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

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Aug 8, 2017.

  1. dbr1

    dbr1 [H]Lite

    Messages:
    87
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    As someone else replied, the chart doesn't show why men score better than women in math, only that they do. Consistently. Over decades. (I chose the SAT math test because it was easily accessible, well understood, large sample size etc, but results are not divergent from other tests of mathematical performance. Also: SAT is taken by a population of high school students well before significant specialization in studies starts).

    Why the different outcomes? Can we attribute all of the difference to cultural reasons? Seems very unlikely. Male and female brains are anatomically dimorphic starting from the earliest stages of fetal development. Differences in cognition and behavior are noted in infancy. Functional differences should be expected.

    This is not to say that men are superior to women, just that they seem, on average as groups, to have different aptitudes and propensities. As mentioned before, women are better at language, among other things. I'm pretty sure that is exactly what Damore said, although not how you described it.

    Selecting the math aptitude test scores of a population of women who choose to major in quantitative sciences would actually be a biased approach to selection and not answer the question at hand about aptitude/abilities in the general population of females/female students. Females who choose engineering is a small and atypical subset of females.

    So the question to you is, do you believe that on average men and women have exactly equal aptitudes in all areas of cognitive performance and preference? That all observed differences in these areas are caused by cultural conditioning and biases?
     
    Armenius and thejokker like this.
  2. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Ohh, boo hoo. Men are more likely to get killed across the world. Out of 193 out of 202 countries have higher rates of men being murdered than females (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender). Should i as a man be afraid of this? Why do you suggest women should be worried?

    Look up hate crimes

    Every single generation can improve their situation to make their kid's lives better. Working 3 dead end jobs to make ends meat means that you fucked up your childhood/school life and made awful choices. Not being married before you have children or an education/job/career is a bad choice.

    Discrimination is already illegal. Extra spending in K-12 education doesn't do crap. You need a good family that pushes scholastic excellence on their own children.
    There's a lot of wealth mobility in the US. Thinking that it's the wealthy's responsibility to finance the bad choices of those who raise shitty kids is crap. There's so many jobs that you can do without a great education that will give you the ability to make a decent living. All the high paying jobs need an education. Just going to college doesn't mean anything anymore, you have to be enrolled in a decent major. It really all starts with the family life and the kids and how much you really spend time with them as a parent and pushing them to do good in school and tutoring them yourself.
     
    Deleted member 184142 likes this.
  3. MikeTrike

    MikeTrike [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,191
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    ProTip: Make sure you've got a meme lined up for each time it rolls a page...

    upload_2017-8-9_22-42-16.png
     
    CrimsonKnight13, Madoc, c3k and 6 others like this.
  4. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,455
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    He was arguing against diversity politics not against women. That's pretty clear if you read the full text, the subject of this thread IS diversity politics at the workplace. Even if some try to misrepresent it as something else.
    Nope, he suggested that they were biologically different. And again for god knows how many times I already explained this. Concluding that women as a group is less inclined for tech is not berating to the actual individuals surrounding him. Anyone mashing together individuals and groups is engaged in identity politics. STOP IT PLEASE! You're not the group you belong to, you're an individual. Just because you come from a line of people inclined to crime, doesn't make you specifically a criminal.
    Do what stuff? Recognizing objectively demonstrable facts based on recorded observable statistics? The only scenario in which this would be unfounded subjective bias is if women are biologically 100% identical to men, which we know is not the case, I hope I don't have to cite proof of that.

    Citation needed. I haven't seen a single unbiased study with representative numbers into this. Companies are very secretive about diversity hire policies because they know they're most likely illegal. There is just no objective way to measure how much diversity politics affect workplace performance. The people interested in the results are most likely expecting a specific outcome so it's impossible to get accurate trustworthy results unless they're audited by an unbiased third party.
    There are so many factors that affect the performance, the type of work being one. That it's not really measurable, so we're relying on what the actual companies present to us who engage in this.
    I've seen first hand what forced diversity can do to a workplace, make it into a backstabbing vile, inhospitable space. When people just suspect that you've been hired for one of your non work related traits and not your actual work experience, you're already doomed. Of course places like google can try to suppress this but it's no use. Do you honestly think that a lot of the other employees don't agree with this guy? They're just afraid to speak up, and it seems rightly so. So a workplace where secretly everyone hates the guts of every diversity hire but don't say anything openly is a good environment for women? I feel sorry for the women who actually could make it on their own and not just trough diversity quotas and concessions made by others on their behalf, but instead are just treated as one more diversity hire.

    Actual women don't want to be treated as children, they hate it when they're being patronized.
    Oh no, cliffhanger ending.
    The real story is not how much diversity hire affect job performance, because depending on the type of job it can be minimal. The important question is how much it affects workplace dynamics and community.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
    Madoc, Tsumi, Armenius and 1 other person like this.
  5. LostInRehab

    LostInRehab Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    427
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    What is hilarious to me is the fact that a lot of the people have obviously not read the original document that was posted by the employee. This is largely in part because the https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf actual document is objective based and has many scientific citations and is backed by research which is precisely why they had to butcher it and make it seem like he said things that were not said in the document to start a fight that they would not win if anyone with any degree of logic read the document otherwise.

    This is very analogous to many of the times Kyle would post an article on this very site and then have to reply in these very forums to users to READ THE *$#!()_ ARTICLE because clearly they had not.
     
    John721, Madoc, c3k and 3 others like this.
  6. mope54

    mope54 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,437
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    He cites wiki and Schmitt who wrote a rebuttal today that Damore misused his research article. The reason for citations in a publication is so that people can evaluate the sources. You can argue that people haven't read Damore's piece, but as previously pointed out, you haven't read the sources he cites (which aren't many despite what you wrote) because they don't conclude what he believes they do.

    So far numerous people in this thread either misuse or misunderstand the scientific nomenclature. Misused/misunderstood terms include, but aren't limited to, the null hypothesis, meta-analysis, and statistical significance.
     
    mesyn191 likes this.
  7. LostInRehab

    LostInRehab Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    427
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007

    Did you even read the original document and the Schmitt rebuttal https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences ? Here is a quote from the rebuttal
    Kind of highlights the employees observation about the issue don't you think? But to be honest people don't think nor is reading comprehension a strong suit anymore.
     
    lolfail9001, Madoc, Tsumi and 4 others like this.
  8. mope54

    mope54 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,437
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    I'm not sure you understood what you were reading. How can you cite a footnote and then ignore his basic premise:
    "Still, it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace?"
     
    mesyn191 likes this.
  9. JustReason

    JustReason razor1 is my Lover

    Messages:
    2,485
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2015
    First it was to explain the shortage/small pool not why they shouldn't hire women and then how to remedy the pool issue by changing some aspects of the workplace to entice greater numbers.

    Also as a point of reference, where are you from and where do you live currently?
     
    lolfail9001 and Armenius like this.
  10. thejokker

    thejokker Gawd

    Messages:
    821
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Bullsh*t..

    After the tech bubble burst in the late 1990's and there was a sudden surplus in tech workers it was hard to find a good job. My twin sister with no computer or internet experience to speak of was hired to manage the county government webpage of one of the major cities in America. At her final interview, the interviewer remarked "Great... a woman! Too bad you're not black!" and they both laughed... I couldn't even get a first interview despite having tons more experience. At least since the 1990's women get preferential treatment in the hiring process at major companies and local, state and federal governmental positions. Feminists have seized control of the tenure and admission boards at Universities.

    This is not about equality; this is about domination and the minimization of men by radical feminists. Tech jobs are good paying jobs and feminists want those jobs not through merit but by political activism. Those who support the radical feminist agenda are not more intelligent and they are not more enlightened. They are toady stooges playing the role of pawns for their feminist masters...
     
    Madoc, c3k, Tsumi and 8 others like this.
  11. D4rkn3ss

    D4rkn3ss 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,594
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
  12. lilbabycat

    lilbabycat 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,810
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Those that are "constantly" worrying about such issues shouldn't be given jobs of significant responsibility. These people clearly have mental health issues, ones that shouldn't be normalized as you are attempting to paint as the reality of such groups. If you truly believe this is how all women and entire niche-groups think, then I can only assume your view of the world is incredibly distorted (which I do, given your other post history).

    Disagree on this. Policing people's thoughts and behavior will only lead to more polarization (as we've seen in the past several decades) and minimal results vs expenditure (as we've seen in the past several decades). Your last part about "hating taxes buuuuuut" is just MORE lefty delusion that throwing money at a problem will fix it. It will do the exact opposite, it will create more issues (as we've seen in the past several decades).

    tldr: I have no moral obligation to be everyone else's crutch in life.
     
    Jon855, Madoc, Nytegard and 4 others like this.
  13. Dillirium

    Dillirium Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    WTF. This in itself is discriminatory. Why do we have to "get access"/Target anyone? Why not allow someone to choose for themselves what they want to do? One of the items he spoke of is allow anyone to do these programs that are offered by Google. Do not limit by sex or race.
     
    Madoc likes this.
  14. The simple matter of fact is women are not enrolling into these STEM programs. Although more and more women are applying, there is still a serious shortfall. No one is removing their choice of careers. All I'm suggesting is to encourage everyone to apply no matter your sex. Removing cultural bias is not discriminating against anybody. It's quite the opposite.
     
    Xyvotha and sboucher like this.
  15. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,426
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    I suspect you could probably benefit from getting outside of your core social circle and experience the world outside a little bit. You might find it eye opening.

    When I was young and naive I used to see the world the way you do, then I met and spent time with more people of all walks of life, and it fundamentally changed the way I see the world. Not only are there people who are frequently subject to, and thus worry about these things a lot, possibly even most of the time, but this category includes a very large proportion of minorities and women, depending greatly upon the area in which they live and the inclination towards them of the people they are surrounded by.


    Telling people they can't insult or harass their coworkers is hardly policing their thoughts.

    Money DOES reduce these problems. Some of the happiest, (we are #14), healthiest (we are #31), most democratic (we are #21) and most socially mobile nations on earth do it successfully. While I have never believed in American Exceptionalism (we are one mostly free country among many), I certainly believe that we are not exceptionally incapable either. If other nations can do it, so can we.

    Ah yes, The good old American way. Take credit for your successes, and use it to blame poverty on the poor.


    The real truth is this. The human brain is biased. The biggest fool is the person who thinks he can trust his own mind to make a clear unbiased assessment of the world around him. This is why the smartest people always design double blinded studies, so that their own inherent biases to not impact the results.

    When we succeed, our minds delude us into thinking that we succeeded because we are just that good, even when the outcomes are more a matter of chance, or when we know the game is rigged in our favor. It shifts the locus of control we experience, and makes us believe that we ourselves are exceptional and deserving of everything that comes our way, and those less fortunate must be deserving of their situations.

    The truth is, that while success does require making some smart decisions, and in most cases some hard work you also have to have a lot of pure dumb good luck to wind up in a situation where you can take advantage of these situations.

    Lets take a successful CEO, for instance. This person often had tremendous good fortune in many cases putting him in a position where he could utilize his hard workand skills to become successful, starting all the way back at birth, each leading to and helping with the next.

    Lets look at some:
    • The luck of being born to the right family, including color of skin, and wealth and likely being born male
    • The luck of having good parents who value education and are able to support their children
    • The luck of wealth above making good education available by living in an area with a good school, and affording fancy tuition
    • The luck of these educational experiences and connections and family ties helping in getting that first key job
    • The luck of being in the right place at the right time to show off their skills when a major project needed to be completed.
    • The luck of having the right positions open up to be promoted into
    • etc.
    • etc.
    • etc.

    He is certainly more capable today than the average person, but he got there over a lifetime of gradually learning and building on past experiences, through opportunities that predominantly opened up because of good luck.

    Yes, the guy probably worked hard his entire life to get where he is, but he also could have worked hard his entire life and gotten nowhere had his good fortune been different.

    In America our system lavishly rewards those few who have had good luck in their lives, and brutally tramples on those who haven't. Most places in the western hemispehere have realized that this is plan wrong, and tried to minimize this impact.

    The interesting part is, it also didn't used to be that way here. In the 70's your typical CEO of a major bank certainly had a nice income and was rewarded for his success, but that income was about $250,000, or only just over a million a year adjusted for inflation in 2017 dollars. Since then, the incomes of those at the top of the food chain have absolutely exploded, whereas the incomes of middle class Americans have stagnated, and adjusted for inflation actually decreased.

    This has led to a system that no longer works for everyone, and one that has placed us something like 145th in the world in income inequality, between Togo and Malawi. It has absolutely destroyed the middle class, while the wealthiest continue to make donations and lobby for more and more beneficial rules for themselves, to continue to twist the rigged game that put them where they are, even further in their favor, all while using this same mentality above, to dismiss of, and belittle those less fortunate than themselves.

    That sentiment you expressed above: "I have no moral obligation to be everyone else's crutch in life" That right there is the biggest problem with America. It blames the less privileged for the miserable conditions they have been born into, and completely turns a blind eye to all the good fortune that has led to where you yourself are.

    Eventually if it continues going in this direction, it will all come crashing down though. Eventually people will start getting angry as they see more and more benefits for the very wealthiest coming at their expense. As the saying (which has been attributed to any number of famous people) goes, "any society is only three square meals away from revolution". If we continue in the direction we have been going since the 1970's and become more and more of a oligarchy with a few who do very well at the top, and a overwhelming majority struggling just to get by, eventually the whole thing will come crashing down.
     
    mesyn191, Xyvotha and Khahhblaab like this.
  16. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,426
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Current state of the science on this topic is as follows:

    1.) There are indeed biological differences between men and women (duh)

    2.) The differences are as follows:

    - Men are physically stronger and more capable
    - Women tend to be better at communication
    - Intellectually (reasoning, math, programming etc, STEM type stuff) women and men are equally capable

    3.) In most cases the reasons these STEM fields are overwhelmingly dominated by men has more to do with preference than anything else. Women tend to choose more social fields working with people, and men tend to choose more hard science fields.

    4.) These preferences are not innate. They are learned and driven by societal norms.

    5.) Companies benefit when they have a more diverse (gender, and racial/cultural) workforce in their STEM fields.

    - Teams become more effective
    - Products become more successful
    - Revenues go up

    6.) The above has been shown quantitatively time and time again. There are many theories as to why, but one of the leading theories is that teams that are more diverse better understand the markets in which they are operating, and thus bad ideas get stopped earlier in the pipeline, preventing wasteful spending on ideas going nowhere, or disastrous product launches (Like Google's own Buzz, which was a huge failure, and might not have been had more women been on the team)

    Thus, because of the proven added financial benefits, companies have a financial interest, and a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to recruit more women and minorities to work for them in these areas. Problem is, they can't find them, because so few women and minorities are educated in these fields, as they have chosen other fields of study, and self selected themselves out of the fields.

    This is why you'll see many tech firms take active roles in trying to get to girls and minorities early on to try to get them into the field, so that they can hire them in the future, and reap the financial benefit that arises from having a diverse workforce.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
    mesyn191 likes this.
  17. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    My personal take is that we should get access to these tech skills to everyone regardless of age or gender. It will make our entire country be more competitive in the future.

    People like to focus on certain groups thinking they're doing a good, yet they're discriminating against the groups they're not including. They like jumping to conclusions before understanding the problem or understanding the solution.

    The women in the tech fields currently (without the SJW push for them to be in there) made the choice themselves to get the degree and be in the career. On average, they're probably better performing than their male counterparts.

    If there was anything causing a barrier to entry, i would be all for eliminating that to allow equal opportunity to be in the field.
     
  18. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Do you have anything to back up the claim on 5? I really don't see how diversity of gender, race and culture has anything to do with any of that. Intellectual diversity however is definitely a benefit, but you don't get that by making sure you have different genders, race or cultures in your workforce.
     
    Armenius and JustReason like this.
  19. braamer

    braamer [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,519
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    I would also like to see some actual citations on claim #5.
     
  20. sboucher

    sboucher Gawd

    Messages:
    549
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    It makes sense to me. I don't think we need any actual citations to understand the benefit of having people with different ways of thinking on development teams.

    That been said however, the very practice of hiring practices which targets individuals based on gender or race, is in fact discriminatory. It doesn't matter if those intentions are "good". Women for decades have cried foul for discrimination in those practices, and for very good reason. It's not ok for the same thing to be happening to white and asian men, for any reason. I don't care how diverse a company strives to be, if another candidate is selected over me because simply they are female, or they are of some visible minority, despite myself having better credentials, I have reason to be pissed off. So do you.

    I'm firmly of the opinion gender and race needs to be FULLY EXCLUDED from any hiring practice whatsoever. Let the pieces fall where they may. If a specific field isn't diverse enough, that falls back on the education facilities and large companies to try and attract more females or whatever to that specific field of study. If they aren't interested, they aren't interested. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink.
     
    Jon855 likes this.
  21. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,025
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    So basically, now we're saying that gender, race, and ethnicity have an effect on how people think at the genetic level, because that is the only way to substantiate that claim. Weren't we just arguing that gender plays no role in brain development?
     
    Armenius and Nytegard like this.
  22. sboucher

    sboucher Gawd

    Messages:
    549
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    No I'm simply saying that different people from different backgrounds can offer different points of view in a team setting. I didn't say anything about gender brain development.
     
  23. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,426
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    upload_2017-8-10_18-7-9.png

    Take your pick.

    I'm sure there are many more.

    Feeling too lazy right now to link you though, but I am sure you guys know how to use the Googles.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
    mesyn191 likes this.
  24. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,025
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    So now we're equating gender, race, and ethnicity as determinants of a person's background, with the implication that they are genetically biased to having those types of backgrounds.

    If you want diverse train of thought by having diverse backgrounds, make the background the hiring criteria, not race, gender, or ethnicity. The whole "diversity of opinion by diversity of gender or whatever BS identity of the year" is just a scapegoat.
     
    Armenius and JustReason like this.
  25. sboucher

    sboucher Gawd

    Messages:
    549
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    I'd say they are contributing factors, yes. As for genetically biased, not sure - but more than likely a combination of many things, including environment, culture.

    That's fair, and I agree. I did say that my position is that gender and race need to be excluded from hiring practices, did I not? However when looking for specific background candidates, the likely hood of that consisting of a specific gender or race might end up being the end result. It's a slippery slope.
     
  26. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,025
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Talk about tiptoeing the issue.

    If your hiring criteria which does not include race, gender, or any other type of identity nets only black women, fine, and same should go for if it only nets white men. It is not a slippery slope, as long as background plays second fiddle to actual qualifications for the job, not the other way around.
     
  27. LBJM

    LBJM Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    313
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2011
    There were girls in the CS101 classes there just to try to pick up "future rich nerds" back when I was in college. I wouldn't called them women if they are college freshmen.
     
  28. dbr1

    dbr1 [H]Lite

    Messages:
    87
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Glad that you agree on that, many hold out against this idea.

    REALLY? I'd like to see the evidence for that.

    So men>women in physical attributes, women>men in language, and cognitive function other than language can be lumped all together and is a wash, men do not have cognitive advantages in any areas?

    I don't believe that's an accurate description about what is known about differences in cognitive aptitude and brain function between men and women.

    Again, really? You know that 1) this disproportionate representation in STEM is more due to preferences than cognitive differences and 2) these preferences have no biological basis?

    Are you citing a study, or does this just seem like a reasonable explanation? Or did you learn that in your mandatory diversity training class?


    False. Evidence is scant and studies that purported to prove that cannot be replicated. This despite the tremendous political pressure to support 'diversity.'

    Davos Diversity

    'When we control for the office fixed effects, the estimated contribution of GendDiversity to office level revenue is no longer statistically significant.'

    Does Diversity Per Se Pay?
    A recent replication attempt suggests the answer is "No."

    'Once these two issues—coding errors and skewed data—were addressed, the new results showed that gender and racial diversity were effectively unrelated to company performance.'
    The confidence with which you express your opinions far exceeds the evidence (none) that you provide to support them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
    Armenius likes this.
  29. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,426
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    It's not my field of study. I listened to an interview in the car this morning with Adam Grant, professor of management and psychology at the University of Pennsylvania's Warton School, who has done some research on the field, and that's pretty much how he laid it out.
     
  30. lilbabycat

    lilbabycat 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,810
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    I suggest you do the same if you believe every non-white non-heterosexual non-male person/otherkin/xir is constantly afraid of a rapist/sexist boogeyman at every moment of their lives, as you are still not backing away from claiming.

    So the best countries are the most homogeneous ones? Great argument. Lliberalism and socialist ideals work in homogeneous countries, they don't work in diverse ones.

    Several of those results point to this study:

    http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters
    I see no raw data. I see " The research proceeded through the creation of proprietary datasets for 366 public companies across a range of industries in the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, and Latin America"
    How were the companies chosen? How many in each industry? What were the specific datasets of each industry?

    Why should I believe a company that doesn't follow their own diversity data?

    http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-people

    26 males vs 9 females!

    https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=101502

    8 males 2 females in the top brass / board!

    -------------
     
    Armenius likes this.
  31. lolfail9001

    lolfail9001 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,509
    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    All of these report perceived correlation, don't they? Emphasis on "perceived".
     
  32. Nytegard

    Nytegard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,120
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
  33. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,426
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    He was fired for cause for a legitimate fireable offense. This is a complete and total false equivalence. He deserves everything that has come his way.

    I see how it is.

    1.) Terrible human being puts in writing his backwards beliefs that a half of all humans are intellectually inferior based simply on their gender

    2.) Company legitimately fires him.

    3.) The entire underbelly of the internet, the alt right movement and Breitbart, the worst people on the fucking planet all stand up to defend the dude. I've had it with this conversation. I can't believe there are people out there in civil society that would actually defend this piece of trash.

    I'm sorry, but if you legitimately believe that it is totally ok, to call someone intellectually inferior based solely on their gender or the color of their skin, and would defend someone for doing so, you are one of those worst people on earth. This is some straight up KKK Nazi bullshit, and it has absolutely no place in the modern world.

    I'm done. Unsubbing. I can not deal with the turds of humanity that these threads cause to crawl out of the sewers where they belong.
     
    mesyn191 likes this.
  34. MikeTrike

    MikeTrike [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,191
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    I'm still waiting for this to roll over to page nine...

    [​IMG]
     
  35. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    This is going to be a huge waste of time, but i'll indulge.
    Article #1) https://www.ft.com/content/1bc22040-1302-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c
    Unscientifically does a comparison between 350 large public companies and finds out that there's a correlation between diversity and a 15% chance to be more profitable "They found that those in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15 per cent more likely to produce better returns than their local peers.". As a lone commenter points out in the bottom "Studies do show that companies that make more money have more minorities on the board. But is is unclear which is the cause, and which is the effect. Highly profitable companies (and state sector monopolies) can afford to indulge in discrimanatory hiring, prefering politically correct candidates."

    Are they more diverse because there's more mobility in management? Mobility being a key indicator of success in a company would make a company more productive and successful overall. It seems as if that correlation was directly applied to as the cause and not the effect, like there was a conclusion they were looking for when they examined 350 large public sector companies (public sector is typically crap when it comes to profits). I wonder how this plays out in private companies.

    Article #2) https://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/23/the-growing-case-for-diversity-as-a-profit-creator.html
    Here's the study used to make the claims (it looks like the original study was pulled from the source, but i found a copy somewhere else) https://www.calstrs.com/sites/main/...ender_diversity_and_corporate_performance.pdf
    From the study cited in the article: "We can therefore conclude that relative share price outperformance of companies with women on the board looks unlikely to be entirely consistent, but the evidence suggests that more balance on the board brings less volatility and more balance through the cycle."
    Here's another gem "There are two conclusions to be drawn from this: 1. That stocks with a greater degree of gender diversification appear to be relatively defensive in nature; and 2. That the outperformance of stocks with women on the board may not continue if the world shifts back towards a more stable macro environment in which companies are rewarded for adopting more aggressive growth strategies."
    Basically the study says that they've noticed a trend in which women tend to be more defensive in poor growth times, yet in good growth times diversity in the boardroom has no difference, and even a monoculture (all men) may be more successful in growth periods.

    Basically this study gets taken way out of context and is used to state that diversity = profit.

    Artcile #3) http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters
    "While correlation does not equal causation (greater gender and ethnic diversity in corporate leadership doesn’t automatically translate into more profit), the correlation does indicate that when companies commit themselves to diverse leadership, they are more successful. "
    "More diverse companies, we believe, are better able to win top talent and improve their customer orientation, employee satisfaction, and decision making, and all that leads to a virtuous cycle of increasing returns."
    I bolded the belief area in case you will miss it. Again, very scientific and well done </sarcasm>.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  36. mope54

    mope54 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,437
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    I'm floored that you don't understand the difference between a privately held corporation and publicly traded one and conflated the latter with government agency simply because it has the word "public" in it.
     
  37. crono15

    crono15 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006

    So you believe that having a different belief that you don't agree with is a legitimate fireable offense?
     
    JustReason, Tsumi, Nytegard and 2 others like this.
  38. c3k

    c3k 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,099
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    You guys still don't get it.

    Google, and other SJW organizations, are tolerant and benevolent engines of social change. They have embraced the love of fellow man. (Sorry for the use of a cis-gender noun.) If your beliefs are NOT aligned with theirs, then you must be evil, diseased, wrong-thinking, malignant, and (as stated above), a victim of your own "privilege" (because, you know, you're white), and social programming. That allows them to encapsulate you with finger pointing, shrieking, harridans, (or a lot of company memos excoriating you and your beliefs). It is how a body fights a disease. No one likes cancer, right?

    Therefore, by firing him, they are showing their tolerance.

    He has no right to exclaim his beliefs or how the company is marginalizing him, but only because those beliefs go against company doctrine of love and inclusiveness of all...except privileged white males.
     
    JustReason likes this.
  39. lilbabycat

    lilbabycat 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,810
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    More like they're playing the GamerGate card of "we can't talk about the issues honestly because there is a chance people will be doxxed/harassed/feelings hurt, therefore no talks will be had, we will weed out the dissenters behind closed doors".

    Oh boy taking advice from a professional magician, and oh look he wrote a bunch of books that say the same things you have been saying, therefore your world view must be the correct one:

     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  40. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    I guess you didn't read the state sector monopolies portion of the article's statement? How many publically traded companies are state sector monopolies? Also private companies usually have a lot less finances than publically traded companies.