know that women also have lower testosterone? Or is that a patriarchal fantasy too?
>>61790075
women wouldn't have evolved to be less stress-tolerant if it simply made them outright 'inferior'. sexually dimorphic traits exist for reasons, they're not random or arbitrary.
>>61790107
His conclusion is that women can't handle high stress jobs because of this hypothetical biological reason, implying women can't do men jobs.
``Liberal`` fag here. So I haven't been paying attention to this but it's sad that he got fired.
Is this guy against women in general or something else? And What's the general process of google's hiring process?
For example if a company has a preliminary anonymous test, meritocracy can be preserved. What did the guy want?
>>61790100
Good luck inheriting the mess that is California. We're leaving it in pretty bad shape, but I believe in you Chang.
>>61790140
Why don't you read the fucking memo instead of asking 4chan to spoonfeed you on a political issue?
How in the fuck can this be real?
He explicitly supports diversity and only acknowledges scientifically supported biological realities to support his argument that diversity doesn't have any inherent benefits for productivity.
And they can fire him for politely disagreeing with their political agenda.
>>61790136
>His conclusion is that women can't handle high stress jobs because of this hypothetical biological reason
And he would be correct for the majority of women
>implying women can't do men jobs.
You made that connection, not him.
>>61790100
>tiny dick
>no respect
>people assume you can do cool shit like backflips or guitar solos
It sucks desu I don't get why weebs want to be asian
>>61790140
TL;DR version
People should be hired based on merit instead of race or gender.
People who have slight conservative views are afraid for their jobs, or speaking about them.
>>61790100
You know you're literally 16 times less likely to get into an college than a black person of the same qualifications, right?
The liberals are going after you like a plague.
>>61790158
I want to read the tl;dr, not the whole 1000 lines of autistic screeching
honestly he must have seen it coming so i don't really feel anything for him
>>61790169
I still got in, so who cares?
>>61790164
They can fire him for nothing because it's murrica
Jewgle are pandering to a very vocal, very small minority for cheap PR but for once it might actually blow up in their face
>>61790168
>People should be hired based on merit instead of race or gender.
They don't do that already? The worse thing you can do to your company is to forsake meritocracy over political beliefs. This is against liberalism
>>61790175
Everybody's "tl;dr" is going to be biased towards their own political leanings. The entire issue is about the contents of the memo. If you want to be at all educated about the subject, you have to actually know what the contents of the memo are.
>>61790194
worst*
for*
>>61789818
they edited it though. i want an unmolested copy.
>>61789980
How is that? He knew exactly what was going to happen. He's probably on his way to a job with Apple right now.
>>61789598
Is moot going to be coming back to 4chan?
>>61790037
shame the fucking kikes who spread this document edited out the citations and graphs then, isn't it?
>>61790218
who?
>>61790215
>He's probably on his way to a job with Apple right now.
Good luck lmao
>>61789642
>talk shit about your employer and fellow employees
Maybe you ought to actually read it.
>>61790193
Nah, nobody cares.
They're already payed off the media jews to present a false narrative that he was sexist.
>>61790166
>high iq
>culture is still patriarchal
>whites grovel about diversity while we chuckle
It's not all bad.
>>61790075
oh that makes you think women are inferior? wtf what a bigot
>>61790165
He said that women are not good with high stress jobs, while men are OK with that. Is there any other way to read this as "men are superior to women" at least in regard to high stress jobs? iff from his point of view men are superior to women then women are inferior to men. Q.E.D.
>>61790100
>>61790194
They have forced diversity quotas now. you have to have x amount of race and gender, the exact term for their policy has slipped my mind at the moment.
>>61790188
You, when they fire you from your job.
Of course,i'm pretty sure the shit will fall apart before you get in any actual danger.
>>61790169
Yeah great, we're still well networked enough to get in somewhere. Unlike whites we tale care of our own. Liberals can slow us down but they can't destroy us like they have white communities.
>>61790246
Well, that's just asking for counter-productivity if that's true
>>61790240
Men are better suited for high stress jobs is a biological fact.
There is no superiority in it, it just a way things are.
Explaining reality is not discrimination.
>Is there any other way to read this as "men are superior to women"
Yes, in non bias way like you are doing right now, because you are unstable child who can't cope with the fact that people are different.
>>61790240
>He said that women are not good with high stress jobs
He didn't say that, that's what all the medical studies say. It's in general, not all women. Women are also GENERALLY better at certain jobs over men.
facts over feels
I wonder what's going to happen to the 20% of employees that said they agreed with him. They can't all be fired right?
I'm so happy I'm becoming a woman. Now I'll be on the right side of history.
>>61789598
>Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance
>>61789788
The kind of person who sends an email like that is the kind of person who cares more about the truth then his paycheck.
>>61790268
Well, whites are mostly committing suicide rather than being attacked, but shit will stop someday.
>>61789642
dont you have another man's creampie to felch out of your wife's roast beef cuckboy?
>>61789788
These are brilliant people who would probably succeed in any company or endeavor they chose. The choice is between leaving and building a career elsewhere, or staying behind and eventually managing people who are more focused on politics and diversity than results, in a culture that increasingly suppresses ideas when the entire company's success is built on innovation.
>>61790268
This is the sad truth. All minorities are with each other no matter what. Whites are the only ones who are fractured. God damn kikes.
>>61790268
Godspeed chinks, we had the brains but made the mistake of showing compassion. You shouldn't have that problem. Stomp out the lesser peoples beneath you and inherit the universe.
>>61790263
I am good at what I do. I will never get fired. I could wear pic related to work if I wanted, since I get to wear whatever the fuck I want (usually trackpants and sandals).
>>61789642
maybe you shouldn't be an intolerant douche and actually read the what he wrote because everything you just stated is flat-out wrong.
>>61790037
Actually, he wrote that *on average,* women have lower tolerance to stress than men. That doesn't necessarily say anything about any of Google's female employees, who may be selected from a population less susceptible to stress, and it certainly doesn't equate to stating that "women are inferior to men."
>>61789598
i absolutely couldn't care any less about this. ready for it to blow over so we can all forget about it.
>>61789598
well yeah that's what happens when you call out judaism for what it is.
>>61789792
AB inBev hasn't killed itself. People are still drinking beer. And it's hard to NOT buy beer own by them somehow.
Liberalism is against prejudice be it towards whites or the blacks, men or the women it does not matter.
If a software is well written I would not give a fuck about who of what gender of what race wrote it. He may be a communist, a far right activist, a man or women etc, I really don't care.
Liberalism cares about what you create, not who creates.
Stop confusing these misguided political views and practices with actual liberalism. Thank you.
Firing him was not a sound solution.
>>61790075
Wow so having a lower stress tolerance makes you inferior?
That's incredibly offensive to women, who on average have a lower tolerance for stress than men.
You fucking misogynist pig.
On NPR this afternoon they had in some
former google employee that left "because of
sexual harassment" (and I'm sure is eager to
get on the radio to help scare google with
plublicity).
Anyway she talked about how many of her
female coworkers called in sick because
they "literally couldn't even" after being
almost raped by that memo. Anyway, bla bla
bla women
are weak.
>>61789889
>>61790037
kill yourself you worthless roastie piece of trash
>>61790136
good grief, read the fucking document
I mean he has only a biology degree from Harvard and behavioral scientists, psycologist agree with him but if a obese woman from from a """tech""" news site with no qualification who can't tell assembly from javascript misinterpret hi, you have to fire him.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
>>61790296
SKREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The time arguing with these retards is over and he found out first hand. You can NEVER EVER argue with the enemy they want you fired gone dead and alone. Don't you fucking idiots get this? These people cannot be reasoned with, they act like they want a discussion but they fucking DON'T. THIS HAS HAPPENED A MILLION TIMES ALREADY. Get it THROUGH YOUR FUCKING SKULLS ALREADY.
YOU
WILL
NEVER
COME
TO
AN
AGREEMENT
OR
REASONABLE
UNDERSTANDING
WITH
SOMEONE
WHO
WANTS
YOU
DEAD
>>61789791
>Spout off controversial opinions that many people find distasteful
>Do it via sending a mass email to the origination you work at
>Knowing that the place you work at has an arguably liberal culture
>Knowing also that it violates the workplace code of conduct you signed when you got hired
>Durr Hurr fucking libtard snowflakes
That would be like me getting a job at Sig Sauer, spouting off that all gun owners are blood thirsty savages that fetishize killing animals and people, then being all butt hurt that conservatives "don't entertain opposing ideology" when I get fired.
Fuck this gay earth.
>>61790338
Being good at what you do won't stop some socjus from kicking you out of the company because "not diverse enough".
But probably will help you to be hired with twice the salary by a saner company as well, which is probably what will happen with a bunch of google employees if they keep up with their practices.
>>61790386
You didn't actually read it, did you?
>>61790351
I'm glad you got GP's point
>>61790386
kek, you could always drop a P320 on its rear slide on your way out the door
>>61790338
>I am good at what I do. I will never get fired.
HR doesn't care what you do, they care what you are. Just wait.
Conservative black guy at Google here. I read his memo and also found no real fault in it. His mistake was not being politically correct enough about his phrasing.
>>61789624
someones intimidated by molymeme
>>61790352
The Left hasn't been very Liberal for a while now, at least in the US, and i can't tell if it's just people being more dumb in general, or how social media and the internet makes everyone want to please each other creating little pockets of echo chambers where people filter out what they don't agree with 100% of the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq86Beh3T70
>>61790389
You just now start seeing this shit?
>spout a bunch crazy bullshit you got from /pol/ (with the occasional nugget of truth thrown in to look """reasonable""")
>get fired
Feels more like he was expecting to get fired but wanted a reason that wasn't his fault but instead the vast marxist conspiracy's fault.
>>61790352
It's funny because liberalism only acts as an enabler for exactly the extremism it tolerates.
Actual diversity and liberalism naturally works to undermine itself.
If you let radicals and dissenters have a free hand, they inevitably stir up shit.
This is a well learned and obvious lesson of the monarchies of the past which the onset of democracy has completely obfuscated.
>>61790381
buy guns
>>61790369
Wew, how did you even those line breaks? Are you posting with some cli app in a 50 character wide terminal?
>>61789598
>gets fired for wrongthink thereby proving himself right
really makes me think
>>61790075
wtf you're such a misogynist I literally can't even
>>61790415
NOT AN ARGUMENT
>>61789889
>>61790423
No, but I still feel the need to express my disapproval occasionally. I'm not dead yet.
>>61790422
Left is actually super authoritarian.
Pretty ironic honestly
>>61790427
seems like the only reasonable thing you can do until its time
>>61790381
Oh, but Anon? Surely, an appeal to reason...?
>>61790438
I'm pretty sick of this shit it makes angry as fuck because I know that there are thousands that we will never hear about. On the positive side is that this sort of shit is just going to drive people to the right(or to third position) hopefully
>>61790075
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
>Telling lies on the internet
>>61790140
The most significant thing the guy suggested was for Google to change the workplace environment a bit (e.g. team structure changes to encourage employee cooperation over competition) to attract more female applicants, rather than shoring up numbers of female employees by discriminating job applications based on gender and just hiring damn near any woman who applies regardless of suitability.
>>61790414
This is why it takes me for fucking ever to write emails, checking and rechecking to try and seal possible misinterpretations. I'm not sure how he could have sugar coated it any more, though.
Also hi moot.
>>61790390
I don't voice my opinions on politics at work, stupid shit like that gets you fired. I hardly even talk to anyone while I am there.
>>61790407
No HR in my company thank god
>>61789822
>http://diversitymemo.com/
If that was his memo, it sure was full of biased crap itself without any proper fundamental factual information. I wouldn't fire him for it but I would sure as hell pull this guy aside if I was HR. If you are going to argument against left/right bias, at least cite proper sources.
>>61790456
no, it hasnt happened in the past and it won't happen after the millionth time you've tried.
>>61790427
What should I buy? Should be good for self-defense and potentially suicide
>>61790439
Not the least bit ironic. Both the extreme left and extreme right love authoritarianism.
Only radical centrists care about liberty and reason.
>>61790468
>No HR in my company
Just wait.
>>61790480
Hitler was not extreme right you fucking idiot. Just stop.
>>61790414
miss u mot
Even though the guy didn't claim it, isn't it pretty much confirmed that women are inferior to men at this point?
>Weaker physically
>Cry when you criticise them
>All greatest achievements ever are always by men
>Every great poet, artist, thinker, scientist, philosopher is male
Women are inferior. In fact, they like being told that they're inferior and thrown around, slapped and spit on in the bedroom. They say one thing, but want another.
I've fucking hated women since I was 6-7 years old and they love me for it. They're drawn to me since I'm antagonistic and somewhat aggressive toward them.
Women are fucking hilarious creatures, who gives a fuck what they want? I certainly don't.
Fuck all of the stupid cunts
>>61790210
http://diversitymemo.com/
>>61789598
*time stamps behind you*
Heh. Nothing personnel kid.
>>61790434
I've seen it argued that what he did is not wrongthink but rather wrongspeak. Sort of like the difference between thinking "I want to fuck the receptionist" every morning, and saying "I want to fuck you" to the receptionist every morning.
>>61789624
http://diversitymemo.com/
It's far from that.
Not to mention Google encourages that sort of thing in their company culture.
>>61790470
>Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations
I guess nobody was interested in a discussion.
>>61790470
The point of the memo is to illustrate that there are alternative explanations to the assumption that uneven statistical distribution is in fact necessarily the result of discrimination.
He uses well supported and well known statistical (factual, as you would say) information to illustrate this point.
And citations/footnotes are at the bottom.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068300/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959290021U?via%3Dihub
Again if you morons would actually READ IT, maybe you'd be able to discuss the thing with a shred of integrity.
How any of you made it through college with such a short attention span and such a selective memory is beyond me.
>>61790314
Yeah...not anymore chap. Google used to be an interesting company regarding engineering challenges, now it's like any other large company; saturated by the average joe and hugely devolved into a bureaucratic mess (read the online employee statements on it). If you want something interesting, rather go for a company within the Alphabet Inc. group than Google, which focuses mainly on ad revenue generation.
>>61790522
They are fucking leftist retards that don't give a shit about any of it because it doesn't fit there narrow views. They just out right throw it in the dustbin. OH YEAH THATS BIGOTED RACISSS NAZEE!
>>61790494
and when that day comes I'll try to remember to _not_ send everyone opinions that I copy+pasted from /pol/
>>61790240
you are claiming he mentioned anyone being "not suited for" this-or-that job, whereas what he actually discussed was the genders tending (yes that's right: tending, on average, in the median, in the peak of a gaussian distribution curve) to have different affinities and strengths and weak points. that was his explanation of why the majority of google employees are males: that it is, in its current state, simply a more attractive subject and workplace for the average male.
>>61790545
You think that guy was /pol/? That guy was basically my dad.
>>61790529
Unless your point is that the manifesto writer is an average Joe programmer who has unwisely fucked himself out of a job, I think you are agreeing with the post you linked.
So why are you still using Google products and services, /g/?
>>61790475
well you could start with a nice .357 magnum. that'll get'er done
>>61790381
correct, they've obviously thrown all reason out of the window. this is the most tame and inoffensive document i've read all week, yet it would not surprise me if one of these literal shakers ends up burning his home down with him inside.
i despair.
>>61790386
wtf
>>61790561
Your dad probably lurks /pol/
>'we shouldn't make programs that push women to kode, since they are doomed to fail. They should just work in other industries instead'
is a very /pol/ thing to say
>>61790565
It seems I am agreeing with the post I just linked. Misread the context.
>you will witness Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo in your lifetime
>>61790545
Those opinions were extremely tame and fairly well supported scientifically.
If you haven't read his essay (see diversitymemo.com,) you should. It's incredibly innocuous.
This is what happens when you don't have unions.
>>61789598
he was right mother nature has internalized misogyny and it made women biologically inferior to men. women are physically,mentally and emotionally inferior to men because of sexual dimorphism,testosterone and IQ difference.
>>61790609
The future is brighter than a thousand suns.
>>61790602
It's also a very sensible thing to say. Why push anyone just to fill quotas?
>>61790470
(((they))) removed the citations you fucking tit. read the thread.
>>61790602
The only thing the memo was saying they 'should' do is not assume that statistical gaps imply discrimination and allow for a more honest discussion of why these gaps exist.
Stop acting like a fucking moron and people will stop treating you like one.
>>61790614
Wait until he sues them, if the ACLU wasn't shit like it is now they would jump at the opportunity.
>California Labor Code Section 1101
>No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
>(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
>(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
>>61790499
that's pretty much a copy of the edited version.
>>61790659
it has the citations
>>61790659
It has sources and graphs added and it's sourced from the original pdf.
>>61790659
>>61790636
>>61790470
with citations>>61790462
>>61790673
the graph is an obvious difference, but only like one or two of the external links are intact
>>61790624
This is just about the perfect level of irony, right here. Not too hot, not too cold, just right. Good job, anon.
I'm reading the memo right now, and the fact that it's contradictory to liberal groupthink is the one of the few things about it that's not retarded. His desired end goal (the abolition of identity politics from company policy) is desirable and fair, but the way he defends it is so ass-backwards that he could not possibly have expected to change anyone's mind. The fundamental issue with his argument is that at no point does he actually refute the central point of shitty ideas like gender-neutral conduct codes or hiring quotas. He doesn't even mention how they don't make any sense on their very terms of the people pushing for them.
His entire rant is the same bullshit you'll find from one of those YouTube "rational skeptics". At no point does he actually present any arguments or refutations of others'. It boils down to whether others' opinions are even valid because he thinks he is the sole person on the planet capable of sapient thought, like a freshman after his first psychology course (but of course he is offhandedly willing to proselytize about HIS ideology if the untermensch would like, because it must be infallible divine truth). Talking of evidence and reality while pulling vague assumptions out of his ass that he has no proof of, because he doesn't understand any of the concepts he brings up to begin with. If he cared so much about the importance of human bias, you'd think he would have come across "affirming the consequent" or "ecological fallacy" at some point.
The sad irony of all of this is that the blue haired bulldykes he is ridiculing are essentially operating on the same logic he is. They are two sides of the same coin: sheltered narcissists that have never even thought for a second that they might ever be wrong about anything. They lack the basic maturity to question their own thinking and why they believe what they do.
That said, Google is shit and needs to burn anyway so it'd suck if he actually solved anything.
>>61790613
I did read it and agree on some if not most key points. I also read the citations. But still, if I have an unpopular opinion I am not going to tell the whole company about how I feel. They aren't wasting _my_ money on these stupid programs. At the end of the day I am still getting paid and that's what I care about.
>>61790633
If they didn't have a reason then they wouldn't be doing it.
>>61789791
>dick sucking lips
>>61790704
Yeah, he's a classic pseudointellectual, the crowning achievement of American universities.
> Women on average are more cooperative
That's the greatest gem IMO. Women are the cause of organizational dysfunction, because they're the ones responsible for politics.
>>61790658
The ACLU, especially in CA, is just an illegal spic/nigger hussling facility now. They couldn't give a rat's ass about some "classical liberal" FUCKING WHITE MALE.
>>61790708
>If they didn't have a reason then they wouldn't be doing it
The answer you're looking for here is "equality of outcome". You think that's a good thing?
When I was in art school, that was a somewhat clear divide between what women and men drew.
Almost every girl I went to art school with was much more character oriented; her sketchbook would focus on people and animals and not things. The ones that were best at drawing layouts and mechs were generally guys. Even guys that were more character driven had a masculine quality to their art, for example they tended to draw a lot of sexy women or buff guys with weapons. Most people that wanted to go into concept art were male. Characters drawn by women would be cutesy, usually quite tumblr-like. The colour palettes used were ligher and more girly, guys would often use darker palettes.
There would be exceptions to the norm, but it was rare. Or there would be close exceptions, that still acted like their gender in broad strokes.
However you would find, to no end, women there that believed no clear stereotypes existed. They would proudly proclaim this while drawing their pages full of yaoi smut, big eyed characters with child-like proportions and cutesy animals, completely of their own volition. For pages...no strong interest in tech or environments could be seen. Even the slightest suggestion that there were differences between content produced by your average male and female artist could drive them mad, despite the evidence being right before their fucking eyes.
>>61789598
So where's the faggot from Saturday who was telling me
>No, they haven't fired him. They won't fire him. His employee profile is still up, he's too valuable for Google to fire.
Where are you now faggot? Will you apologize for being WRONG?
>>61790624
>sexual dimorphism
I never understood why this is something everyone can agree upon, but once you even suggest that there could exist brain differences, any discussion, research, and funding is shut down.
A male songbird will sing, while a female won't. This is dimorphism of the brain, in affect during development and/or maturity. Many other species have similar examples. So why is it impossible, or even taboo, in today's climate to consider there may be differences in the brains of men and women?
>>61789696
/g/ is incapable of thinking long term looking forward, probably because it's much harder to meme things from it. Google's largest revenue stream is drying up, and dumping everything they have into their established tech and moonshot projects is the only hope they have to sustain a company of their size in the long term. What this will do is create a chilling effect, further pushing Google inwards of itself and regressing it's culture. In an extreme future, it may reach a point where the company culture becomes so centered around social politics it rips itself apart, resulting in the exodus of important talent. Github is a very good example of this. It started with a rug, then progressed to a point where it lost a majority of developer's trust. The exodus of talent from GitHub and the resulting "restructure" is a quiet reminder that the only thing keeping a lot of top talent around is the enjoyment of what they do, muddle it with politics and you they leave for quieter pastures. Google will not implode overnight, nor will it crash and burn on the stock market. But it may see a long, gradual decline into oblivion.
>>61790708
I think something was lost in the game of telephone. Let me see how that looks with the pronouns expanded:
>If [Google's diversity managers and human resources teams] didn't have a reason to [run programs designed to lure people into doing jobs they are statistically likely to fail at / be unhappy doing], they wouldn't be [running such programs].
Is this actually what you meant to say?
>>61790375
It's not loading for me, anon. Can you pastebin or archive it, please?
They're going to lose anyone with any actual skill and end up with nothing but HR staff.
>>61790744
I don't care. I have no stronf feelings towards any of this nonsense. The favt that you guys do leads me to believe that you are just looking for a reason to be angry. It's okay to be passionate about things anon but don't expect others to feel the same.
>>61790748
People are afraid of what they find.
To quote one of the scientists who reacted to the memo:
>Haidt: “If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you.”
>>61789624
Google messed up. This guy is going to retire on the money he gets from the lawsuit.
>>61790783
https://archive.is/VlNfl
>>61790787
Wait a fucking minute. You don't care if the guy in the next office, who is demonstrably not good at his job, is paid the same as you, the guy who pulls his weight, because he has a clubfoot?
>>61790784
And then die a Yahoo's death.
>>61789855
>highest ratings of all the late time talk shows.
King of shit mountain.
Really did we expect a company run by SJW LARPers to react any differently then this?
Literally the best thing Google could have done was to ignore the memo. Congrats Google, well done.
>A person writes a centrist, logical, carefully-explained-with-supporting-evidence argument for ideological diversity in the face of the left's rabid culture of appearance diversity.
>This is deliberately misconstrued as "he said women are inferior" and the social justice machine calls for his blood, with numale bitch men gleefully chiming in to join the mob attack
>The progressive cult proudly speaks of how they'd love to assault the man, fire him, blacklist him, and outright state they want to make the workplace hostile to his ideas, while calling their actions "inclusive" in a stunning display of hypocrisy.
>Google fired a person for speaking the truth politely. We live in a world where the Thought Police have un-ironically fired someone for wrongthink.
>>61789763
>left leaning centrists should be fires
Do you even support people having jobs?
Didn't like a third of employees agree with the manifesto?
Does anyone here know a lot about the structure of Google?
How many alt-right saboteurs, secretly working together, collecting paychecks, and fucking shit up behind the scenes, would it realistically take to crash the entire company? 50? 1000?
>>61790746
as an aside - your choice of image is pretty ironic, being an expressive character face drawn by a male /fit/izen. Not a knock on your point about generalities, just funny.
This is why I'm working for the government instead. Don't have to deal with sjw bullshit working for the military or DoD
>>61790512
>http://diversitymemo.com/
nothing unreasonable in any of that. have people really become this afraid of a different point of view? makes me happy i'm no longer a wagecuck. i used to do shit like quote mao tse tung- "political power only comes through the barrel of a gun" and other politically unacceptable sentiments, and all my employers ever said was get back to fucking work.
>>61790782
>there aren't as many women interested in tech, this means that the ones who are interested are doomed to fail
no, that is not what I said.
>>61789791
It's not politics. It is the mind virus.
>>61789598
>inb4 it was moot
>>61790848
>have people really become this afraid of a different point of view?
Most definitely.
>>61790817
no sweat off of my ass. not my fault he decided to do something foolish
>>61790748
scientist are afraid to say the truth because it will discriminate against women. science can proof women are inferior to men mentally.
>>61790386
It was between a small group of people he knew and then someone leaked it company/internet wide
>>61789792
Nobody cares about you. Attempts to shut him down is spreading his fairly reasonable message far and wide. Don't you see that this movement is only continuing to grow? We will see a more lasting impact than a few companies being shut down.
I'm not stupid enough to send out a memo but I might accidentally say one or two lines like his if someone brings it up. I must not say anything. I will not get baited into saying anything.
>>61789598
The real reason they fired him and why they want these diversity programs so much is to lower the salaries of tech jobs. Managers and other leadership in tech companies hate the fact that tech workers actually get wages that allow then to live a good life, and they want to save money at any cost. The best way to lower salaries is to flood the market with tech workers so that there are less jobs available which leads to people working for less. The tech companies noticed that some huge population groups (women and minorities) weren't common in tech so they are trying to get them into it so they can raise the number of tech workers and lower salaries. All of those classes for women to learn programming are cheap compared to the savings they can get once they can pay tech workers shit wages.
>moot publicly denounced the memo and this guy
>>61790840
Googler here. You don't need to bother. These fucktards are ruining the company already.
>>61790470
It's called starting a discussion. The fact that you're not allowed to even talk about it is the problem. It's not even a matter of whether you agree with every point he made.
>>61790898
Right. I mean accelerating it. Like a hypothetical SRE team member or two, perhaps who were burned out anyway, causing millions of dollars worth with a mysterious outage.
That kind of stuff.
>>61790794
The big FYI by the way, Danielle Brown (Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance) fired him.
This would be a logical step from her perspective as not doing so would confront her position as she would be confronted by the mass of illogical people who'd loudly raise their pitchforks against his email within the company, thus undermining her position.
Google shot itself in the foot with giving a person such a position.
>>61790881
>differences imply inferiority
assblasted virgin detected
>>61790545
Have you ever been on /pol/? That guy was a left leaning pussy. The real /pol/ employees at google are hiding their power level and now actively working to fuck them from the inside because they can't even tolerate a discussion from a well balanced centrist.
>>61790338
>I could wear pic related to work if I wanted
Could you wear a shirt that said Fuck Black People?
>>61790874
It is though.
It would mean you should be paid more for better work.
Non meritocratic policies do affect you, regardless of how good you are.
By definition.
>>61790916
She didn't fire him. This was escalated to Sundar, she didn't act on her own.
>>61790921
>The real /pol/ employees at google
nobody on /pol/ has a job
>>61790403
>you could always drop a P320 on its rear slide on your way out the door
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>61790602
Yeah because there are so many programs pushing women to become plumbers. I love how even being a left leaning centrist is considered neo-nazi now.
>>61790874
Turns out your department is doing badly for 'some reason' and needs to downsize. How are your diversity points? Awww, you're white, straight and able bodied? Too bad.
You mad yet?
>>61790852
Ok, I guess I picked the wrong expansions. Let me try again (please believe i am not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to active listen to make sure I understand the perspective of someone I assume is a [relatively uninterested] googler):
>If [women] didn't have a reason [to do software development for a living], then they wouldn't be doing it.
>>61790921
>now actively working to fuck them from the inside because they can't even tolerate a discussion from a well balanced centrist.
The best part is if they actively announce that effort in a second manifesto.
Imagine the paranoia and witchhunts. Every inconvenience, every mistake, every bad idea. Every soylent drinking white dude would be seen as a potential /pol/ack.
>>61790868
so are they intentionally trying to destroy whatever is left of civilization or are they true believers in their anti-thinking jihad? not that either one is mutually exclusive.
>>61790940
Good point.
>>61790898
>Googler here
Your IP has been traced and identity verified via a combination of captcha, cookies, and tracking pixels, and you're currently in the process of being terminated.
>>61790920
nice projecting but logic,reason,evidence,science, and statistics are on my side. women do have some biological advantages but men have way more of them.
>>61790545
He didnt send it domeone leaked it in a very small group of people he shared it with. It was like an internal forum post not a direct message/email kinda thing ramming it down peoples inboxes
>>61790933
>After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore’s views and reaffirmed the company’s stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, 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.
Sure, not directly, but her escalation did result in his employee termination.
>>61790920
>differences imply inferiority
No, affirmative action implies inferiority.
>>61790920
>women are physically weaker, etc
>clearly a negative trait
>implying there also aren't negative mental and cognitive traits associated with dimorphism
Roastie detected.
>>61789626
>>61789671
>>61789715
>>61789763
>>61789792
>>61790602
/g/ is making /pol/ sound like the only place to go for reasonable discussions. No wonder they have so much more influence than other boards.
>>61790924
holy shit, this
>>61790982
She completely ignored the violent responses to it from employees and the lies about race which wasnt even mentioned in the memo anywhere
>>61790925
>the fact that I am not getting paid more is due to a system my workplace does not implement. I am a thin-skinned bitch so I take this as a form of discrimination
no, but really--I do get paid more
>>61790609
Not really. This is a cultural issue. Not one against the state, although the state has been manipulated into enforcing some of it. We will need a solution to purge those infected with the mind virus.
it takes a real special disorder to interpret "women on average gravitate less towards the sort of jobs offered at google and we could address this in the following ways, and by the way i object to a policy of discrimination..." as "i consider women and blacks inferior and incapable", or "i hate women and blacks", and "i want to murder every bitch at google", or "i'm going to rape you", such that you are so shaken that you "just literally can't" and have to take days off work
maybe it's some sort of collective psychosis.
>>61789889
Now try actually reading it.
>>61790995
>Reddit: The post
/pol/ has pretty similar views have you read any of the threads on this.
>>61790708
>if I have an unpopular opinion I am not going to tell the whole company about how I feel
People like you are the reason this sort of oppression has been allowed to come this far. It's time to grow a pair and speak up.
>>61790895
kek
>>61791014
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787
>2hours old
>700 comments
>>61791014
>Collective Psychosis
Gad Saad refers to it as some form of Munchausen
>>61789889
>half of your company
you mean like 20%?
>>61791018
And Hitler drank water, amirite?
>>61790835
>centrist, logical, carefully-explained-with-supporting-evidence argument
What argument? His belief that people are largely dictated by their biological sex is exactly what SJW believe to begin with. When feminazis try to rationalize their hatred of men, they claim the exact same "realist" positions, but instead use them as an excuse to treat men like they are mostly violent sociopaths. It is the entire basis of modern liberal sophistry.
You either reject identity politics or you do not. You cannot have both. His proposed solutions to the diversity question are the same nonsensical policies without any explicit mention of gender, as if that will somehow change the end result.
Meanwhile, seven years ago...
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/word-bigot-loses-all-meaning-201004292689
>>61791045
For YOU
>>61791008
If it's not a policy your workplace implements, then people like you are not who we're talking about.
But this argument started because we were talking about a company which specifically employs these policies that you said aren't a problem if you keep things to yourself.
Even though they are, demonstratably and obviously.
>>61790990
moving goalposts
>>61790992
physical strenght is one thing, yes. Even in the manifesto he explains that these (cognitive) differences don't imply inferiority. You would know that if you had bothered to read the whole thing.
>>61790920
>non-virgins respect women
wew lad, nice one
>>61789726
if you sperglord would have worked in a proper company you would have known. The company where i work have internal forums. but they are not properly moderated. people all the time post shitty things.
>>61791040
this comment:
>In a world where qualified diverse candidates still regularly get rejected at greater rates than qualified non-diverse candidates, is this bad?
what evidence? what fucking evidence? progressives now live in a world of hypotheticals. the hypothetical trump death squad, the hypothetical nazi gassing jews at work...
>>61791014
It's called the mind virus. This is the zombie apocalypse. People thought it would be a matter of just putting a shotgun to their heads, but they are still considered human and protected by the same rights afforded to the rest of us. Some are even enforcing and legislating our law. Many are in academia spreading the virus. For the most part, it is spread via social media because it is not the biological strain we all expected. No. This is an information virus that exploits certain axioms already instilled in westerners. It has turned social media into the greatest weapon against humanity. The only solution is for each individual to choose to break the conditioning. I am not optimistic.
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788
> But I want to make it very clear: if you were in my reporting chain, all of part (3) would have been replaced with a short “this is not acceptable” and maybe that last paragraph above. You would have heard part (3) in a much smaller meeting, including you, me, your manager, your HRBP, and someone from legal. And it would have ended with you being escorted from the building by security and told that your personal items will be mailed to you. And the fact that you think this was “all in the name of open discussion,” and don’t realize any of these deeper consequences, makes this worse, not better.
This is what will happen to you if you are a alt-right fascist. There is no place for bigots in the Bay Area!
>>61790924
>Could you wear a shirt that said Fuck Black People?
only if you're into bestiality
>>61791094
>moving goalposts
>implied implications
>>61789650
Everyone is completely focused on the diversity angle, and not with how he fucking opens the memo - there's ideological lockstep in google, and stepping out of line could get you fired.
> gets fired
If they acknowledge that part, which was completely vindicated, they might have to acknowledge the other parts
>>61791040
>We've closed this thread to new accounts because of trolling
What a shitty website.
>>61791125
I really enjoy how a single person can now be referred to as "diverse."
>>61791030
>People like you are the reason this sort of oppression has been allowed to come this far. It's time to grow a pair and speak up.
so what should I do, cry on an anonymous chinese cartoon forum? or should I email my boss all of my hot oponions?
>>61791072
point is it's the employee's fault. There are things we do at work that I think are stupid. If I was a little bitch like that google employee and didn't do shit about it until I eventually wrote a 10 page hissy fit, I would fire myself too.
>>61791125
How can an indivudal be "diverse" or "non-diverse"? That doesn't even make sense.
>>61791162
I'm bettter than normal. Get used to it!
>>61791169
It makes sense if you're a Marxist.
>>61791147
>'y-y-yeah but what about affirmative action?'
how is that not moving goalposts?
>>61791014
>>61791133
>nobody had stupid uninformed opinions before tumblr was started
replace "sexist" with "satanist" and it's literally the 80s again
>>61791169
it's a slip of the tongue; diversity is a euphemism for "is not white"
>>61791181
If everyone is equal and interchangeable, why is there a need for diversity quotas?
>>61791162
>>61791169
I'm glad that was obvious to someone other than myself.
>>61791168
No, but if you're not willing to risk offering feedback that will improve your company then you'll be in your shit tier position until they decide you're not valuable enough to keep around when it's time to up their diversity stats.
>>61791168
>point is it's the employee's fault.
For trying to improve his workplace through rational and well moderated dialogue?
Are you fucking serious, man?
You sound like you're the type of person to let people walk all over him just to avoid a little bit of risk.
>>61791193
>euphemism for "is not white"
euphemism for "is not a white male"
They're really good at getting people fired. And then there is more crypto-fascists for them to hunt.
>>61791193
>it's a slip of the tongue; diversity is a euphemism for "is not white"
This is the important point. These people are advocating for open discrimination against whites. Nobody is advocating for egalitarianism. In fact, egalitarianism doesn't need to be advocated for in the absence of such discrimination.
>>61791229
"is not a cishet white male oppressor"
>>61791169
Indians are 1.3b yet they're considered minority and diverse.
>>61791212
>You sound like you're the type of person to let people walk all over him just to avoid a little bit of risk.
AKA women in the workplace. I bet you that poster is female.
>>61791169
Diversity is code for anti-white.
>>61791233
progressives hate egalitarians. i recall a few months ago some generic twitter SJW women circle-jerking over what an "egalitarian piece of shit siiiiiiighhhh" a game developer was for objecting to affirmative action.
>>61791246
It's funny because the left are usually the ones claiming to think globally. If we are to do that then we must recognize that European whites are the minority on this planet and our culture and heritage must be protected.
>>61791200
imagine working hard for years to get somewhere in a job you love only to have to wonder if the only reason you were promoted was to meet a diversity quota
>>61791183
Except the moral majority fags never had any significant influence outside of electoral politics.
>>61791168
>working for a bluepilled cuck boss
don't you have any self respect m8?
>>61791288
Imagine getting a Harvard degree for submitting a rap album because you're black.
http://nerdist.com/a-harvard-students-final-thesis-was-a-rap-album-he-got-an-a/
>>61791288
>working hard for years
ahahahaha
incredible. words are atrocities.
>>61791296
>never had any significant influence
appealing to moralcucks is the only reason the war on terror even happened.
>>61791200
if everyone is equal then why would it matter that there are quotas? Where in my post did I mention affirmative action?
I don't give any fucks if DeMarcus gets hired over Jebediah, I already got the job.
>>61791212
>trying to start shit within the company
>improving the workplace
what he did was the equivalent of Terry Davis confessing to killing a cia nigger in 91
>>61791350
Nobody is advocating for equality. It's everyone vs white men.
>>61790992
>DIFFERENCES IMPLY INFERIORITY
>AND ONLY IN MEN'S FAVOR
wow pepe this is not how you argue your case
>implying men's higher tendency for violence can't be considered both positive and negative
>implying men's drive to pursue status can't be considered both positive and negative (say, if you're trying to recruit people to do monotonous, easy, but necessary labor)
>implying women's higher empathy can't be considered both positive and negative
>implying women's ability to bear children can't be considered both positive and negative (from a survival of the species standpoint and from a hiring manager's standpoint)
Only a couple sparse examples because phoneposting and I want to go for a ride soon.
How the fuck can one attempt to prove one phenotype is strictly inferior in all ways to another by invoking sexual dimorphism? How would such a situation provide an evolutionary advantage?
Caveat: I am saying nothing about whether males are females are specifically better suited for the task of software development. I am only talking about your fuzzily defined and inaccurate generalization.
>tfw took the bait
>>61791350
>differences imply inferiority
You don't need a leg up unless you're short.
>I'm alright now, this situation surely will never change
>>61791302
>not working at all
what's it like collecting NEETbux while you post about how other people are a detrimental to society?
>>61791350
>trying to start shit within the company
>improving the workplace
Again, if you think what he did constitutes trying to start shit, you are a fucking rug and I sincerely doubt you're getting paid half of what your female and poc counterparts are.
>>61791378
destroyed
wtf
>>61791212
>rational and well moderated dialogue
He essentially tried to explain to people what they were thinking as if he can read minds, that is the opposite of rational.
Yes, what he said about sexual dimorphism was statistically accurate, but he did not present any evidence that this was the cause of the matter at hand. It's like assuming anyone who dies at sea is killed by sharks because shark attacks only happen at sea.
>>61791378
wtf i love left-wing degeneracy now
>>61791413
>He essentially tried to explain to people what they were thinking as if he can read minds
>but he did not present any evidence that this was the cause of the matter at hand
This is how I know you haven't actually read the document.
You're full of shit dude.
>>61789617
He had the job, didn't he? He was only fired when he fit the stereotype.
>>61791442
The stereotype of trying to make things better?
>>>>>I haven't read the memo but I have read some summaries of it. Even before the memo was released I had a negative opinion of it.
LEFTISTS
>>61791148
To play devil's advocate:
>Be middleschooler
>Walk into school building
>This organization has a problem: recreational drug use results in suspension
>Smoke joint
>Get suspended
Should the preface have been sufficient to protect from the consequences?
>>61791464
Twitter exists to poison the well.
>>61791374
>How the fuck can one attempt to prove one phenotype is strictly inferior in all ways to another by invoking sexual dimorphism?
By adding up strictly or subjectively negative traits and weighing them. This wouldn't be discrimination, because it would be on terms of equality; just like hiring someone with a degree over someone without a degree isn't discrimination.
You literally prove my point, by bringing up the various dimorphic traits between men and women. It stands to reason that there also exist traits and differences between the male and female brain, that can't simple be treated "equal".
>>61791472
Depends whether smoking joints improves test scores or other school outcomes.
>>61790845
No, not really. Expressive != child like, cute, or cartoony. For example Michelangelo's statues are hella expressive, but still quite realistic. The image still sticks to realistic proportions and structure for the most part, as do the rest of the guy's drawings, even the more silly ones.
>>61790802
>"Let me redpill y'all on how niggers are subhumans!
>"Dude, you just can't say that as a KFC employee. We're going to have to let you go."
>"Ur violatin' muh freedumb of speech! I'm gun' be rich!"
Good luck with the courts on that one.
i want to fucking die
>>61791472
No, more like
>this school has a problem: smoking weed is making the kids slow
>points out the locker full of weed
>teachers plant crack on him
>>61791431
>lel ur dum
Read the entire thing twice to make sure I wasn't getting rused by some liberal at Jizzmodo. His entire argument rests on an ecological fallacy and a gross misrepresentation of how psychology works. If you think political orientations are personality types, it means you're a fucking pissant that lacks any real convictions about anything; he claims to want to treat people as individuals, yet he does not believe individuals even exist. For that matter, not every opinion is political.
The propositions he tried to defend are correct. He simply fails to defend them effectively. He was fired for a reason: so Google can poison the well and make employees unwilling to criticize their bullshit from the perspective of an adult.
>>61791522
Murder-suicide, targeting HN posters. Make the world a better place.
>>61791522
I remember a time when a workplace was a place for getting some fucking work done and you didn't know anyone's politics unless you talked to them.
>>61791560
You are fucking dumb, because the theories which he presented are not the crux of the argument, which is that statistical gaps do not imply oppression.
He does present many citations throughout the article, which can be found on http://diversitymemo.com/.
>His entire argument rests on an ecological fallacy and a gross misrepresentation of how psychology works
How about you fucking elaborate, Einstein.
If you're going to take issue with scientific sources published in peer reviewed databases which are referenced by a biology PhD, then you better fucking have something.
But even should his argument, as you claim, be entirely a fallacy, your assertion that he explained things as if he could read minds and that he used zero factual evidence to back things up is absolutely false and dishonest.
>>61791560
>His entire argument rests on an ecological fallacy
Can you succinctly state the part of his argument that rests on an ecological fallacy?
Because he didn't seem to make any "essentialist" claims about males and females, he just suggested that average differences between the sexes in various psychological traits could contribute to the lack of diversity in tech, which seems obviously true.
>>61790845
I always thought that was traced from this guy.
>>61791494
Sure there exist differences in the brain. We agree there.
>strictly negative traits
My point being there aren't really any such things, in the general scheme of things. There are only traits that make men bad at doing women things and women bad at doing men things. This is (possibly) an explanation for why there are more male programmers and why that isn't the end of the world. This is (certainly) not an explanation for why women are inferior to men in totality, reeee roasties get out etc.
Also, attempting to say males > females or females > males smells to me like trying to say arch > ubuntu or tenere > s1000rr.
>Arch is better for fast updates (and other stuff)
>Ubuntu is better for works out of the box (and other stuff)
>Tenere is better for riding through mud for hours (and other stuff)
>Fireblade is better for going fast around paved corners (and other stuff)
There is no best bike, distro or sex. There is probably a best bike, distro, or sex for any given metric - and the more specific the metric the easier it will be to choose.
>>61791692
Hahaha I know that video but didn't recognize it in the drawing. Yes, of course it would be from that. The whole point of those comics was to cram as many of the year's /fit/ memes in as possible.
>>61791730
Shit I forgot which bike I was using in my example. Oh well, they're both superbikes and the descriptions still apply.
>>61789791
It's called Marxism.
>>61791633
>the crux of the argument, which is that statistical gaps do not imply oppression.
That's exactly why his argument is so fucking stupid. He is arguing against the misuse of statistics by misusing statistics.
>How about you fucking elaborate, Einstein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy
tl;dr: People are not statistical averages, and pointing this out is not the same as saying everyone is magically the same.
>If you're going to take issue with scientific sources published in peer reviewed databases which are referenced by a biology PhD, then you better fucking have something.
My issue isn't with the sources themselves, it's with the mongoloid citing them. He cherry picks random studies that tell him what he wants to hear. For example, he claims that one study about male aggression proves that male dominance is completely hereditary when metadata shows that causal links have yet to be conclusively established: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Aggression
He also makes a vague allusion to the John Money fiasco when actual neurological research into trannies has shown unusual results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality#Brain_structure
For that matter, he fails to prove that the evidence he cites is even related to the state of affairs at his place of work. Trying to derive empirical evidence from assumptions is called dry labbing and is a common fallacy.
>But even should his argument, as you claim, be entirely a fallacy, your assertion that he explained things as if he could read minds and that he used zero factual evidence to back things up is absolutely false and dishonest.
Bullshit. He directly asserts why it is that people believe what they do, and builds his arguments off of this. Accusations of incredibility are serious and require serious evidence, not statistical analysis of people that don't work at Google.
He is a dishonest moron complaining about dishonest morons.
>>61791976
Where is the ecological fallacy?
>>61791976
>He is arguing against the misuse of statistics by misusing statistics.
Submitting an alternate explanation or competing theory is not a misuse of statistics.
>tl;dr: People are not statistical averages
THIS WAS NEVER A CLAIM. As people have said time and again. Again, read the fucking thing for christ's sake.
>Bullshit. He directly asserts why it is that people believe what they do
He asserts that genetics and gender likely play a significant role in shaping a personality, and that this is a POSSIBLE explanation for why there are different distributions amongst different fields of work.
THE FAILURE TO ILLUSTRATE DIRECT CAUSAUL LINKS DOES NOT FALSIFY A THEORY.
LET ME REITERATE.
THE CENTRAL CLAIM is that assuming unequal demographic distributions amongst a certain field is the result of sexism or racism is harmful both to the company which institutes the policies, and to the people within it.
You continue to skirt around this point, and it's fucking infuriating.
Do so in the next post or I'm not continuing this argument.
>>61791976
Also, a timely reply would be appreciated.
I have things I have to do soon, unlike all of the worthless leeches who think it's a good idea to ruin the lives of people who hold opposing political viewpoints.
>>61791976
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy
>tl;dr: People are not statistical averages, and pointing this out is not the same as saying everyone is magically the same.
I don't suppose you happened to read this part of his manifesto, did you?
>Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
I repeat:
>so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
And yet he's committing the ecological fallacy?
>>61791976
>John Money
John Money was an experiment to prove that gender is entirely a social construct, Money was born a boy and TOLD that he was a girl.
If there are neurological differences in actual transsexuals (rather than failed experiments- John Money did eventually come to identify as a man), then it has no bearing on anything relating to John Money.
Anyone actually got a link to the full memo?
>>61792129
>tfw now arguing against the ecological fallacy is the ecological fallacy
Goddammit I hate this world.
>>61792195
Read the thread.
>>61789822
>>61792015
His whole talk of biases and, despite claiming not to believe in it, effective endorsement of genetic determinism.
>>61792058
>Submitting an alternate explanation or competing theory is not a misuse of statistics
And yet, similar "explanations" form the basis of the diversity politics he is critiquing. That is the point.
I know what the central claim is. I am complaining about how he attempted to defend it, not the claim itself.
>>61792129
What he said here directly conflicts with the point of his article. See above.
>>61792140
Money was the person who performed the experiment, not the subject of it, but that's beside the point. Evidence contrary to his statements is easily available. He made no effort whatsoever to be unbiased in a rant complaining about bias.
>>61792259
what do you want?
>>61792259
>effective endorsement of genetic determinism
A straw man
>>61792259
He's talking about population-level differences. Obviously those contribute to differences in the population of viable candidates for jobs.
>>61792259
>And yet, similar "explanations" form the basis of the diversity politics he is critiquing. >That is the point.
Yes, and he illustrates in the memo why it's a problem. Competing explanations are not given the time of day, and are actively punished. Running your company based on the assumption that these distributions are the result of discrimination and not effective hiring policies is a problem for the company, especially when you punish valuable contributors when they push back against this inertia.
>What he said here directly conflicts with the point of his article.
Have you read it yet?
Because it doesn't.
Allow me to post the relevant picture, because you're too dense to understand text, apparently.
>>61792259
>effective endorsement of genetic determinism.
No, it's an argument that equal opportunity gives more room for sexual and racial preferences to develop into uneven distributions, not that a certain race or sex is necessarily destined to do a certain thing.
Understanding nuance is important, and something you ought to work on.
>>61790377
Short for Brownstein of course.
>>61792259
>And yet, similar "explanations" form the basis of the diversity politics he is critiquing. That is the point.
You also seem to be missing the whole area where he discussed how important it was to express both of these ideas, because both of them may have a substantial amount of truth to them, and both must play a role if you're developing an effective strategy to create functional diversity.
>>61792289
>>61792347
He made absolute assertions about biology and human behavior that are demonstrably false with a quick search, not just the assumptions derived from statistical data. I literally just cited examples of this.
>>61792314
Population-level differences are also used to justify SJW politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model
How is that any different?
>>61792322
>Competing explanations are not given the time of day, and are actively punished. Running your company based on the assumption that these distributions are the result of discrimination and not effective hiring policies is a problem for the company, especially when you punish valuable contributors when they push back against this inertia.
Competing explanations miss the point entirely, to challenge the veracity on what is being explained to begin with. No one bothers to ask "do these disparate averages and ratios actually mean anything?" It is simply taken for granted that they are somehow evil and not merely probability at work.
It may not be justifiable, but to entertain feminist ideology as legitimate will almost certainly be followed with an intolerance for different views.
>>61792378
>how important it was to express both of these ideas, because both of them may have a substantial amount of truth to them
Two wrongs do not make a right. SJW authoritarianism is *inherent* to the presumptions that diversity politics are built on.
>>61792561
>demonstrably false with a quick search, not just the assumptions derived from statistical data. I literally just cited examples of this.
You did not.
You illustrated that the explanations still have explanatory gaps (when nobody has argued that they dont), not that they've been disproven.
>not merely probability at work.
You fucking serious, man?
You don't get outcomes like this with such large population sizes. Chances are infinitesimal, and become even moreso with repeat studies.
Are you at all familiar with what a t-test is?
>>61792611
>You don't get outcomes like this with such large population sizes
*randomly.
>>61792561
>He made absolute assertions about biology and human behavior that are demonstrably false with a quick search, not just the assumptions derived from statistical data. I literally just cited examples of this
I presume this is one of the examples you're talking about:
>For example, he claims that one study about male aggression proves that male dominance is completely hereditary when metadata shows that causal links have yet to be conclusively established
He never says that male dominance is completely hereditary. I have no idea what part of his essay you're even talking about, because it is so unfounded.
The closest thing I could find is the statement that men have a higher drive for status, about which he said this:
>Status is the primary metric that men are judged on [4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail
So... men are reacting to a social expectation that their value is associated with their status. He also mentions that this is biologically influenced.
He never even implies that "male dominance is completely hereditary".
(Incidentally, I doubt you really meant "metadata," maybe you were trying to reference metastudies. But that's beside the point.)
>>61791169
To play doubles advocate, the person is more diversive for a certain workspace because hiring him would rise diversity metric in that workspace.
>>61792611
>>61792629
>You illustrated that the explanations still have explanatory gaps (when nobody has argued that they dont), not that they've been disproven.
My point was that he falsely asserted that a causal link has been conclusively established, when it was not. "Not disproven" does not mean "proven", the ignorance fallacy works both ways.
>You don't get outcomes like this with such large population sizes. Chances are infinitesimal, and become even moreso with repeat studies.
>Are you at all familiar with what a t-test is?
I'm talking about women in the tech industry here.
>>61792655
>He never says that male dominance is completely hereditary. I have no idea what part of his essay you're even talking about, because it is so unfounded.
So... men are reacting to a social expectation that their value is associated with their status. He also mentions that this is biologically influenced.
In a citation he claimed that a certain behavior related to dominance and social status was culturally universal because of a causal biological trait. This behavior wasn't evidence of universal behavior as much as it was a study done in one culture to test the veracity of a theory that isn't culturally universal to begin with.
>He never even implies that "male dominance is completely hereditary".
He said it is universal and biological. If that doesn't imply full hereditary, then what the hell is heredity even measured by?
>(Incidentally, I doubt you really meant "metadata," maybe you were trying to reference metastudies. But that's beside the point.)
Meta-analysis was the word I think.
>>61792802
>He said it is universal and biological. If that doesn't imply full hereditary, then what the hell is heredity even measured by?
Okay, he's saying certain differences between males and females are observed across all human cultures (that's the universal part), and have biological underpinnings.
This *doesn't* mean that the entirety of the differences are biologically caused or hereditary, however. It could be the case that the biological component overwhelms the social component, but that doesn't mean that there is *no* social component.
And I stress that he's talking about distributions and averages, here. Saying that the differences are universal across all human cultures does not mean that the differences are universally observed between any given male and female, as he makes very clear with multiple diagrams.
>>61792802
>My point was that he falsely asserted that a causal link has been conclusively established
Cite me where he argues that it has. Remember that the point of the article was not to disprove or discredit other factors, but rather to bring to light an important possibility that is not being considered to the detriment of the company.
>I'm talking about women in the tech industry here.
It's still a huge sample of the population with demographic differences that clearly would clearly be significant as would be indicated by a t-test.
>>61790522
>There's a reason blacks are absent from sports! The white is physically superior! Blacks are only good for plodding farm labor! The proof is that none of them are even close to the white world record holders! Whites are just better!
>Some blacks are now competing in sports? Well, it's to be expected that there are some outliers in any group. Doesn't change that blacks as a group just aren't designed for our superior white cultural pastimes.
>Blacks are taking over sports? Well... I guess that's because they waste their time on such stuff instead of improving their minds! They'll never take over the captains' positions, they're just a mindless mob that needs a white person's firm hand to become anything!
>Blacks are now completely dominant in sports? Well, I guess that's just something they're good at. This shows just how good the white recruiters are at scouting talent!
>The recruiters are black? Good on the white team owner for picking them out!
>The teams are owned by blacks? Eh, why would I as a white person want to be involved in any of that anyway? As a patrician white person I know that sport is for watching. They're all just monkeys dancing for my approval!
This board is full of white male virgins who still live with their parents who argue all day for their "superiority" with a list of individual propagandist statements. It's quite funny.
>>61793079
Oh, look, another jackass who can't bother to read ten pages but still thinks his opinion on it matters.
You know the worst thing about this?
The only people willing to stick up for the guy are virtually all genuine right wing extremists.
When you force moderates into a position where they have to choose between one of two extremes, you have a serious problem.
>>61792903
>Okay, he's saying certain differences between males and females are observed across all human cultures (that's the universal part), and have biological underpinnings.
>This *doesn't* mean that the entirety of the differences are biologically caused or hereditary, however. It could be the case that the biological component overwhelms the social component, but that doesn't mean that there is *no* social component.
This is devolving into a semantic argument about how heredity is measured. It's missing the point.
>And I stress that he's talking about distributions and averages, here. Saying that the differences are universal across all human cultures does not mean that the differences are universally observed between any given male and female, as he makes very clear with multiple diagrams.
If the differences aren't strict, then how are they useful? How do we apply them here?
>>61793015
>Cite me where he argues that it has.
"this has biological origins and is culturally universal" is very clearly an absolute statement.
>Remember that the point of the article was not to disprove or discredit other factors, but rather to bring to light an important possibility that is not being considered to the detriment of the company.
I know. My argument was that his perspective does not learn a single thing from the failures of the diversity policies he is criticizing.
In particular, his concept of different opinions is unintelligible nonsense in and of itself.
>It's still a huge sample of the population with demographic differences that clearly would clearly be significant as would be indicated by a t-test.
Statistical significance is not empirical significance.
>>61793170
There are a good number of right-leaning people who are aware of biological differences between sexes/races, but aren't "extremists" by any stretch of the imagination.
>>61793201
>"this has biological origins and is culturally universal" is very clearly an absolute statement.
Culturally universal is demonstratably true, all cultures have delegated different tasks into fairly well defined gender roles.
But even then, this is not the same as saying that all individuals are the same, rather it's saying that the same factors are at work the world over, which implies this is not simply a social phenomenon.
>I know. My argument was that his perspective does not learn a single thing from the failures of the diversity policies he is criticizing.
In what sense?
He is not falsifying the ideas behind the policies, he is criticizing the exclusion and shaming of any opposition.
>Statistical significance is not empirical significance.
Sure, but it says with a very high margin of accuracy that there is far more than random chance involved, and this is what I was taking issue with in your statement; that these distributions are simply the result of chance.
>>61793201
>If the differences aren't strict, then how are they useful? How do we apply them here?
Differences in distributions can be enormously informative even if they don't tell you anything definitive about an individual.
For example, if you know the mean and standard deviation of a given trait in a given population, you can estimate what fraction of the population will have a value for that trait that falls within a given range. This can of course be extended to work with multiple traits as well.
To be more concrete, if two populations have stark differences on a collection of traits that might reasonably be suspected to predict interest in computer science (say, interest in things/systems, spatial manipulation ability, etc.) and these differences seem to be strongly biologically influenced and are present at an early age, then we might predict that one of the populations might produce more people with an interest in computer science. And if we see that in fact, there is this predicted disparity, maybe we should reconsider attributing it to, for example, sexism, when there's already an obvious explanation.
>These retards arguing still
Lmao
The guy who wrote the "manifesto" was correct
In fact, he didn't go far enough
>>61790075
>A biological difference caused by the different needs of men and women is inferior.
Ahh, the shoe is on the other foot you misogynist.
>>61793242
Of course gender differences exist in every culture, but he clearly opined on what he thinks causes this. It's not ambiguous.
>He is not falsifying the ideas behind the policies, he is criticizing the exclusion and shaming of any opposition.
Exactly. The ideas behind the policies are inherent to the problems of these policies.
>Sure, but it says with a very high margin of accuracy that there is far more than random chance involved, and this is what I was taking issue with in your statement; that these distributions are simply the result of chance.
First of all, you won't find any upper-body-strength disparities in IT. The ratio is more like ~1:3. Similarly, it's hardly hopeless for the strongest women to compete with the strongest men; in academia, high-achieving women in CS are less common, but hardly rare.
Second, I didn't say random chance, I said probability, matters of personal agency.
>>61793320
This is where I was trying to lead. What can be "reasonably suspected", as you described, is completely arbitrary.
If someone thinks linguistic reasoning and cooperative attitude are useless in programming, they're probably a shitty programmer.