Google Employee behind Anti-Diversity Memo Is “Exploring All Possible Legal Remedies”

M76 said:
Yes I can say it. And I call a hostile work environment where you're branded and fired for stating facts.
Click to expand...

That is what "At-Will" employment means....they can be fired for any reason. I love it when people come out of the woodwork because one employee got fired. Big fucking deal, live with it. If he has grounds, he can def sue.
 
It's called Careericide, you can believe anything you want to believe and you have the right to voice those opinions. You also have to live with the consequences. Anyone remember Jimmy the Greek?

Whether the person's point of view has merit or not there is just some stuff you don't write down and distribute not if you want to work that is.

I'm not a fan of hiring or promoting based on gender or race but on the best qualified candidate. However, a team of all the same color and gender tends to approach a problem from the same angle. Having a wide range of backgrounds and diversity should allow for the best ideas.
 
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-ab ... 3773ed1788

Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I’m very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to. Solitary work is something that only happens at the most junior levels, and even then it’s only possible because someone senior to you — most likely your manager — has been putting in long hours to build up the social structures in your group that let you focus on code.

All of these traits which the manifesto described as “female” are the core traits which make someone successful at engineering.
Click to expand...

Nuff said. People skills is hard, and beyond entry level there's more to engineering than pumping out code in a cubicle all day.
 
Wierdo said:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-ab ... 3773ed1788



Nuff said. People skills is hard, and beyond entry level there's more to engineering than pumping out code in a cubicle all day.
Click to expand...
Your right there is, but people skills is way too broad of a phrase for defining what makes an engineer and engineer. In fact, technical skills far outweigh the people skills needed to be a successful engineer.
Unless you think management or management skills is engineering, in which case you're wrong.
 
crono15 said:
The problem is, he actually noticed the statistics associated with Google's internal peer reviews submitted by their employees. Also, Google has been pushing hard to hire more women for at least 5-10 years. There is nothing wrong with hiring more women. Google hasn't be as successful at this and is still pushing hard for it. This is what led the former employee to voice what he believe is the real problem. All of the sudden, many employees including women who shares very well with the company's current ideology get completely offended and can't tolerate what he just said. It is ironic because they regularly preach diversity and tolerance.
Click to expand...
"Diversity" as a buzzword means not white males, so it's completely justified to them to throw this guy under the bus.
 
M76 said:
Yes I can say it. And I call a hostile work environment where you're branded and fired for stating facts.
Click to expand...

See, that only works when you twist hostility into some kind of end unto itself. In reality, you're just being a jerk whose breaking the social contract.

Tolerance is not a Moral Precept - Yonatan Zunger

But if you have ever tried to live your life this way, you will have seen it fail: “Why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” This comes in all sorts of forms: accepting a person’s actively antisocial behavior because it’s just part of being an accepting group of friends; being told that prejudice against Nazis is the same as prejudice against Black people;

...

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

...

What this teaches us is that tolerance, viewed as a moral absolute, amounts to renouncing the right to self-protection; but viewed as a peace treaty, it can be the basis of a stable society. Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse.
 
Though I might be one of the last in, on, or above our world to promulgate the pros of Herland (or perhaps itsland), I do know what they say about defecating where you eat.

I do hope Damore was prepped with a new job before assuming his rather public stance.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
It may be a fact that google is more focues on social diversity than cool new tech. But it isn't a fact that "women are not biologically suited for such work." As he so claimed. That's an unfounded discriminatory remark that isn't proven in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...
So it's ok for feminists to attack men for "toxic masculinity" and imply superiority over men but it's wrong to suggest men may have a higher probability of having higher technical aptitude?

There is nothing discriminatory to factually suggest that women are superior in some aspects to men and likewise men are superior to women in some aspects. Why do we have a paternalistic society? Because for tens of thousands of year whenever there was an essential task to be performed that was extremely dangerous it was men who went out to perform that task. Because it has always been men who perform tasks with life and death consequences it is men who have the final say in such matters...
 
STR said:
See, that only works when you twist hostility into some kind of end unto itself. In reality, you're just being a jerk whose breaking the social contract.

Tolerance is not a Moral Precept - Yonatan Zunger

But if you have ever tried to live your life this way, you will have seen it fail: “Why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” This comes in all sorts of forms: accepting a person’s actively antisocial behavior because it’s just part of being an accepting group of friends; being told that prejudice against Nazis is the same as prejudice against Black people;

...

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

...

What this teaches us is that tolerance, viewed as a moral absolute, amounts to renouncing the right to self-protection; but viewed as a peace treaty, it can be the basis of a stable society. Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing behavior and speech and conflating them to be both the same.
Difference of opinion and disagreement are normal and to be expected. You should tolerate that as others will inevitable also disagree with you and have a different opinion.
If you disagree, then whatever you mete out allows others to apply the same rules to you.
 
thejokker said:
So it's ok for feminists to attack men for "toxic masculinity" and imply superiority over men but it's wrong to suggest men may have a higher probability of having higher technical aptitude?

There is nothing discriminatory to factually suggest that women are superior in some aspects to men and likewise men are superior to women in some aspects. Why do we have a paternalistic society? Because for tens of thousands of year whenever there was an essential task to be performed that was extremely dangerous it was men who went out to perform that task. Because it has always been men who perform tasks with life and death consequences it is men who have the final say in such matters...
Click to expand...
you know, i kind of get it now. These people think that gender is a social construct and whatever sex you believe to be is the sex you are, therefore biological differences don't exist in their reality.
 
capt_cope said:
Meh. I think you deserve to be fired if you're stupid enough to make your opinions public (unless it's your opinion on your ability to meet the next deadline) at work.
Click to expand...
daglesj said:
What he did was really stupid knowing the company and environment he works in.
Click to expand...

Did everyone forgot how popular this "memo" of his just made him? For an entire day they were talking about it on national news. He may have been fired from Google, but I bet he has a whole list of better paying job offers lined up now. He probably already didn't like working at Google. Can you really think of a better way of finding a new job? Maybe he should have just quit and browsed LinkedIn instead? lol
 
thejokker said:
...it's wrong to suggest men may have a higher probability of having higher technical aptitude?

There is nothing discriminatory to factually suggest that women are superior in some aspects to men and likewise men are superior to women in some aspects.
Click to expand...

It's discrimination either way, but it's only justified if you actually have facts. If a woman can't carry a wounded soldier on her back (or equivalent weight) she can't join the infantry. Most women can't carry 200+ pounds, therefore most women are barred from the infantry. That's discriminatory, but because it's justified it's legal and accepted.

However, we're not talking about physical strength (of which there is ample evidence of disparity). We're talking about being an engineer. There is zero evidence one sex is inherently better at math and logic than the other. That's your, and the ex-Googler's, problem. He compounded his first mistake by putting it on blast, and thereby slagging all of his female coworkers who (if he wasn't fired) would be forced to work with a person who openly claims they're inferior.
 
thejokker said:
So it's ok for feminists to attack men for "toxic masculinity" and imply superiority over men but it's wrong to suggest men may have a higher probability of having higher technical aptitude?

There is nothing discriminatory to factually suggest that women are superior in some aspects to men and likewise men are superior to women in some aspects. Why do we have a paternalistic society? Because for tens of thousands of year whenever there was an essential task to be performed that was extremely dangerous it was men who went out to perform that task. Because it has always been men who perform tasks with life and death consequences it is men who have the final say in such matters...
Click to expand...

Your diverting. Both are toxic. It does not remove the fact that he states "Woman are biologicial inferior for such work" which is discriminatory against their ability.

The same arguments were used against the Tuskege Airmen as to why they couldn't fly fighters during WWII. They were some of the best and most devoted pilots ever.
 
GotNoRice said:
Did everyone forgot how popular this "memo" of his just made him? For an entire day they were talking about it on national news. He may have been fired from Google, but I bet he has a whole list of better paying job offers lined up now. He probably already didn't like working at Google. Can you really think of a better way of finding a new job? Maybe he should have just quit and browsed LinkedIn instead? lol
Click to expand...

Doubtful. I doubt he'll be working for any mega corp anytime soon if they know his background. He's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STR
like this
STR said:
See, that only works when you twist hostility into some kind of end unto itself. In reality, you're just being a jerk whose breaking the social contract.

Tolerance is not a Moral Precept - Yonatan Zunger

But if you have ever tried to live your life this way, you will have seen it fail: “Why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” This comes in all sorts of forms: accepting a person’s actively antisocial behavior because it’s just part of being an accepting group of friends; being told that prejudice against Nazis is the same as prejudice against Black people;

...

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

...

What this teaches us is that tolerance, viewed as a moral absolute, amounts to renouncing the right to self-protection; but viewed as a peace treaty, it can be the basis of a stable society. Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse.
Click to expand...



Tolerance simply means the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. If they preach tolerance, it means that they must be able to tolerate whatever they don't agree with. They inevitably fail the test when they attack someone for not having the same view that they hold. In other words, they are intolerant people that preaches tolerance to us. See the irony there?
 
STR said:
There is zero evidence one sex is better at math and logic than the other.
Click to expand...

Sadly this chump beta chose to construct his quack argument premised largely on evolutionary psychology, which is a borderline pseudoscience to begin with.

Once again we're seeing the facts don't matter crowd ignoring evidence (or lack thereof) because it does not comply with their antiquated world views.

The questions of whether one sex or the other is cognitively superior in certain ways are among the absolutely most intensely and extensively research in all of science. If there were meaningful differences that were relevant to a modern American workplace, then we would have found them by now.
 
GotNoRice said:
Did everyone forgot how popular this "memo" of his just made him? For an entire day they were talking about it on national news. He may have been fired from Google, but I bet he has a whole list of better paying job offers lined up now. He probably already didn't like working at Google. Can you really think of a better way of finding a new job? Maybe he should have just quit and browsed LinkedIn instead? lol
Click to expand...

He's not getting work outside of the political sphere. No big IT company wants to deal with one toxic man who screams "harassment lawsuit waiting to happen". Even Fox News doesn't tolerate that kind of risk. At best, he'll chase away female staff. At worst, million dollar plus settlement.

crono15 said:
Tolerance simply means the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. If they preach tolerance, it means that they must be able to tolerate whatever they don't agree with. They inevitably fail the test when they attack someone for not having the same view that they hold. In other words, they are intolerant people that preaches tolerance to us. See the irony there?
Click to expand...

For the second time on this freaking page...

Tolerance is not a Moral Precept - Yonatan Zunger

But if you have ever tried to live your life this way, you will have seen it fail: “Why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” This comes in all sorts of forms: accepting a person’s actively antisocial behavior because it’s just part of being an accepting group of friends; being told that prejudice against Nazis is the same as prejudice against Black people;

...

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

...

What this teaches us is that tolerance, viewed as a moral absolute, amounts to renouncing the right to self-protection; but viewed as a peace treaty, it can be the basis of a stable society. Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse.
 
EODetroit said:
Google has policies in place. They lay out what's expected of workers and the work environment. If you write an email and blast it to everyone saying you don't agree with those policies, you should be fired. End of story. It doesn't even get to the point of asking whether he had a point or not.
Click to expand...
If everyone was fired who disagreed with some company policy there would be no employees at any company ever. I mean it happens probably every 2-3 months that I disagree with some company policy, and judging by talking to my co-workers it is not just me, everyone disagrees with company policies from time to time. That's absolutely no grounds for termination. And he didn't blast it to co-workers, it went viral, meaning he probably shared it with one person then that one sent it to another and so on. That's what going viral means in case you didn't know.

Shotglass01 said:
Where I'm at, fully right to work, you don't. You don't need anything except to say insubordination which is such a vague and broad term it could cover almost any reason for firing. And we have, in most employment agreements, that termination can happen for no reason at all. Good luck getting anything out of that. Even the lawyers here would tell you to pound sand.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know what third world shithole you're employed in, but where I live the laws are very specific about employment contracts, and that anything that you put into the work contract that would reduce rights of the employee is automatically void. You can only add clauses that differs from the laws in favour of the employee. So even if some stupid company puts in "We can fire you for no reason" they cannot actually fire you without reason. They can let you go for economic reasons but then you're entitled to a severance package which is dependent on how long you worked at the company.
 
crono15 said:
Tolerance simply means the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. If they preach tolerance, it means that they must be able to tolerate whatever they don't agree with. They inevitably fail the test when they attack someone for not having the same view that they hold. In other words, they are intolerant people that preaches tolerance to us. See the irony there?
Click to expand...

There is no irony there - there's only your inability to see the world in shades of gray.

Sorry, but "tolerance" is not a binary state. My tolerance has its limits, and apparently so does Google's.
 
Gigantopithecus said:
There is no irony there - there's only your inability to see the world in shades of gray.

Sorry, but "tolerance" is not a binary state. My tolerance has its limits, and apparently so does Google's.
Click to expand...

Not even. Tolerance is a social contract where everyone agrees not to be a jerk to you simply because you're physically different or believe different things. Intolerance is deliberately breaking the social contract. Getting ostracized or canned for being a jerk is the termination penalty for breaking the contract.
 
BloodyIron said:
His thoughts were pretty extreme to say by today's standards. Him being fired doesn't surprise me one bit. I seriously doubt he has a legal leg to stand on.

It's one thing to have your own opinions, it's another to blast it out in a company wide memo.
Click to expand...
It depends, he was circulating it in an internal forum from the sounds of it. Its someone who got offended that took a screen cap and made the memo. If the initial discussion was in internal forum intended to be more permissive then he may have a leg if it was a different state. His views are also not extreme. Merit based hiring and promotions is Not Extreme. May ruffle the feathers of the cultural Marxists of the world.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
It may be a fact that google is more focues on social diversity than cool new tech. But it isn't a fact that "women are not biologically suited for such work." As he so claimed. That's an unfounded discriminatory remark that isn't proven in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...
I didn't read the manifesto. But I'm pretty sure that is not his conclusion it's just how the media choose to represent it.

But if that is really his conclusion of course it is incorrect. But not because of what you think. Women are closer to average, there are less exceptionally bright women, and there are less exceptionally stupid women as well. And since in tech you need exceptionally bright people to be effective, you're more likely to find them among men. Of course the exceptionally stupid people never make it to a tech field at all, so they're not part of this equation. So you have two groups one is made of men where 66% are average, and 33% are bright (these are not the actual numbers I'm just making an example to show the trend) and you have a group of women where 90% is avarege and 10% is exceptional. So in which group you're more likely to find the best candidate?

But that doesn't mean you can't find very bright women it's just harder. Does that mean you shouldn't hire women? Of course not. But the numbers shown alone will result in a discrepancy between women and men at tech companies. Now if you decide to have a policy that you have to hire the same amount of women as men, that will inevitably reduce the quality of people that you hire. Because you can't source the same amount of exceptional brains from women. If there is a suitable female candidate by all means hire her, I would too. But in most cases the best candidate based solely on knowledge will be a man. The picture is also further skewed because most women are not even encouraged to pursue a tech field. So we loose even more that way.

So if you want more women in tech the solution is not force hiring of women over more qualified men. It has to be built from the grounds up, meaning not sending little thimmy to IT club while sending little jenny to the barbie club.
 
STR said:
Not even. Tolerance is a social contract where everyone agrees not to be a jerk to you simply because you're physically different or believe different things. Intolerance is deliberately breaking the social contract. Getting ostracized or canned for being a jerk is the termination penalty for breaking the contract.
Click to expand...
being a jerk and not being a jerk is very subjective. Throwing around subjective ideas never ends well.
Social contracts aren't contracts. They're make believe agreements that you think were put into place without anyone discussing them.
 
M76 said:
I didn't read the manifesto. But I'm pretty sure that is not his conclusion it's just how the media choose to represent it.

But if that is really his conclusion of course it is incorrect. But not because of what you think. Women are closer to average, there are less exceptionally bright women, and there are less exceptionally stupid women as well. And since in tech you need exceptionally bright people to be effective, you're more likely to find them among men. Of course the exceptionally stupid people never make it to a tech field at all, so they're not part of this equation. So you have two groups one is made of men where 66% are average, and 33% are bright (these are not the actual numbers I'm just making an example to show the trend) and you have a group of women where 90% is avarege and 10% is exceptional. So in which group you're more likely to find the best candidate?

But that doesn't mean you can't find very bright women it's just harder. Does that mean you shouldn't hire women? Of course not. But the numbers shown alone will result in a discrepancy between women and men at tech companies. Now if you decide to have a policy that you have to hire the same amount of women as men, that will inevitably reduce the quality of people that you hire. Because you can't source the same amount of exceptional brains from women. If there is a suitable female candidate by all means hire her, I would too. But in most cases the best candidate based solely on knowledge will be a man. Know the picture is also further skewed because most women are not even encouraged to pursue a tech field. So we loose even more that way.

So if you want more women in tech the solution is not force hiring of women over more qualified men. It has to be built from the grounds up, meaning not sending little thimmy to IT club while sending little jenny to the barbie club.
Click to expand...


The manifesto is available at this link so it'd be good idea to read what he wrote.
 
M76 said:
I didn't read the manifesto. But I'm pretty sure that is not his conclusion it's just how the media choose to represent it.
Click to expand...

Go read it, particularly the footnotes, before acting like you know what you're talking about. He's advocating exactly what every says he does. He just couches his terms in an poor attempt at covering it.


Hypergreatthing said:
being a jerk and not being a jerk is very subjective.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just using it as a shorthand for bigger concepts which you can't seem to grasp. Go read the article I've posted above in reply #47.
 
Last edited:
I've already stated this on the Soapbox, but...

From my understanding, and I could be wrong here, he originally kept it within a small circle of people. One of them shared it within Google, hence it going internally viral. Some people didn't like that Google wasn't taking harsh measures, thus they decided to publicly air Google's dirty laundry.

(And the first public link via Vice was only an editorialized article about it. Even Gizmodo's approach removed all citations. If you want to offer a valid, non bias statement about such, these seem disingenuous).

Of course, at this point, Google has to do something and fire the guy. The content of the original memo is immaterial. They're a major company, and they need to take some sort of action from all the heat that has occurred. But, in my opinion, the person(s) who leaked it to Vice should also be terminated.

A lawsuit is a wrong way to approach the aftermath in my opinion. Personally, I feel though that this whole issue became large enough for predatory lawyers to want to get involved.

Overall though, my takeaway from his memo was it had several valid points. I don't know enough about the subjects though to take a stance on it, as I felt there were some invalid portions too. Still, my anger towards this incident comes more towards the retaliations of people who obviously didn't read it, or read only an editorialized variant. He gave citations. If you want to prove it wrong, it's easy enough. But I'm seeing more of a stance of people who are so intolerant of anyone who has an opposing opinion that just the mere act of providing an opposing opinion is wrong and paramount to a treasonous act. Even if he was factually wrong on every account, which hasn't been proven yet, isn't a civil approach better than the authoritarian screaming coming from the critics?
 
Gigantopithecus said:
There is no irony there - there's only your inability to see the world in shades of gray.

Sorry, but "tolerance" is not a binary state. My tolerance has its limits, and apparently so does Google's.
Click to expand...


Sure, I got a little test for you. I can tolerate everything what you said even if I don't agree with you. Will you tolerate what I would like to say including my Christian belief even if you don't agree with me? If we are able to pass this test, then we exercise tolerance towards each other. If you are unable to, then wouldn't it mean that you are not able to tolerate my beliefs and opinions?
 
M76 said:
And you should read the rest of my post.
Click to expand...

I did. I just didn't have a comment on it. So are you going to read the genesis of this debate or are you just going to assume you have all the answers?
 
GotNoRice said:
Did everyone forgot how popular this "memo" of his just made him? For an entire day they were talking about it on national news. He may have been fired from Google, but I bet he has a whole list of better paying job offers lined up now. He probably already didn't like working at Google. Can you really think of a better way of finding a new job? Maybe he should have just quit and browsed LinkedIn instead? lol
Click to expand...


And as per usual with these kinds of people they will dig through his online past and probably find out he is a white supremacist or real sleaze ball.

The phone stops ringing...
 
M76 said:
I didn't read the manifesto. But I'm pretty sure that is not his conclusion it's just how the media choose to represent it.

But if that is really his conclusion of course it is incorrect. But not because of what you think. Women are closer to average, there are less exceptionally bright women, and there are less exceptionally stupid women as well. And since in tech you need exceptionally bright people to be effective, you're more likely to find them among men. Of course the exceptionally stupid people never make it to a tech field at all, so they're not part of this equation. So you have two groups one is made of men where 66% are average, and 33% are bright (these are not the actual numbers I'm just making an example to show the trend) and you have a group of women where 90% is avarege and 10% is exceptional. So in which group you're more likely to find the best candidate?

But that doesn't mean you can't find very bright women it's just harder. Does that mean you shouldn't hire women? Of course not. But the numbers shown alone will result in a discrepancy between women and men at tech companies. Now if you decide to have a policy that you have to hire the same amount of women as men, that will inevitably reduce the quality of people that you hire. Because you can't source the same amount of exceptional brains from women. If there is a suitable female candidate by all means hire her, I would too. But in most cases the best candidate based solely on knowledge will be a man. The picture is also further skewed because most women are not even encouraged to pursue a tech field. So we loose even more that way.

So if you want more women in tech the solution is not force hiring of women over more qualified men. It has to be built from the grounds up, meaning not sending little thimmy to IT club while sending little jenny to the barbie club.
Click to expand...
Glad you brought this up. He may have been wrong to say it's a biological thing, but there is no denying the data.

upload_2017-8-8_12-30-56.png


Instead of trying to correct the perceived issue after it's too late, we can instead focus more of our efforts into mentoring during grade school. And for god's sake, don't force any child into something they don't want to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
DigitalGriffin said:
If you were a woman there, would you want to work with him? If you are a woman candidate with him there, would you apply?
Click to expand...

And this is why when I hear the argument that the lack of women in [insert field] is just a result of benign choices, especially if the argument fails to question what might influence those choices, I call bullshit.

Why would anyone want to enter a culture where their gender made them suspect? If tech wasn't full of horror stories, I could have a lot of sympathy for the choice argument--but tech was created by white men and is largely populated by white men (with various Asian ethnicities coming in second). It isn't a chicken-and-egg question--we know what came first: The founders of the industry set its culture, and are resisting changing that culture.
 
crono15 said:
Sure, I got a little test for you. I can tolerate everything what you said even if I don't agree with you. Will you tolerate what I would like to say including my Christian belief even if you don't agree with me? If we are able to pass this test, then we exercise tolerance towards each other. If you are unable to, then wouldn't it mean that you are not able to tolerate my beliefs and opinions?
Click to expand...

I am a professor at a medical school and my research specialty is evolutionary anatomy. I am happy to have you share with my students how your religion inspires you to care for your fellow humans. It is a simple fact, and there's nothing problematic with it. I know there are shitbags who think any whiff of religion is offensive but that's them being intolerant. I am happy to have you share with my students that you consider Christ to be a masterful healer. Hell, my own personal primary care doctor is very, very religious. He's an outstanding physician. As an atheist, I tolerate his religiosity because it does not interfere with his ability to do his job, and arguably it makes him better at his job.

The problem arises when you start telling my students that evolution is not real. That is a false statement not founded on facts, and it harms their ability to perform their jobs as physicians because they won't understand how bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, as just one example.

I have seen a medical school professor get fired for telling students that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism. That belief is both false and dangerous. It is intolerable in the professional context of teaching physicians.
 
Look, it's wrong to look at people and determine your behavior towards them because of their skin color or genitalia, so we're going to base our hiring/promotion on skin color or genitalia.

If you think that statement has internal logic, your belief system is at odds with mine. Can you tolerate me?
 
Nytegard said:
Glad you brought this up. He may have been wrong to say it's a biological thing, but there is no denying the data.
Click to expand...

You don't need to deny something that's already been discredited. There is no modern model of intelligence that can be reduced to a single axis. There isn't even a real test for intelligence. Even the IQ test is really just a test of how well you can complete IQ tests. You can practice taking them and significantly improve your score. They're long known to be culturally biased.

Like everything else he premises his argument on, the man is trying to pass pseudoscience off as objective fact.
 
I figured he would get fired, but not everything he says is wrong. Most media and corporations are so far left these days, they are doing their best to normalize the biologically and socially abnormal behaviors of people, to the point were they are completely over-representing reality. Personally, I think he has a discriminatory lawsuit against Alphabet, and if he can get the other google employees that were dismissed or held back because of their political views/opinions, he will make a more compelling case.
 
STR said:
Go read it, particularly the footnotes, before acting like you know what you're talking about. He's advocating exactly what every says he does. He just couches his terms in an poor attempt at covering it.




No, I'm just using it as a shorthand for bigger concepts which you can't seem to grasp. Go read the article I've posted above in reply #47.
Click to expand...
Bull fucking shit. I've just read it. And it communicates the exact same concerns that I have, and most honest people have that looked at diversity politics objectively. Nowhere did it say that they shouldn't hire women or that women are unsuitable to work at a tech company. If you think that's what he's saying then you're misrepresenting it as well, either on purpose or due to lack of understanding of the nuances.
 
Gigantopithecus said:
I am a professor at a medical school and my research specialty is evolutionary anatomy. I am happy to have you share with my students how your religion inspires you to care for your fellow humans. It is a simple fact, and there's nothing problematic with it. I know there are shitbags who think any whiff of religion is offensive but that's them being intolerant. I am happy to have you share with my students that you consider Christ to be a masterful healer. Hell, my own personal primary care doctor is very, very religious. He's an outstanding physician. As an atheist, I tolerate his religiosity because it does not interfere with his ability to do his job, and arguably it makes him better at his job.

The problem arises when you start telling my students that evolution is not real. That is a false statement not founded on facts, and it harms their ability to perform their jobs as physicians because they won't understand how bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, as just one example.

I have seen a medical school professor get fired for telling students that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism. That belief is both false and dangerous. It is intolerable in the professional context of teaching physicians.
Click to expand...


I'm only talking about what tolerance itself really means. My question, will you tolerate what I have to say including my position on evolution that you will certainly disagree with? Will you want me to be totally silent about this because you would rather not have your students hear about what I have to say? If that is the case, then that means you are not able to tolerate my views on evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top