[Elster]

Just found this on RT.

Seems like it could have been written by anyone here or in any other RP space...

Source article link:
https://www.rt.com/usa/398766-google-memo-viral-women/

RT article Wrote:

Gender gap is natural, Google employee says in 10-page ‘internally viral’ memo

A 10-page memo that went viral inside Google and has been obtained by Gizmodo sees a Google software engineer arguing that women are underrepresented in tech not due to bias, but rather because of inherent psychological differences from men.


The memo has been shared repeatedly on the internal network and Google+. Motherboard first reported that the memo existed, and Gizmodo published it in its entirety.

The memo titled ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber’ is essentially the personal opinion of a male software engineer working for Google.

In the document, the employee argues that he “values diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.” However, some topics, he adds, now involve “shaming into silence.”

“This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed,” and the lack of discussion brings about “the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology,” the memo says.


The software engineer goes on to claim that the reason why women don’t have a 50-percent representation in tech may be the “differences in distributions of traits between men and women,” and “discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.”

The traits in question include “biological differences” that are “universal across human cultures” and are “highly heritable.”

Women in general have more “openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas,”“a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men,” so they end up working for front desk rather than coding, the memo’s author argues.


Women also have “extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness,” hence, “higher agreeableness,” and consequently, “women generally have a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading,” according to the memo.

“We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” the document says.

Another issue the author highlights is that “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.”


The author concludes that “despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.”


Following the heated debate that surrounded the memo both inside and outside Google, the company’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown, issued a statement saying, “Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.”


The post comes just a couple of months after Google was wrapped in a scandal involving a probe into “extreme” wage discrimination, conducted by the US Department of Labor. The findings so far have been that Google regularly pays women less than men in comparable roles.

[Suits]

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

Quote:

“This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed,” and the lack of discussion brings about “the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology,” the memo says.

Quote:

Following the heated debate that surrounded the memo both inside and outside Google, the company’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown, issued a statement saying, “Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.”

It's mindblowing just how often SJWs openly prove our points for us.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I've never seen so much padding for "women get paid less in tech because they're shitter than men at tech".

[weambulance]

The offending piece in full:

Quote:

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL;DR

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases
Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist

Right Biases
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
They’re universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.



Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Women on average are more cooperative
Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
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.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

[Barron]

It's times like this when I realize that getting caught up in identity politics is a complete waste of time. At the end of the day its a mechanism designed to distract and disenfranchise us, which it has managed to achieve. All the while, the real truth of the matter is that even the "other side" knows they're full of shit.

I put other side in quotes because in reality we're all commoners struggling against the barriers set in place by an elite few, meant to keep us divided.

Glitches in the Matrix are becoming bugs

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

I'm not reposting his name, but the writer of the memo has already been publicly identified.

[Leonard D Neubache]

One more dude who's about to get the red pill as a suppository.

He mistook the nature of the beast, believing it to be benevolent yet simply misguided. Now he knows what the creature is really about.

[CynicalContrarian]

[Rush87]

Quote:

“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.”

This is exactly the agenda that is being pushed by the left. Is it any surprise that T-Levels are historically low amongst men, and leftism has spread like a virus...

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

It's not enough to simply fire this sexist man, every single person who liked this memo should be fired too and even those who just received it should be reprimanded for their reckless exosure to bigoted thoughts. All the IT equipment that was used to disseminate hate speech should be formatted into oblivion too.

In fact, we best go ahead and dissolve entire Google right now. Who's with me?

[CynicalContrarian]

^
I second that motion!

Google is now tainted by the alt-right. Only a mass purging will suffice!

[Off The Reservation]

Google is not such a giant that it cannot be taken down through competition. The guy should quit and find like minded people at another company. Instead, he acts like a whining child writing this piece inside his company which will surely result in him never advancing and an isolation of him within the alphabet while he is quietly ostracized and forever seen as that guy who wrote that memo.

He is totally naive for doing this within the bounds of a private company going against its very power structure. There is an urgent need to replace Youtube with a service that values free speech for example. He (if he is any good) would be needed in such a company.

Instead of doing that, this guy (who is not red pill in the sense that he understands how power works) has shot his whole load into the imaginary space where in his fantasy co-workers engage him on the intellectual level and say Yes Dorky Coder, you were so right. We will now call the upper executives together and change our flawed ways. Instead he is walking the halls of Google with the smell of cum from his fantasy on his body, his hands sticky, his shirt stained and bits of toilet paper stuck to him. He is about to be struck with the post porn blues.

Indeed Google products have become a quagmire as if PMS were built into the coding -- the illogical and impossible to find account settings, confusion built into the Google plus and business pages, the utter nonsense we all believe that the results are "natural."

But its worse. WonderCoder's article is tiptoe and gives into all of the principles that he claims are a problem. He just wants a little less of whatever ails him. He makes conservatives look pitiful. While America elected Trump, he was working for a company that actively tried to stop him, and now he tells us conservatives are under-coddled in Google.

He may have even done those sympathetic to him a disservice. The giant spying eye logging every keystoke, breath, heartbeat, and nearly thought of all of its employees and customers now has a list of thought criminals who read, shared or whose eyeballs passed near this "memo." How convenient, a list of internal traitors ready made to intentionally place a less competent woman as their new boss, one by one until all the little sympathizers are isolated. This employee, who works for just enough wages for a room somewhere within driving distance of Mountain View, has perhaps said his dumbest line that Google's funds are limited. Google has enough money to hire 10,000 conservatives, red pills, whiners or whatever this guy is and keep them in a special torture chamber staffed by Peri-menopausal Socialist Women of Diversity for 100 years at full pay - just for mockery and kicks if they want to - and not even notice the expense. What a dumb cuck. A guy whose life evolves around a tiny salary is making statements about the money that one of the most valuable entities ever know to man - an entity steadily approaching a trillion dollars market cap - and he thinks he can conceptualize how much fund it has.

In the end CoderWhinerBoy is nothing but a good old fashioned fool. He forgets one so critical fact. Google is a private sector company free to make its own policies and he is its voluntary employee. If he were in a public Univeristy or government agency, or if he wrote as a philosopher publicly it would make sense. But he confuses Google with a democracy or public forum. His naivety knows no bounds; Google is one of the most powerful companies on earth.

I have one message for the ErrandBoy who is now the focus of HR idiots nationwide: QUIT. Put your efforts where they align with your proclaimed beliefs. If you cannot find such a company start one. One product at a time, someone needs to make things better than Google, and allow us to "search" without destroying our values click by click. You provide Google its power by using it and working for it. You ARE what you preach against.

I hope that this happens and I hope you are a part of it. I envision the day that Google is no more relevant than the dilapidated empty buildings and meaningless, powerless entity once known as KMart. This day won't happen until someone quites their job and makes a better mousetrap, and runs their company based on sound principles, and has at least some grasp of what power means.

[WilliamDoor]

What's the bet that they'll round up the author of the article and all his supporters and fire them (or at least make their jobs so miserable that they voluntarily quit)?

[Robert High Hawk]

I don't know how to imbed the tweets from the below article of this incident from BusinessInsider, but here are some copied tweets:

"If HR does nothing in this case, I will consider leaving this company for real for the first time in five years.

— Jaana B. Dogan ? (@rakyll) August 4, 2017


The doc was a disaster from a truly bad place. Pure toxicity. Be assured we are all with you (and feeling the same).

— Louis Gray (@louisgray) August 4, 2017


The article is publicly supported by many people internally.
Begs the question, how many privately support/agreee/subscribe.

— Sarah Adams (@sadams007) August 5, 2017


He's not been fired as of this writing. The screed is *still* accessible by all employees.

— Liz Fong-Jones (@lizthegrey) August 5, 2017


That garbage fire of a document is trash and you are wonderful coworkers who I am extremely lucky to work with.

— Andrew Bonventre (@andybons) August 4, 2017

** note the last tweet from a man. He clearly wants to be part of the in-group. Lots of good words here like "shaking" and "toxic". As if they have been literally just beaten or poisoned.

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-en...oar-2017-8

[CynicalContrarian]

^
"Are you not entertained?" indeed...

[nomadbrah]

^ Yep, Google is not immune to the same diseases that brought down a company like Yahoo.

I don't have inside knowledge of Google, but it is well known that a key factor in their success was their hardcore hiring practises. They used multiple rounds of testing to get the best and the brightest. Don't get high on your own supply as they say.

[Jetset]

(08-06-2017 08:04 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

Google is now tainted by the alt-right. Only a mass purging will suffice!

It's more than a little weird that it took this guy a ten page letter to say this and that it's so poorly edited. If I ran a three hour courtroom battle describing a dozen pieces of evidence off of a six page reference document, this rampaging autist can surely keep his questions about diversity down to one or two. His resume must have come in a three-ring binder.

Still, he's not about to have his career plonked for shitty communication skills. It's because his thought crimes have marked him as "problematic". Poor bastard either never watched "Jerry Maguire" or lacked the social skills to understand the plot.

[John Michael Kane]

This guy is one performance review from being canned for an "unrelated" issue. They'll say his coding sucks or whatever to avoid a discrimination lawsuit. As others have suggested, time to start his own company or freelance for someone else that doesn't have a SJW culture.

[CynicalContrarian]

(08-06-2017 09:03 AM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  

The article is publicly supported by many people internally.
Begs the question, how many privately support/agreee/subscribe.

— Sarah Adams (@sadams007) August 5, 2017

This Sarah Adams is apparently - "proudly bipolar".

Oh rly...?

Also, I just noted a "reee" in her writing of "agreee".

[John Michael Kane]

(08-06-2017 09:25 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(08-06-2017 09:03 AM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  

The article is publicly supported by many people internally.
Begs the question, how many privately support/agreee/subscribe.

— Sarah Adams (@sadams007) August 5, 2017

This Sarah Adams is apparently - "proudly bipolar".

Oh rly...?

Also, I just noted a "reee" in her writing of "agreee".

Can you imagine that people actually have different opinions, and more importantly, they haven't been fired for them...YET! It is 2017 people, muh feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelz!

[Steve McQueen]

Promote that man, tells it like it is

[Jetset]

(08-06-2017 09:32 AM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  

Promote that man, tells it like it is

We could go so far as to say that he's a real straight shooter.

[Aurini]

Relevant portion of his article:

Quote:

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

A twitter exchange I had over it last night:

[/url]

[url=https://twitter.com/RagingPapist/status/894085177340600321]

As things stand, his "Classical Liberal" moderate position would drive him to denounce us as a bunch of sexist/racist/homophobic/troglodytes; he's fighting our common enemy, but so long as he clings to unworkable beliefs in "equality" he's an erstwhile ally at best. He repeatedly celebrates diversity in his post, while lamenting that the Left is going "Too Far." It's like nerds who complain about the new Doctor Who being a woman: they say they're not opposed to the sex change, they just don't like how it's being done (since being sexist is evil, of course).

Oh really? Care to explain how it SHOULD have been done?

Leftism is founded upon tenets which are demonstrably false; thus it finds itself in opposition to objective reality - it finds itself in rebellion to God. It's a tyrannical movement, which demands that all others must share it's delusions, so that those delusions can made true, and it will crush any and all who oppose it.

This man's about to get bent over; the question is, will he break, and proclaim his love of Big Brother? Or will he finally admit that the whole belief system is a lie, and join us over here in the Truth movement? Until he abandons his own Leftist lies, he cannot be trusted not to betray those who support him.

Just a reminder - it's the troglodytes who get laid:

[Disco_Volante]

Women and the left only recognize differences in the sexes when it suits them. Working construction, oil rigs, etc... yea men are different we don't care.

But if it's a 'glamorous' job at a tech company, all of a sudden they demand we ignore the mental differences. I don't think 'tech' jobs became in vogue until at least the late 90s anyways. Only dry nerds really got into programming in the early days, but media made it seem cool now the women demand places and their totalitarian masters are happy to use it to attack men further.

If programming became uncool again, they would stop giving a shit about the different abilities just like garbage collectors are all men.