Left-wing retards get mad at Google employee's anti-PC manifesto

Well that was either very brave or very stupid of him. With the state of the whole technology sector he has basically signed the death warrant of his career with that. Upsetting the accepted ideology can not be tolerated so he will very likely be fired shortly and blacklisted by every other company.

What else do you expect from a company that actively seeks to erode your individual freedom

The company should be fined billions for treason and have its business license suspended

>>165214
>>Google employees are up in arms after a senior engineer at the company penned an anti-diversity manifesto that has spread through the company like wildfire.

He sounds like a pussy who already has one foot out the door and fell more the meme that hiring for diversity actually changes anything. Tech offices will continue to be full of white people with outrageously colored hair. Hiring two black people, an asian woman and an Indian for tech support isn't gonna change that.

>>165214
Just a reminder that moot now works at Google and was probably one of those triggered leftfags.

>>165214
I've found those people who don't vomit out their politics opinions on que generally are more conservative as the current climate of liberal facism doesn't allow dissent. This is why you only hear shrill shrieking off leftists because they are the bullies.

...aaaaaaaaand he got fired

>Man who calls google out on ideological echo chamber gets fired for not having same ideology as google

Reads like something out of the onion

The guy is already suing

https://twitter.com/daiwaka/status/894747912701263873

>He writes a bait memo
>Google takes bait and spergs out
>Google fires him
>Google getting sued in Trump's america
>With Trump's DOJ
>With Trump's supreme court

>HIRING BASED ON MERIT IS RACIST
>HIRING BASED ON SKIN COLOR IS GOOD AND JUST
wtf is going

>>165306
Moot may pretend to be outraged to fit in, but him and his colleagues know he agrees, id be surprised if anyone there is even buddies with him, knowing the site he created

tech companies barely hire anybody compared to how much money they make
who cares, let them hire a few useless shitskins and vaginas, they can afford it
The company that doesnt and hires based on ability will always come out on top in the end

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

Heres the original "manifesto" with his real name, citations and graphics. If I were a betting man Id say 7/8 of the people upset over this havnt even read what the guy said. He will get a massive payout from Google. They may have good lawyers, but their accountants are likely good enough to know its cheaper to toss him a few million and a gag order.

>>165718
I'd love to see God Emperor Dr. President Trump telling Google that they just got fired.

>>165277
> have its business license suspended

you have no idea how this works, do you?

>>165796
>If I were a betting man Id say 7/8 of the people upset over this havnt even read what the guy said.

This. I've read so many comments about this from people who obviously haven't read it because they're completely misrepresenting its contents.

>>165214
Wow, you're telling me an employee got fired for sending out a strong ideological manifesto to 50,000 of his colleagues? Stop the presses!

It doesn't matter how right he was about anything, that kind of shit can and should get you fired. I can understand why no one would want to work with a person like this.

>>165844
b-but he's EXPOSING the AUTHORITARIAN LEFT'S LIBERAL LIES!!!1! he's so brave!! he's a HERO!

There are a lot of sweeping generalizations made in the memo.

I can't refute any of them because I haven't done any research or study in the area, but they seem to be highly opinionated, with minimal citation provided.

I get the feeling this memo should have been about ten times longer, given the topics it broaches.

I love how feminists are calling this whole thing sexist (without reading it apparently), yet there's this paragraph which basically says "feminism is working and men need to follow suit".

"The male gender role is currently inflexible
○ Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender
role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. 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."

>>165860
exactly. I've read the memo. All he does is make huge generalizations about the average woman. His statements have a vague backing in psychology but he's making the huge error of assuming traits of the average woman should mean all woman carry those traits in some form. Even bigger is his error assuming that women at Google would be an accurate representation of women in general. Google has 72,000 employees, whereas there are nearly 4 billion women in the world. Google is a successful company and so the women who work there are likely exceptional and a terrible group to try and apply generalizations about average women to. That's why it sounds stupid when he goes on about how women prefer "social or artistic" jobs and trying to apply that to women who've applied to work at one of the largest tech companies....

>>165214
>Conservatives get triggered when they realize that there are consequences in life.

Why is this even a story, let alone a controversy? Google can do whatever they want with respect to hiring and firing employees. They are just trying to protect their reputation as any rational company would.

>>165869

I think it's the media trying to make an example of the guy - ensure that people who think discrimination-based 'diversity' is a sham stay quiet.

>>165876
I disagree. This is nothing but manufactured outrage created by far right Conservatives to promote tribalism. Just look at the OP's subject line.

>>165903
I disagree. Regardless of how antagonistic OP's subject line is there are too many layers to this story to write it off as just "manufactured outrage"

Although google has a right to fire who they please, their reasoning behind this particular firing is very questionable

>>165865
> I've read the memo. All he does is make huge generalizations about the average woman
Not even reading the rest of your post. You haven't read this paper at all. He points out early on that its people forcing diversity pigeonholing people by group instead of treating them as individuals. He even drew a little graph so you could see what "average" means vs what HR declares it means. Or did you read the edited thing gizmodo put out?

>>165905
>A controversial fellow gambles with Google's reputation. Google doesn't like this and as any rational company would, fires him.
That's really the extent of what happened. The "many layers" are external factors exploiting partisan baises.

>>165796
I'm actually a little shocked how badly most news outlets are torturing the reading of this memo. I knew the progressive echo chamber was bad but dayum.

By firing him, Google only proved him right. These left-wing online stormtroopers need to go.

>>165908
Oh you're concerned about biases huh?
Okay then disregarding the ""politically charged"" material it the document,
I don't see how an employee writing a memo to his colleagues offering suggestions as to how he believes they could improve their company leads you to summarize the situation as"A controversial fellow gambles with Google's reputation"
You're expressing your bias more than the people concerned with the rationale behind the firing and the media outrage which is only proving the fellow's point

>>165920
>twist the argument into something totally unrelated when you can't defend your own point. Classic.

Look anon, all I'm saying is that a business decision has been twisted into a controversy for partisan gain. This former employee roused the rabble, Google didn't want the attention, so they attempted to get away from it and fired the fellow.
If the Far-Right hadn't seized on this to further their narrative, he most likely would have kept his job.

Even if I agree (but I haven't read it because it won't change anything) going against company culture like this usually is a no-no.

>>165865
>assuming traits of the average woman should mean all woman carry those traits in some form.
you obviously didnt read the memo.

>>165214
Framing this as a left wing reaction to an anti-pc paper just isn't true.

This is literally just a bunch of retard media groups falsely reporting on a document they didn't read the entirety of. Anybody who has read the thing knows this isn't a pc vs non-pc thing.

It's literally just a paper from a guy belonging to a group that's supposed to discuss controversial ideas. Some buttmad google employee probably leaked it.

>>165941
All I'm saying is that Google's business decision is controversial enough to warrant concern and discussion beyond you're oversimplified synopsis there

>>165903
In a case of irony, google firing him and the rejection of what the memo said is them promoting tribalism.

>>165214
>Try to find full manifesto
>links in OP article go to Vice and Gizmodo
fugg

>>165995
I think some people on reddit have copy pasted it in it's entirety.

>>165978
Would you expect anything less from the dear leaders? Divide and conquer is their only winning strategy

>>165995
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html

Enjoy

>>166045
Jesus. Actually reading the thing, it becomes /incredibly/ apparent that anyone calling this guy a sexist and most of the news outlets reporting about this did not read it.

>>166049
It starts strong, falls off the rails 1/3 of the way in and then comes back around in the last 2 pages. The guy really fucked himself by referencing the pay gap and other issues which are not inherent to Google. He really should have pared this down to a 2-3 page document which addressed the issue with hiring and policy bias and his solutions.

>>166051
Wouldn't matter what solutions he put in at the end, all the media would report is that it's the work of a HE-MAN WOMAN HATER

>>165306
wurd

You would think he would have consulted Jerry McGuire before he made his decision to release his manifesto....

https://youtu.be/TohbD69ugSA

just a little humor!

>>165941
>The Media and retarded progressives roused the rabble, Google didn't want the attention, so they attempted to get away from it and fired the fellow.
ftfy

>>165941
It's the firing, and the firing alone, that furthers the right-wing narrative. The left is the one that whipped up the shitstorm by maligning the memo as an "anti-diversity screed" among other things and castigating the guy as an anti-diversity sexism denier.
The firing combined with the left-wing media attention is so perfectly ignorant and hypocritical you'd think The Onion had engineered it.

>>165995
Already posted itt >>165796
Most news agencys stripped the citations graphics and, oddly enough, his real name.

As bad as I feel for the guy that got fired his "sacrifice" helps end the left in the united states. Thats a good thing

Same was the case for the people who lost their businesses during the blacklviesmatter chimpouts. Those chimpouts helped get trump elected and ultimately end that stupid terror group.

>>165796
> If I were a betting man Id say 7/8 of the people upset over this havnt even read what the guy said.
Of course not, the left works in mob mentallity. They suffer frmo collective outrage bias.

I would also add to the point that most are probably mad because they can't refute the points. Its the MO of the american left. The louder they scream the more truth there is.

>>165214

>manifesto

InigoMontoya.jpg

>>165214
I really don't know what to make of this situation but I think some people aren't noting one important point.

It's revealing the absurdity of the extreme left wing mindset. In the same way we now all laugh or denote extreme right wing groups, I think this may open the public, or at least expose the pent up frustration on a lot of these left wing grounds and their mindset.

I and many others are fed up with it but we are just hopeless members of the public trying to get on with our lives. But the frustration is there and I hope that this mindset, in the same way that the KKK is a laughing stock, will follow suite.

>>165943
He would've been replaced by a blackoid in the near future anyways. Might as well go out with a small bang.

>>166339
>extreme right wing groups
Nice meme.

>>165908
No. Google was internally LITERALLY SHAKING because they're far-left authoritarians that want to seek all dissent, even external (that's why they censor the truth about Islam, etc.).

i believed in white privilege, but then this week a sexist, racist, transphobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, nazi, bigot, fascist, white male at Google put out a manifesto of sexist, racist, transphobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, nazi, bigoted, fascistic hate, and he was protected by his white male privilege shield and still works at Google rather than being fired.

>>166339
>extreme left wing mindset
>extreme right wing groups
No such thing.
>the KKK is a laughing stock
...Huh?

>>166525
0/10

The real story here is: What does this engineer know! He is pissed! They are scared he might start talking. Hope he has a good lawyer and a good security guard cause if he starts talking or leaking his days will be numbered. Google has many secrets. Was he privy to some?

>>166529
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Apparently he was invited to a secretive "Diversity Summit", secretive because it wasn't recorded and publicly accessible like most Google meetings, and briefed on how to increase "diversity" by selectively hiring women and minority candidates. He thought this was pretty bad and made some criticism -- how to get diversity without filling specific gender and race quotas. While the memo initially fell upon deaf ears, he eventually posted it to a "skeptics" group at Google and it blew up into what you see today.

The guy deserved to be fired.

From a corporate perspective, he was a fucking idiot. No clearance, yet he leaks this politically controversial manifesto shitting on his company, that's currently being pulled through the wringer over diversity in recruitment, creating a pr disaster for Google. They'd be mad not to fire him.

HOWEVER, that's where it fucking ends. This witchunt by the twatterati and every other perpetually offended cuck is disgusting. He made some very convincing points and was incredibly measured in what he critiqued and advocated, offering positive solutions and emphasizing that he's against pigeonholing. This baying for blood over literal whos having political views they don't agree with needs to stop.

>>166693
He wasn't the one who leaked it.

>>166694
Really?
How'd it get out? I have greater sympathy for him it that's the case.

>>166693
He didn't leak the memo.
If he's raising questions about potentially illegal working conditions, then he is actually shielded from being fired for raising said questions even in an at-will employment state like California.

>>166695
Probably someone who read it and got angry.

>>166696
>illegal working conditions
I assume by this you mean positive discrimination. Yeah, if he construes his manifesto as whistleblowing, then he may have a case.

>>166669
>While the memo initially fell upon deaf ears, he eventually posted it to a "skeptics" group at Google and it blew up into what you see today.

Do you have a direct citation for that? I see people screeching about how it was the evuuul liberals who put it out into the Google messaging system to slander him, which doesn't make sense; why write this only to keep it private? That said, I can't find a good timeline that says, "Damore posted it here, at this time, and from there it got onto the broader inter-Google network, and from there out into the world."

I like how often this gets discussed and nobody brings up the fact that he directly insulted Google. It doesn't matter what job you have or what political views you espouse, if you accuse your bosses of being authoritarians arbitrarily punishing certain people (points so key to him that he includes it in the tl;dr) you are going to catch flak.

The politics could be entirely reversed and Jimmy would still be in trouble for essentially calling his bosses fickle and controlling.

>>166701
>positive discrimination
What a load of crock.

>>166848
You're absolutely right. Much like "reverse" racism it is a load of shit. Discrimination is discrimination, just like racism is racism. The target should be irrelevant.

>>165214
The guy is a brainlet yo. He probably has an asian fetish too.

>>166848
this
In one of my textbooks, Affirmative Action is defined as "fair discrimination"

>>166848

Well how do you define discrimination?

We may not have institutional discrimination like "no girls allowed in my class!" but since culture and socioeconomic status are heritable we still suffer from the effects of past institutional discrimination.

There was a time when women were discriminated against in technical fields, and today a disproportionate folks in tech are male partly as a result of that. For example, if almost all folks in high school CS classes are boys, that might discourage girls from joining out of fear they don't belong.

So if we divert some resources to make girls feel more welcomed to help level the playing field, that's a sort of discrimination in favor of women, but there's some long-term
macroeconomic benefit to having a society where people enter fields purely on the basis of interest / aptitude rather than because relevant classes in high school were more suited to a different demographic for reasons of past institutional discrimination. A more meritocratic society in the long term offers some benefit.

It's worth asking how much we should devote as a society to leveling the playing field and questioning when the playing field will be leveled. It's surely possible to go in the other extreme and for example set a quota that's too costly in terms of competitiveness of a company such that in the long term it isn't worth the economic cost. But there's probably an optimal balance.

>>166978
As you increase occupational freedom in countries, women actually tend away from STEM and lean towards traditional feminine roles

This flies in the face of the majority of what you're saying.

But to your other point, if women are so fragile and mentally unsure that a boy mocking them is enough to dissuade them from taking a position they have passion for then obviously they don't cut the mustard so to speak. Life is tough and work is stressful, there's no room for coddling. If you want a stress free job, go bake cookies for your daughters school bakesale.

>>166981
Let's first produce equality of opportunity and once we have that and disproportionate representation still exists across different demographics, we can feasibly question the roll of biological differences in the context of a complex society in expecting equality of outcome.

As far as the example of the boy mocking the girl as a sort of discrimination that is still common, I tend to agree that the best way to eliminate a stereotype is for the target to demonstrate themselves to the contrary. I just think we can afford reasonable investment as a society toward helping to facilitate that.

>>166987
We HAVE equality of opportunity. Whst you want is equality of outcome.

We don't NEED proportionate represtation.

How about banks and Hollywood? Too many Jews, why not ask for more proportionate represtation?

How about hair salons and nail parlors? Too many Vietnamese.

How about doctors and convenience store clerk's? Too many Indians.

How about elementary teachers and nurses? Too many women.

What this boils down to is WHITE MEN - we only need "proportionate represtation" and "diversity" in fields traditionally headed by men, and generally white men. I never see women wanting to be truck drivers or miners or water treatment experts. (All pay well btw)

And women and men are different. They like different things as a general rule.

>>165727
on

>>165796
That guy is a retard, i agree that you shouldn't consider race or sex when hiring a person, but outside that everything he said is fucking retarded

>>166998
Elaborate why he is a retard? You are not very convincing.

>>166978
>and today a disproportionate folks in tech are male partly as a result of that.
No? It's because women aren't fucking interested in the field for fucks sake. It's not that hard. Most peoples interests are defined as a child and how often do you see little girls going on about how they want to be in tech fields when they are older or have that shit as hobbys? Last I recall, they were more likely to call people who found that shit interesting fucking nerds. Women just aren't interested in the field.

>>166978
>So if we divert some resources to make girls feel more welcomed to help level the playing field
>some resources
>""""""some"""""" resources

> It's surely possible to go in the other extreme
we already reached that point