The infamous Google Diversity Memo - Author Fired [Archive]

View Full Version : The infamous Google Diversity Memo - Author Fired

Brian4Liberty

08-07-2017, 03:07 PM

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber (http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320)

Go to this page for chart and live reference links: http://diversitymemo.com/

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.

----

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion

July 2017

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.
...
http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

specsaregood

08-07-2017, 03:19 PM

i was wondering when somebody was gonna post this.

Brian4Liberty

08-07-2017, 03:29 PM

i was wondering when somebody was gonna post this.

It's getting some media today. Most of them want the head of the person who wrote it.

Another link that has it:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/googles-ideological-echo-chamber/

specsaregood

08-07-2017, 03:31 PM

It's getting some media today. Most of them want the head of the person who wrote it.

Another link that has it:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/googles-ideological-echo-chamber/

of course they do, which only reinforces what he said.

helmuth_hubener

08-07-2017, 04:40 PM

the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ

Red alert!
Red alert!

Anti Federalist

08-07-2017, 07:16 PM

Fuck a bunch of Screwgle.

Do not use them.

There are any number of alternatives out there.

TheTexan

08-07-2017, 07:27 PM

Such a sexist article.

Unless a woman wrote it then it's OK

timosman

08-07-2017, 08:26 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo

August 7, 2017

Alphabet Inc.’s Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo blasting the web company’s diversity policies, creating a firestorm across Silicon Valley.

James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” A Google representative didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

The imbroglio at Google is the latest in a long string of incidents concerning gender bias and diversity in the tech enclave. Uber Technologies Inc. Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick lost his job in June amid scandals over sexual harassment, discrimination and an aggressive culture. Ellen Pao’s gender-discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in 2015 also brought the issue to light, and more women are speaking up to say they’ve been sidelined in the male-dominated industry, especially in engineering roles.

Earlier on Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” But he didn’t say if the company was taking action against the employee.

Damore’s 10-page memorandum accused Google of silencing conservative political opinions and argued that biological differences play a role in the shortage of women in tech and leadership positions. It circulated widely inside the company and became public over the weekend, causing a furor that amplified the pressure on Google executives to take a more definitive stand.

After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore’s views and reaffirmed the company’s stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.

“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company,” Brown said in the statement. “We’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul.”

The memo and surrounding debate comes as Google fends off a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Labor alleging the company systemically discriminates against women. Google has denied the charges, arguing that it doesn’t have a gender gap in pay, but has declined to share full salary information with the government. According to the company’s most recent demographic report, 69 percent of its workforce and 80 percent of its technical staff are male.

Following the memo’s publication, multiple executives shared an article from a senior engineer who recently left the company, Yonatan Zunger. In the blog post, Zunger said that based on the context of the memo, he determined that he would “not in good conscience” assign any employees to work with its author. “You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment,” he wrote. He also said in a email, “Could you imagine having to work with someone who had just publicly questioned your basic competency to do your job?”

Still, some right-wing websites had already lionized the memo’s author, and firing him could be seen as confirming some of the claims in the memo itself – that the company’s culture makes no room for dissenting political opinions. That outcome could galvanize any backlash against Alphabet’s efforts to make its workforce more diverse.

In her initial response to the memo, Brown, who joined from Intel Corp. in June, suggested that Google was open to all hosting “difficult political views,” including those in the memo. However, she left open the possibility that Google could penalize the engineer for violating company policies. “But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws,” she wrote.

The subject of Google’s ideological bent came up at the most recent shareholder meeting, in June. A shareholder asked executives whether conservatives would feel welcome at the company. Executives disagreed with the idea that anyone wouldn’t.

“The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking,” Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt said at the time. “You’ll also find that all of the other companies in our industry agree with us."

Anti Federalist

08-07-2017, 09:20 PM

Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo on Gender Differences

Thus proving the author correct.

Again, fuck a bunch of Screwgle.

Anti Federalist

08-07-2017, 09:27 PM

Rebels of Google: ‘Senior Leaders Focus on Diversity First and Technology Second’

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/the-google-rebels-diversity-first-technology-second/

Over the weekend, Google was rocked by the publication of an internal manifesto that alleged wide-ranging political bias within the company. In exclusive interviews with Breitbart News, more Google employees are now speaking out.

The 10-page manifesto, which was met by an immediate backlash, described a climate of fear at the company, in which employees who challenged prevailing leftist narratives on diversity were faced with immediate threats to their career.

Breitbart News is now exclusively publishing a series of interviews with Google employees who contacted us in the wake of the manifesto’s publication to confirm its allegations.

The interview series, entitled “Rebels of Google,” will be published in full over the coming days. Because every employee who spoke to us fears for their job if their identities were made public, we have provided aliases in place of their real names.

In the first interview of the series, a Google employee (alias “Hal”) speaks of witch-hunts and intolerance at Google, as well as dysfunction at the company’s upper echelons.

Hal began the interview with a statement about Google:

Hal: Witch hunts are a well-known cultural problem at Google. The company is currently facing a Federal complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board in April for interfering with employees’ legal right to discuss “workplace diversity and social justice initiatives.” The complaint alleges that Senior Vice President Urs Holzle and numerous managers in his organization actively stoked up witch hunts in 2015 and 2016 intended to muzzle low-level employees who raised concerns about the company’s practices. The trial is set for November.

Several managers have openly admitted to keeping blacklists of the employees in question, and preventing them from seeking work at other companies. There have been numerous cases in which social justice activists coordinated attempts to sabotage other employees’ performance reviews for expressing a different opinion. These have been raised to the Senior VP level, with no action taken whatsoever.

More at link...

specsaregood

08-07-2017, 09:29 PM

Thus proving the author correct.
Again, fuck a bunch of Screwgle.

Promoting Diversity in every way except in the arena of ideas and opinions.

timosman

08-07-2017, 10:12 PM

Wonder how much his lawyer is going to get out of this kerfuffle.:cool:

dannno

08-07-2017, 10:13 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxIw9fyIK_c

Brian4Liberty

08-07-2017, 10:51 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo

Thus proving the author correct.

Again, fuck a bunch of Screwgle.

They want his head on a pike and his detached genitals mounted on a "diversity" plaque.

On a local news broadcast, an Asian American woman broadcaster stuttered as she attempted to read this story, barely containing her fury.

Brian4Liberty

08-07-2017, 11:00 PM

Wonder how much his lawyer is going to get out of this kerfuffle.:cool:

If he is working only on contingent he won't see a dime. The same people who would like to see this rouge blogger drawn and quartered will be the Judges and Juries.

timosman

08-07-2017, 11:11 PM

If he is working only on contingent he won't see a dime. The same people who would like to see this rouge blogger drawn and quartered will be the Judges and Juries.

Maybe we will finally know why the guy was wrong?:cool:

oyarde

08-07-2017, 11:18 PM

Such a sexist article.

Unless a woman wrote it then it's OK

Depends on how good the naked pictures on her phone are .

Brian4Liberty

08-07-2017, 11:44 PM

5827

UWDude

08-08-2017, 01:04 AM

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-07/google-fires-author-outrageous-memo-slamming-companys-anti-conservative-culture

the memo can be read here, in its entirety:
http://diversitymemo.com/#reply

According to Bloomberg, "Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo blasting the web company’s diversity policies, creating a firestorm across Silicon Valley."

The document's author also wrote that employees with conservative political beliefs are discriminated against at Google and lamented about how "leftist" ideology is harmful. It argued that the company should have a more "open" culture where its viewpoint would be welcomed. The document said that improving racial and gender diversity is less important than making sure conservatives feel comfortable expressing themselves at work.

UWDude

08-08-2017, 01:20 AM

Google’s Social Justice Warriors Create Wrongthink Blacklists
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-cabal-blacklists/

anaconda

08-08-2017, 01:42 AM

Anti Federalist

08-08-2017, 06:20 AM

CalExit, please.

specsaregood

08-08-2017, 06:35 AM

I wouldn't want to own google stock, the people at the helm now are not the people that got the company to its current place in the industry.

"In the first interview of the series, a Google employee (alias “Hal”) speaks of witch-hunts and intolerance at Google, as well as dysfunction at the company’s upper echelons"

Hal: A lot of social justice activists essentially spend all day fighting the culture war, and get nothing done. The company has made it a point to hire more people like this. The diversity gospel has been woven into nearly everything the company does, to the point where senior leaders focus on diversity first and technology second. The companywide “Google Insider” emails used to talk about cool new tech, but now they’re entirely about social justice initiatives. Likewise, the weekly all-hands “TGIF” meetings used to focus on tech, but now they’re split about 50/50 between tech and identity politics signaling

Anti Federalist

08-08-2017, 06:49 AM

The companywide “Google Insider” emails used to talk about cool new tech, but now they’re entirely about social justice initiatives. Likewise, the weekly all-hands “TGIF” meetings used to focus on tech, but now they’re split about 50/50 between tech and identity politics signaling

That explains why every other day their Screwgle doodle is some obscure woman or "person of color".

Or flying the fa g flag.

Anti Federalist

08-08-2017, 06:50 AM

TheCount

08-08-2017, 07:26 AM

In before alt-right feels are more important than a company's ability to hire and fire as it pleases.

juleswin

08-08-2017, 07:39 AM

In before alt-right feels are more important than a company's ability to hire and fire as it pleases.

At the hospital that I work at, if you talk about starting a union, you will get fired instantly. They have zero tolerance for that and I am OK with it. They pay well, the benefits are fantastic and I don't even have to pay dues to get it.

I am sure some liberal feeling are hurt and I am also OK with that :)

shakey1

08-08-2017, 07:53 AM

http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz41/asafhanuka/googlemonsterN.jpg

Danke

08-08-2017, 07:56 AM

specsaregood

08-08-2017, 08:00 AM

At the hospital that I work at, if you talk about starting a union, you will get fired instantly. They have zero tolerance for that and I am OK with it. They pay well, the benefits are fantastic and I don't even have to pay dues to get it.

I am sure some liberal feeling are hurt and I am also OK with that :)

DW loves her nurses union. I'm not a fan of unions in general, but for her job/workplace it fits. Of course, she is about the only nurse there that has actually read and understands their contract and regularly informs her coworkers of what their rights are under its terms. One of her new bosses tried screwing with her recently, she informed them that they were in breach of the contract and asked for her union rep. They apologized and stopped screwing with her immediately.

juleswin

08-08-2017, 08:04 AM

Illegal. I'm sure the company will say the reason for firing is something else.

Yea, I don't think it is company's website but that is what the manager of my unit told me. And I don't think she would lie to me.

juleswin

08-08-2017, 08:10 AM

DW loves her nurses union. I'm not a fan of unions in general, but for her job/workplace it fits. Of course, she is about the only nurse there that has actually read and understands their contract and regularly informs her coworkers of what their rights are under its terms. One of her new bosses tried screwing with her recently, she informed them that they were in breach of the contract and asked for her union rep. They apologized and stopped screwing with her immediately.

Who is DW? and am I supposed to know him/her? we have panels made up of other nurses that look out for our interest but we don't have a union. I have never worked in a unionized hospital so I have nothing to compare it with. I can laugh off now about not having a union until the hospital screws me but just from my experience so far, its been all good.

specsaregood

08-08-2017, 08:25 AM

Who is DW? and am I supposed to know him/her?

https://www.lifewire.com/what-does-dh-stand-for-2483182

helmuth_hubener

08-08-2017, 09:06 AM

Alphabet Inc.’s Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo blasting the web company’s diversity policies, creating a firestorm across Silicon Valley.

Phew! The cat's back in the bag.
The Progress Train's back on dem tracks!
These racist, sexist truths shan't virate,
Those blissful normies won't learn facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7YmwTGo2vM

helmuth_hubener

08-08-2017, 09:32 AM

https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/press-f-for-james-damore-the-only-set-of-balls-left-at-google/

brushfire

08-08-2017, 09:48 AM

https://www.lifewire.com/what-does-dh-stand-for-2483182

http://www.drawinghowtodraw.com/stepbystepdrawinglessons/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/400x400-dw-from-arthur.png

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 10:11 AM

Most every major US company now has one, or more.

Whole groups now. Running around hysterically hunting witches and the outrage of the day.

It's a shame Sinead O'Conner hasn't found her true calling. She could be a VP.

euphemia

08-08-2017, 10:27 AM

On the business side, a lot of companies have a disclaimer at the bottom of every email or text that basically says the communication is only for the person for which it was intended, and is not for publication or whatever. In that respect, publishing the memo is a big risk. There is probably a policy in the employee handbook if the employee had bothered to read it.

He makes excellent points, but I think he should have posted them as a stand-alone piece rather than as a response to a work memo.

dannno

08-08-2017, 10:32 AM

Low value, disinformation post:

In before alt-right feels are more important than a company's ability to hire and fire as it pleases.

How about, in before someone conflates using first amendment to complain about company's policies and bringing up important issues with telling a company who they can hire and fire, on a LIBERTARIAN messageboard no less??

Oh, sorry too late..

euphemia

08-08-2017, 10:40 AM

Danno, you and I think as reasonable, logical liberty people, realizing liberty extends to all, not just to us. I know in the last two places I've worked, there were clearly defined policy about sharing internal information and publications. If I published such a memo with my own responses, I would be fired, and properly so.

Libertarians need to think less responsively and more proactively. The writer's responses were very sane and logical, but they would have been stronger as a stand alone post rather than setting up Google to be the bad guy, as if they are they only ones. Liberty principles are broad and apply to everyone, not just Google.

dannno

08-08-2017, 10:51 AM

dannno

08-08-2017, 11:03 AM

Fake news publishes fake memo, no surprises, here is the real one:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513849-The-REAL-Google-Diversity-Memo-(Gizmodo-is-FAKE-NEWS)

dannno

08-08-2017, 11:03 AM

Fake news publishes fake memo, no surprises, here is the real one:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513849-The-REAL-Google-Diversity-Memo-(Gizmodo-is-FAKE-NEWS)

jllundqu

08-08-2017, 11:09 AM

I think he had enough of their shit, he knew he would most likely be fired and knew this was the best way to get the most public attention.

Agreed. Smart move on his part. He made his point in a major way, and ensured his future job prospects.

timosman

08-08-2017, 11:10 AM

In before alt-right feels are more important than a company's ability to hire and fire as it pleases.

The company is doing business with the government hence some additional rules are in place. Like having a diversity program. The idea came from ..... the government.

timosman

08-08-2017, 11:15 AM

r3volution 3.0

08-08-2017, 11:31 AM

conflates using first amendment to complain about company's policies and bringing up important issues with telling a company who they can hire and fire

The 1st Amendment prohibits the state from prosecuting people for speech.

It places no burden of any kind on any private person, such as an employer, nor should it.

I dislike Google's leftist policies, but they have every right to enforce them.

dannno

08-08-2017, 11:48 AM

Another low value, disinformation post:

The 1st Amendment prohibits the state from prosecuting people for speech.

It places no burden of any kind on any private person, such as an employer, nor should it.

I dislike Google's leftist policies, but they have every right to enforce them.

Could you respond to the post I made rather than just spewing bullshit that has nothing to do with what I said?

Stop acting like fake fucking news. Dammit, I'm sick of this fake bullshit everywhere. I know what the first amendment is, and I never said Google shouldn't be allowed to fire them. All I said is we (me, you, the author, everybody) have the first amendment right to complain about their policies. Good God.

r3volution 3.0

08-08-2017, 11:52 AM

Could you respond to the post I made rather than just spewing bullshit that has nothing to do with what I said?

You said:

[the fired guy was] using first amendment to complain about company's policies and bringing up important issues

I'm informing you that the 1st amendment has nothing to do with it.

dannno

08-08-2017, 11:53 AM

You said:

I'm informing you that the 1st amendment has nothing to do with it.

Yes it does, everybody has the right to free speech. I never said google didn't have the right to fire him for using free speech. We have the right to complain about Google's policies, and say that they are bad policies. I announce they have bad policies. OK?? TheCount was insinuating that there is nothing we can do, we can't complain at all because google can do what they want, we just have to sit back and accept it. That's bullshit. We can use our free speech to explain why they have bad policies and try to change people's minds.

You are fake news.

r3volution 3.0

08-08-2017, 11:55 AM

Yes it does, everybody has the right to free speech. I never said google didn't have the right to fire him for using free speech. I have the right to complain about Google's policies.

Ah, so then your comment was just pointless and had no bearing on the Google story or what The Count said?

dannno

08-08-2017, 11:57 AM

Ah, so then your comment was just pointless and had no bearing on the Google story or what The Count said?

Yes it does, everybody has the right to free speech. I never said google didn't have the right to fire him for using free speech. We have the right to complain about Google's policies, and say that they are bad policies. I announce they have bad policies. OK?? TheCount was insinuating that there is nothing we can do, we can't complain at all because google can do what they want, we just have to sit back and accept it. That's bullshit. We can use our free speech to explain why they have bad policies and try to change people's minds.

You are fake news.

..

r3volution 3.0

08-08-2017, 12:04 PM

@dannno (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=10908),

In before alt-right feels are more important than a company's ability to hire and fire as it pleases.

How does this "conflate using first amendment to complain about company's policies...with telling a company who they can hire and fire"?

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 12:09 PM

894954242682875904
https://twitter.com/LibertarianBlue/status/894954242682875904

dannno

08-08-2017, 12:20 PM

@dannno (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=10908),

How does this "conflate using first amendment to complain about company's policies...with telling a company who they can hire and fire"?

The Count used the phrase "ability to hire and fire as it pleases", in other words, he said that supportive folks of this guy would soon be along to say that google should not be allowed to hire and fire as they please - whereas the discussion that is occurring in this particular community is voicing our concerns (using the first amendment) about whether they are good policies or not - it has nothing to do with forcing google to hire and fire who they want, in fact that is the entire point.. Google has been forced to hire all these diversity SJWs into their organization because of government policies and government indoctrination in schools.. it has completely changed the nature of their organization. The whole point is that google should be hiring and rewarding employees based on merit, and not some arbitrary standard set by the failures in life known as SJWs. But again, should the government force them? No, of course not, that is the ENTIRE POINT.

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 12:32 PM

Fake news publishes fake memo, no surprises, here is the real one:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513849-The-REAL-Google-Diversity-Memo-(Gizmodo-is-FAKE-NEWS)

OP updated with link to full version with live hyperlinks.

r3volution 3.0

08-08-2017, 12:36 PM

The Count used the phrase "ability to hire and fire as it pleases", in other words, he said that supportive folks of this guy would soon be along to say that google should not be allowed to hire and fire as they please - whereas the discussion that is occurring in this particular community is voicing our concerns (using the first amendment) about whether they are good policies or not

Ah, so your objection to the The Count's post was simply that he characterized altrighters as the anti-property people they are. Now I understand. See, your "conflation" language made it seem that you were saying that the 1st Amendment was the real issue in the Google case, when of course it has nothing to do with it.

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 12:37 PM

New Google Technology Autocorrects Users’ Thoughts (http://babylonbee.com/news/new-google-technology-autocorrects-users-thoughts/)
August 8, 2017

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—At a special press conference held at the technology giant’s sprawling campus Tuesday, Google engineers revealed exciting new technology that autocorrects any errant thoughts its users are having, replacing them with positions approved by the company.

Utilizing advanced retinal scan and proprietary telepathic scanning technology, the new automatic thought correction algorithm is now live for users of Google’s search engine, Android operating system, Chrome OS, and the hundreds of other apps and services the company provides.

“Let’s say you start thinking there may be some kind of inherent biological difference between men and women,” Google employee Ryan Vo said in a live demo of the new tech. “Immediately, the thought suggestion program in any nearby Google device, app, or service will scrub the idea of inherent gender differences and replace them with the sure knowledge that there are at least three hundred different genders in existence, and always has been.”

“Google will begin rebuilding your mind, piece by piece,” he added to the cheers and applause of the tech bloggers and industry professionals gathered.

According to the spokesperson, Google is also utilizing crack teams of ex-military personnel to round up anyone who resists the new technology, taking them to a new portion of Google’s campus known as the “Department of Love” for questioning, reconditioning, and re-introduction into civilized society.

At publishing time, a jealous Mark Zuckerberg had put his best programmers on the job of attempting to reverse-engineer Google’s new thought correction algorithm for use on his own social network, sources confirmed.
...
http://babylonbee.com/news/new-google-technology-autocorrects-users-thoughts/

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 12:42 PM

CNN Badly Misrepresents Arguments Made by Fired Author of Google Memo (http://freebeacon.com/culture/cnn-misrepresents-arguments-fired-author-google-memo/)
BY: Alex Griswold - August 8, 2017

Both online and on air, CNN misrepresented the content of a widely shared internal memo that led Google to fire one of its software engineers.

In a tweet, CNN claimed the author of the Google memo wrote that women "aren't suited for tech jobs."

CNN.com's write-up likewise claimed that the author of the "anti-diversity manifesto" argued "women aren't suited for tech jobs for ‘biological' reasons."

The same narrative emerged in CNN's on-air reporting. Host Poppy Harlow complained that the "anti-diversity" memo said "women are less suited for tech jobs than men. Why? Because they're women! Biologically, they can't do it."

But the actual memo simply does not say what CNN claims it does. To begin with, the author of the Google memo is not opposed to "diversity" in the abstract, but is opposed to Google's methods for advancing it.
...
CNN's assertion that the author forwards the idea that women are biologically incapable of carrying out tech jobs likewise misunderstands his argument. The author actually argues it is possible that biological differences might impact women's job preferences, leading to the persistent gender gap in tech jobs.
...
The author never comes anywhere close to saying women "can't do" tech jobs. He stresses that he is talking about men and women on average, and there are many women who are equal (or better) than the average man.

"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," he writes.

"I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles," he concludes. "I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."
...
More: http://freebeacon.com/culture/cnn-misrepresents-arguments-fired-author-google-memo/

dannno

08-08-2017, 12:49 PM

Ah, so your objection to the The Count's post was simply that he characterized altrighters as the anti-property people they are.

Uh, no, he said that alt-right people would be IN HERE claiming that google can't hire and fire who they want.

That was low value, disinformation, demonstrably untrue HORSESHIT.

Stop defending horseshit, it's not getting you any respect from anybody here. I don't know if you noticed, but you are The Count are the only ones acting like little bitches in these google memo threads, everybody else is on the side of the guy who wrote the memo. What the fuck are you even trying to do here? Seriously?

Now I understand. See, your "conflation" language made it seem that you were saying that the 1st Amendment was the real issue in the Google case, when of course it has nothing to do with it.

You believe that a store owner should be allowed to put up a sign that says "No blacks allowed", correct? Do you believe that I should be able to use my first amendment protections to complain and protest a store if they did that? It doesn't mean I want it outlawed, it means I want to voice my displeasure and hopefully others would not purchase anything at the store voluntarily, or maybe the store will change their policy voluntarily.

I didn't know this was such a difficult concept.

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 12:49 PM

Playing Into Every Female Stereotype, Women At Google Stay Home After Memo For Emotional Reasons

Some "upset" women in the echoing halls of Google decided to stay home from work after their feelings were hurt by a ten-page memorandum written by an anonymous employee who — trigger warning — acknowledged the general differences between men and women.
...
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19462/google-memo-says-men-and-women-are-different-women-amanda-prestigiacomo

timosman

08-08-2017, 12:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qArvBdHkJA

dannno

08-08-2017, 12:55 PM

CNN Badly Misrepresents Arguments Made by Fired Author of Google Memo (http://freebeacon.com/culture/cnn-misrepresents-arguments-fired-author-google-memo/)
BY: Alex Griswold - August 8, 2017

It is no wonder The Count, Rev 3 and others who worship CNN come in here and misrepresent users and their posts constantly, that is all they know.

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 01:05 PM

Debra W Soh PhD

Debra W Soh is a Toronto based science writer who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience from the University of York. Her dissertation used four types of neuroimaging, including structural and functional MRI, to investigate brain differences associated with sexual orientation, paraphilias (or unusual sexual interests), and hypersexuality. You can find her columns in The Globe and Mail, Playboy, LA Times and elsewhere. You can also follow her on Twitter @DrDebraSoh

As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership.

Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.

Sex researchers recognize that these differences are not inherently supportive of sexism or stratifying opportunities based on sex. It is only because a group of individuals have chosen to interpret them that way, and to subsequently deny the science around them, that we have to have this conversation at a public level. Some of these ideas have been published in neuroscientific journals—despite having faulty study methodology—because they’ve been deemed socially pleasing and “progressive.” As a result, there’s so much misinformation out there now that people genuinely don’t know what to believe.

No matter how controversial it is or how great the pushback, I believe it’s important to speak out, because if we can’t discuss scientific truths, where does that leave us?
...
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 01:10 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qArvBdHkJA

That skit is sexist. :eek:

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 01:13 PM

Professor David P Schmitt

Since earning his bachelor’s degree and Ph.D. in personality psychology from the University of Michigan David P. Schmitt has authored or co-authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters. He is founder and director of the International Sexuality Description Project (ISDP). The ISDP is among the largest-ever cross-cultural research teams, involving over 200 psychologists from nearly 60 countries around the world whose collaborative studies investigate how culture, personality, and gender combine to influence sexual attitudes and behaviors.served two terms as Chair of the Psychology Department at Bradley University from 2005-2010. He blogs at Psychology Today and you can follow him on Twitter @PsychoSchmitt

A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences (e.g., personality traits, mate preferences, status-seeking). Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. Let me explain.

I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence. In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong. For instance, sex differences in negative emotionality are universal across cultures; developmentally emerge across all cultures at exactly the same time; are linked to diagnosed (not just self-reported) mental health issues; appear rooted in sex differences in neurology, gene activation, and hormones; are larger in more gender egalitarian nations; and so forth (for a short review of this evidence, see here.)

But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm. Moreover, men are more emotional than women in certain ways, too. Sex differences in emotion depend on the type of emotion, how it is measured, where it is expressed, when it is expressed, and lots of other contextual factors.

As to sex differences in mate preferences and status-seeking, these topics also have been heavily researched across cultures (for a review, see here). Again, though, most of these sex differences are moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace (accounting for, perhaps, a few percentage points of the variability between men’s and women’s performances). Sex differences in occupational interests, personal values, and certain cognitive abilities are a bit larger in size (see here), but most psychological sex differences are only small to moderate in size, and rather than grouping men and women into dichotomous groups, I think sex and sex differences are best thought of scientifically as multidimensional dials, anyway (see here.)

Now, treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do. As this is not my area of expertise, I can only offer my non-expert opinion on this issue, which is this: There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio-structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. These include culturally-embedded gender stereotypes, biased socialization practices, in some cultures explicit employment discrimination, and a certain degree of masculinization of technological workplaces. Within this sea of gender bias, should Google use various practices (affirmative action is not just one thing) to especially encourage capable women of joining (and enjoying) the Google workplace? I vote yes. At the same time, should we be able to openly discuss and be informed by some of the real psychological sex differences that might account for variation in men’s and women’s workplace performance? In the right context, I vote yes to that, too.
...
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

r3volution 3.0

08-08-2017, 01:15 PM

Uh, no, he said that alt-right people would be IN HERE claiming that google can't hire and fire who they want.

That was low value, disinformation, demonstrably untrue HORSESHIT.

More like a reasonable prediction based on the nature of the alt-right.

You believe that a store owner should be allowed to put up a sign that says "No blacks allowed", correct?

Correct

Do you believe that I should be able to use my first amendment protections to complain and protest a store if they did that?

Obviously

It doesn't mean I want it outlawed, it means I want to voice my displeasure and hopefully others would not purchase anything at the store voluntarily, or maybe the store will change their policy voluntarily.

You speak as if someone has argued to the contrary, yet no one has.

dannno

08-08-2017, 01:20 PM

More like a reasonable prediction based on the nature of the alt-right.

Thank you CNN, for your horeshit predictions that never come true.

Correct

Obviously

You speak as if someone has argued to the contrary, yet no one has.

YOU DID.

You said that first amendment has nothing to do with what I said. People invoke the first amendment when they say they are free to speak out or protest. That is precisely what I was saying.

Now stop clogging up this thread with your irrational bullshit. You have nothing to add to the discussion. This is some legit bannable shit if I've ever seen it. Brian is making some fantastic posts, and your horeshit is stinking up the thread.

r3volution 3.0

08-08-2017, 01:29 PM

You said that first amendment has nothing to do with what I said.

No, I said that the 1st Amendment, which you cited, has nothing to do with what happened at Google or what The Count said.

Ah, so then your comment was just pointless and had no bearing on the Google story or what The Count said?

...

People invoke the first amendment when they say they are free to speak out or protest. That is precisely what I was saying.

...which, again, no one has argued against.

http://rocshot.com/lappin/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tilting-at-windmills.jpg

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 01:42 PM

894797881378566144
https://twitter.com/longpshorn/status/894797881378566144

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 03:16 PM

894983915722739714
https://twitter.com/jeffdeist/status/894983915722739714

dannno

08-08-2017, 03:18 PM

894983915722739714
https://twitter.com/jeffdeist/status/894983915722739714

Chuck Testa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJP1DphOWPs

devil21

08-08-2017, 03:29 PM

Not an Onion story: Google actually has an employee with the title "Vice President of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance." She seems to have doubled down in condemning the viral treatise.

https://qz.com/1047826/googles-response-to-the-viral-diversity-memo-is-a-classic-conversation-avoidance-technique/

((Vice President of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance))

Now get back to work building our spy network, slave-engineer.

Krugminator2

08-08-2017, 04:26 PM

Future member of Congress.

894921699564683264

timosman

08-08-2017, 04:30 PM

894983915722739714
https://twitter.com/jeffdeist/status/894983915722739714

Youtube or it didn't happen.:cool: Kissinger was there 3 times, each time tubed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiBd5JyjkS0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wooGL__-OvA

Mach

08-08-2017, 04:30 PM

Google Ideology........

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/08/1336210/googles-other-ugly-secret-some-managers-keep-blacklists

Last week a controversial internal memo written by a concerned Google employee was going viral within the company. The memo, titled "PC Considered Harmful" and since dubbed "the Google manifesto" on social media, argued two points: First, that Google has become an ideological echo chamber where anyone with centrist or right-of-center views fears to speak their mind. Second, that part of the tech industry's gender gap can be attributed to biological differences between men and women. The person who wrote the memo has since been fired, but the internal tussle has revealed one more thing. The Inc reports:
The contentious internal discussion revived a concern dating back to 2015: An unknown number of Google managers maintain blacklists of fellow employees, evidently refusing to work with those people. The blacklists are based on personal experiences of others' behavior, including views expressed on politics, social justice issues, and Google's diversity efforts. Inc. reviewed screenshots documenting several managers attesting to this practice, both in the past and currently, explicitly using the term "blacklist." The screenshots were shared by a Google employee who requested anonymity due to having signed an NDA. In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity. A Google spokesperson told Inc. that the practice of keeping blacklists is not condoned by upper management, and that Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated. It's not clear whether that principle applies in Damore's case. Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law, the views expressed in the manifesto and echoed by others who oppose political correctness do not seem to merit legal protection.

timosman

08-08-2017, 04:43 PM

I am sure H1B visas for Google will be put on a fast track now. We fire fully qualified engineers if we do not find their views acceptable and we need more workers. Can we get more H1Bs? H1Bs do not bitch so much.

anaconda

08-08-2017, 05:19 PM

In before alt-right feels are more important than a company's ability to hire and fire as it pleases.

Perhaps depends on how much the general public begins to view the Google company culture as a perpetual laughing stock. Which could affect both their hiring capabilities and product popularity.

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 07:00 PM

4 Things The Google Manifesto DOESN’T Say That The Media Claim It Says

As I wrote yesterday, the memo essentially made three contentions: first, that Google had a Leftist bias which prevented them from hearing other viewpoints; second, that part of the discrepancy in employment between men and women at Google could be attributable to group differences between men and women; and third, that Google could try to make employment easier for women in general through a series of non-illegal means.

But that’s not what you’re hearing from Google and the media. Instead, you’re hearing them deliberately misrepresent the nature of the memo, cast aspersions at the author, and pretend that he said things he clearly and openly dismissed in the memo itself.

Here are a few of the things Damore didn’t say.

1. Women Are Biologically Unfit For Tech. CNN actually ran a segment today claiming that this was Damore’s suggestion. That’s patently false. In fact, Damore openly says the opposite. The media seem completely unable to comprehend the difference between the statement “women on average are different from men” and “this particular woman is different from this particular man.”
...
2. Diversity Is Bad. Damore opens the memo by stating, “I value diversity and inclusion.”
...
3. Sexism Doesn’t Exist. The memo author explicitly dismisses this notion as well. Damore writes that he is “not denying that sexism exists.” He adds:
...
4. The Memo Promotes Violence! This is the most extreme claim being made by Leftists about the memo. It’s a lie. In fact, one of the rationales behind the memo was to prevent the PC-led violence that has infected college campuses:
...
More: http://www.dailywire.com/news/19464/fake-news-4-things-google-manifesto-doesnt-say-ben-shapiro

anaconda

08-08-2017, 07:38 PM

4 Things The Google Manifesto DOESN’T Say That The Media Claim It Says

Google = Fake News

UWDude

08-08-2017, 07:55 PM

Not an Onion story: Google actually has an employee with the title "Vice President of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance." She seems to have doubled down in condemning the viral treatise.

https://qz.com/1047826/googles-response-to-the-viral-diversity-memo-is-a-classic-conversation-avoidance-technique/

And she has been outed as an ardent Hillary volunteer from her facebook. She doorbelled for Hillary extensively in arizona. Her twitter was also full of your typical reeee-ing Hillary nonsense. She locked it today, after people started posting tweets from it.

angelatc

08-08-2017, 08:02 PM

Not an Onion story: Google actually has an employee with the title "Vice President of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance." She seems to have doubled down in condemning the viral treatise.

https://qz.com/1047826/googles-response-to-the-viral-diversity-memo-is-a-classic-conversation-avoidance-technique/

A lot of companies have been adding this position lately.

I remember getting an anonymous survey from an employer that asked if we thought their diversity programs were adequate and how they could be improved. I answered honestly.

UWDude

08-08-2017, 08:02 PM

Ah, so your objection to the The Count's post was simply that he characterized altrighters as the anti-property people they are. Now I understand. See, your "conflation" language made it seem that you were saying that the 1st Amendment was the real issue in the Google case, when of course it has nothing to do with it.

Ah

Ah

Ah

Ah

Ah

Is how you begin your strawmans....

So you are saying

so you are saying

so you are saying

is how you start other strawmans

so your objection

so your objection

so you object is how you start yet other strawmans.....

.....and almost all your posts start with these phrases.

Because all you are is a strawman machine.

timosman

08-08-2017, 08:09 PM

A lot of companies have been adding this position lately.

Pressure from the government.

angelatc

08-08-2017, 08:10 PM

Brian4Liberty

08-08-2017, 09:12 PM

I hate being lectured to by children who have experienced nothing of life: http://i.imgur.com/28OV9MP.png

Google’s sexist memo has provided the alt-right with a new martyr (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/08/google-sexist-memo-alt-right-martyr-james-damore)

No doubt he is very good at regurgitating his leftist indoctrination, and possibly adding some new twists.

Damore’s assertions about gender are, frankly, guff dressed up with pseudo-scientific jargon: not just belittling women, but reducing men to the status of unemotional individualistic robots.

Ah ha! Individualism as a derogatory accusation is very cutting edge. Just recently being propagated out into the progressive PC hive-mind:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509120-quot-Aggressive-individualism-quot-is-the-latest-evil

dannno

08-08-2017, 10:46 PM

Interviewed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro

NorthCarolinaLiberty

08-08-2017, 10:51 PM

In before alt-right feels are more important than a company's ability to hire and fire as it pleases.

In after the alt leftist poster makes --yet again--another worthless, low value post.

anaconda

08-08-2017, 11:34 PM

8-7-17: The day Google stopped being an enviable place to work and became the focus of widespread disdain and the brunt of endless jokes.

Anti Federalist

08-08-2017, 11:45 PM

894954242682875904
https://twitter.com/LibertarianBlue/status/894954242682875904

I owe you rep

UWDude

08-08-2017, 11:55 PM

8-7-17: The day Google stopped being an enviable place to work and became the focus of widespread disdain and the brunt of endless jokes.

I was just thinking that today. To more than half the aspiring coders in the US, Google suddenly sounded like it was working for the Gestapo as a Jew, with a colorful ball pit and arcade room.

Marenco

08-09-2017, 01:34 AM

Let's also not forget...

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet:

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

helmuth_hubener

08-09-2017, 08:26 AM

Today, men are more able to talk about their feelings and emotional problems, to take more of a role in family life, to have women as friends, and so on: though there is still so far to go in every department. The biggest killer of British men under 50, after all, is suicide

Was it in 1830?
Hmm. Wonder how could that be?

So far to go, such work to do, though,
'Til all the world is pure insane,
When every decent man's face-down in snow.
Let gleeful madness reign!

Brian4Liberty

08-09-2017, 11:05 AM

Interviewed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro

Seems like an honest, well-intentioned, scientific, logical, slightly naive guy. Put his head on a pike!

specsaregood

08-10-2017, 10:57 PM

Google Cancels Town Hall To Discuss Diversity In Its Ranks

Google employees will gather for a town hall meeting Thursday afternoon to discuss the tensions ignited by a memo circulated inside the company that claimed to explain why more women are not engineers. Town hall meetings are nothing new at Google, but this one will likely be different after the so-called "Google Manifesto" went viral over the weekend, adding fresh fuel to the debate around gender bias in Silicon Valley. Google CEO Sundar Pichai told employees in an email earlier this week that he would cut his family vacation short in order to facilitate the forum. "The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree -- while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct," he wrote. "I'd encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same." The town hall comes amid a report from The Guardian that as many as 60 women are considering filing a class action lawsuit against Google, alleging sexism and wage disparity.

UPDATE: NBC News now reports the event has been cancelled, with Google CEO Sundar Pichai saying "Googlers are writing in, concerned about their safety and worried they may be 'outed' publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall... we need to step back and create a better set of conditions for us to have the discussion."
Instead of the company-wide format, Google will now hold several smaller forums "to gather and engage with Googlers, where people can feel comfortable to speak freely," Pichai wrote.

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/10/2023239/google-cancels-town-hall-to-discuss-diversity-in-its-ranks

It is clear that the morons in charge don't even realize the scope of the problem they have on their hands. Also I read that the place the "memo" was posted was supposed to be "anonymous." if that's true, I think his future lawsuit chances are looking bright.

UWDude

08-10-2017, 11:12 PM

Instead of the company-wide format, Google will now hold several smaller forums "to gather and engage with Googlers, where people can feel comfortable to speak freely," Pichai wrote.

No way in hell that is ever going to happen, ever again at Google. Ever.

What I would love to see is a secret organization arise (it will), that suddenly goes on strike, and shows Google, most of it's top performers, (guarantee most of its top performers don't like this diversity drivel), want a change in culture.

And Google's reputation as just a fun loving awesome atmosphere... has been forever crushed.

specsaregood

08-10-2017, 11:18 PM

No way in hell that is ever going to happen, ever again at Google. Ever.

No kidding, check this out:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/10/technology/business/google-meeting-questions/

In an email to staff, Pichai explained that questions from employees had been leaked and that, in some cases, specific employees' identities were revealed, exposing them to harassment and threats. Instead of today's large-scale meeting, which was to be livestreamed to Google's 60,000 employees worldwide, smaller groups will meet sometime in the future.

"We had hoped to have a frank open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally," Pichai said in the email.

lol, the culture over there does not sound productive.

UWDude

08-10-2017, 11:29 PM

james Domar said all Google meetings are livestreamed and public... ...except the diversity training he had to go through. He said those were done in secret, because Google knows they promote discrimination, which is illegal.

He also said he got most of his data about the genders from Google's own analytic records.

BTW, although Google says it believes the sexes are equal... BUT ...when buying ads, you certainly can choose to have your ads targeted towards a male or female audience, among other demographic choices.

timosman

08-10-2017, 11:29 PM

No way in hell that is ever going to happen, ever again at Google. Ever.

What I would love to see is a secret organization arise (it will), that suddenly goes on strike, and shows Google, most of it's top performers, (guarantee most of its top performers don't like this diversity drivel), want a change in culture.

And Google's reputation as just a fun loving awesome atmosphere... has been forever crushed.

The geeks were shown their true place.:cool:

Brian4Liberty

08-14-2017, 08:45 PM

Silicon Valley Tightens Its Grip on Free Speech (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/silicon-valley-tightens-its-grip-on-free-speech/)
Alliance between progressives and tech is killing the unfettered exchange of ideas
by Edmund Kozak | 14 Aug 2017

Political totalitarianism is coming to America, and it is being ushered in not by government thugs in jackboots but by progressive activists and their allies in Silicon Valley.

In a chilling oped published in The New York Times on July 14, Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, argued that so-called “hate speech” is the same thing as physical violence because it may possibly cause emotionally fragile individuals stress — and should be made illegal.

Thankfully, the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from following such advice, but online companies are taking it upon themselves to stamp-out so-called “hate speech,” strangling free speech and the free exchange of ideas in the process.

A number of troubling actions by internet companies — Google most prominent among them — are making it increasingly clear that some in Silicon Valley have proclaimed themselves defenders of the progressive, politically correct faith, and that those firms will silence any and all heretics who challenge those beliefs.

"Silicon Valley lives in a politically regressive, exclusive bubble. They are not aware of their own biases in how they talk, have a limited understanding of the philosophy behind free speech, and find it difficult empathizing with other points of view," said Aaron Ginn, co-founder of the Lincoln Network, a think tank that seeks to promote libertarian ideas in the tech industry.

But Google not only has difficulty empathizing with other points of view — it is also actively trying to suppress them.
...
"Emmett says he personally witnessed efforts from leftists within Google to bias YouTube's algorithms to push anti-PC content off the platform's 'related videos' recommendations," Breitbart reported. "The software could just 'astroturf' your Related Videos section [an effort to hurt overall ratings], and you would be none the wiser," said Emmet.
...
People familiar with the process have told reporters recently that YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, is also laboring to cleanse its platform of alternative voices that challenge the mainstream liberal narrative. The social media video-sharing site has in the past few months systematically demonetized videos of right-wing commenters and journalists, such as Infowars editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson and former Rebel Media reporter Lauren Southern.
...
Unfortunately it's not just Google. On Thursday, Watson of InfoWars posted a YouTube video titled "I Won't Be Around Much Longer," in which he revealed that "they banned me on Facebook because of a video I posted 18 months ago," and went on to posit that if digital platforms continue at the current rate, Silicon Valley will have soon entirely purged all right-wing voices from mainstream social media.

But although social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are already known among conservatives for suppressing even mainstream right-wing voices, despite allowing controversial content from the far Left and even radical Islamists to remain online unmolested — non-social-media sites have also begun to target right-wing dissidents.
...
More: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/silicon-valley-tightens-its-grip-on-free-speech/

osan

08-15-2017, 06:39 AM

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber (http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320)

Go to this page for chart and live reference links: http://diversitymemo.com/

I've only skimmed the memo, but judging by what I've read, I'd not have fired this man but given him a promotion where he could do some good.

This memo has a feel as if I'd written it, so it must be good. ;)

That they indeed fired him because of his memo only serves to reinforce with great strength what was written therein. Google strikes me as a dangerous entity - far greater a threat than Microsoft ever imposed, so far as I can see. Yet, M$ faced antitrust threats from "government" that included "divestiture" and a settlement stipulation that barred them from going into the hardware business... which appears to have perhaps expired?

It is interesting to note how there seems to have been little to no talk of going after Google on similar bases as were the pretexts for doing so with M$. I am not saying anyone should go after them; it is the apparent hypocrisy that I find worthy of note.

I would add that Google is a suspicious player in the first place. Never in the known history of the world has a company gone from zero to king of the hill in nearly so short an interval as has Google. Perhaps this is all well known, but I am not aware of whence Google came, where the money came for them to develop their technologies, and how it is that they managed to fly so high so quickly. It could be what it superficially appears to be, but I am doubtful that it is so.

Finally, it pays well to once again note how anyone introducing the least shred of basic human sense into the "social" arena is quickly and unequivocally dispatched with stern prejudice. I would also note that if the memo went truly "viral", it further underscores the truth of its content. If that many people agree with the message but the company is not in the turmoil of a pending rebellion... well, do the math.

I for one avoid Google. Duckduckgo seems to provide equivalent results in searching and I could give the least damn about "social media". I use FB, for example, for one primary purpose: to communicate with people important to me. I read and post an occasional political tidbit, but do not spend my life there as it seems some do, so Google with all its fancy freebies holds no attraction for me. As for Sketchup, feh - serious engineers use serious software, whether AutoCAD, Solidworks, SoldEdge, Dassault, Microstation, etc. But the Google play to corner the information market is indeed very telling and once again brings me to the question of why there has been no big governmental outcry by Justice to investigate/prosecute them for anti-trust violations. Very telling, indeed.

specsaregood

08-15-2017, 06:57 AM

That they indeed fired him because of his memo only serves to reinforce with great strength what was written therein. Google strikes me as a dangerous entity - far greater a threat than Microsoft ever imposed, so far as I can see. Yet, M$ faced antitrust threats from "government" that included "divestiture" and a settlement stipulation that barred them from going into the hardware business... which appears to have perhaps expired?

I recall reading a while back that prior to the antitrust suits MS never actively lobbied in DC or did any fundraising for politicians. All that changed after they had to deal with those antitrust suits. Google on the otherhand has always been very active on both of those fronts.

PierzStyx

08-15-2017, 09:06 AM

Silicon Valley isn't tightening its grip on free speech. Companies have the right to hire and fire whom they please for the reasons they please. If the man's opinions were counter to the corporate culture Google wants then they have every right t fire him and his freedom of speech hasn't be limited in any manner. And it isn't strangling teh free exchange of ideas simply because you have no right to their services and they have ever right to set the terms & conditions of their services, which you then can willingly enter into or reject.

And of course if you really dislike their policies, stop using them and their products.

Don't like Google? Use Apple.

Don't like YouTube? Use Daily Motion.

specsaregood

08-15-2017, 09:29 AM

Silicon Valley isn't tightening its grip on free speech. Companies have the right to hire and fire whom they please for the reasons they please.

They SHOULD have that right; but the law says they don't. Don't like it, don't do business here?

dannno

08-15-2017, 10:24 AM

timosman

08-15-2017, 10:29 AM

Uh, ya, you aren't paying attention at all.

But I am the smartest person on this board. How can this be?:eek:

Swordsmyth

08-15-2017, 10:29 AM

timosman

08-15-2017, 10:31 AM

The issue is not whether they can fire him but whether they should.
In a private company free speech is not a right but it is still the right thing to do unless someone really goes too far, the famous memo did not.

PierzStyx is trying for the PR position at Google.:cool:

Swordsmyth

08-15-2017, 10:41 AM

PierzStyx is trying for the PR position at Google.:cool:
Are we sure that is not his current job?

osan

08-15-2017, 11:04 AM

I recall reading a while back that prior to the antitrust suits MS never actively lobbied in DC or did any fundraising for politicians. All that changed after they had to deal with those antitrust suits. Google on the otherhand has always been very active on both of those fronts.

Sadly, this may explain a lot.

UWDude

08-15-2017, 11:39 AM

Silicon Valley isn't tightening its grip on free speech.

Yes it is. Whether it has the right to or not is the question. But whether they are doing it is unquestionable.

Sargon of Akkad just had his twitter permanently banned today.

dannno

08-15-2017, 01:01 PM

The issue is not whether they can fire him but whether they should.
In a private company free speech is not a right but it is still the right thing to do unless someone really goes too far, the famous memo did not.

The memo was actually a response to something that the company sent out related to company diversity, that was inviting responses.

PierzStyx

08-15-2017, 02:16 PM

Uh, ya, you aren't paying attention at all.

I'm paying attention. I'm just not whining about a company doing something I don't like. This whole page is the "libertarian" equivalent with big, fat, salty tears.

dannno

08-15-2017, 02:18 PM

I'm paying attention. I'm just not whining about a company doing something I don't like. This whole page is the "libertarian" equivalent with big, fat, salty tears.

So, not only are you not paying attention to what is going on, or the content of the OP, but you also are not paying attention to the discussion that has ensued.

Great contribution.

Swordsmyth

08-15-2017, 02:19 PM

I'm paying attention. I'm just not whining about a company doing something I don't like. This whole page is the "libertarian" equivalent with big, fat, salty tears.
Culture is just as important as politics, we can and will express our opinions while not calling for government to enforce them.

PierzStyx

08-15-2017, 02:27 PM

Culture is just as important as politics, we can and will express our opinions while not calling for government to enforce them.

*Yawn*

Like I said, whiny rightists crying over their "culture.". You've heard of the SJW? Well, you all are just a bunch of CJWs, "Culture Justice Warriors."

PierzStyx

08-15-2017, 02:30 PM

So, not only are you not paying attention to what is going on, or the content of the OP, but you also are not paying attention to the discussion that has ensued.

Great contribution.

I am paying attention. Most of it is the empty babbling of CJWs whining that their "culture" is being attacked while attacking a private enterprise for daring to decide how their property should be used.

PierzStyx

08-15-2017, 02:34 PM

Yes it is. Whether it has the right to or not is the question. But whether they are doing it is unquestionable.

Sargon of Akkad just had his twitter permanently banned today.

Boo hoo?

You're like a bunch of whiny politicians complaining a newspaper owner won't let their political party use the newspaper's press. Your freedom of speech is in no way limited or infringed by any of this in any way. You're just butthurt they don't agree with you. Well, deal with it you big babies.

Swordsmyth

08-15-2017, 02:34 PM

*Yawn*

Like I said, whiny rightists crying over their "culture.". You've heard of the SJW? Well, you all are just a bunch of CJWs, "Culture Justice Warriors."
Culture produces politics, and if you want to invent that label then I will wear it with pride, unlike "SJWs" we don't want to use force on those we disagree with, but we are perfectly within our rights to advocate what we believe in and to avoid using google or any other Alphabet (agencies) company.

PierzStyx

08-15-2017, 03:50 PM

Responses in bold.

Culture produces politics,

Sure. And here is your culture proudly marching on:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article35980374.ece/BINARY/w780/web-charlotte13nw03.JPG

The only kind of politics your cultural fascism creates are oppressive, corrupt, Fascist CJW garbage.

and if you want to invent that label then I will wear it with pride, unlike "SJWs" we don't want to use force on those we disagree with,

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/nmof08-APTOPIX-Confederate-M_Pete-4.jpg/alternates/LANDSCAPE_768/APTOPIX%20Confederate%20M_Pete%20(4).jpg

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3410062.1502717961!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/20170812-zaa-n230-666-jpg.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5LltgQKc--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/afycqdzrhkmbxqruvtkq.png

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/13/21/433651A300000578-4786934-Deandre_Harris_center_was_beaten_with_poles_by_a_g roup_of_white_-m-27_1502654758096.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/13/19/433651C300000578-4786934-image-m-59_1502650357307.jpg

Yeah you tooooootally don't use force on those you disagree with. Totally.

but we are perfectly within our rights to advocate what we believe in and to avoid using google or any other Alphabet (agencies) company.

I suggested you stop using Google in my first post. Even gave you some alternatives. You want to do so? Go ahead. But that doesn't make your argument that your free speech is somehow being limited by Google any less bullcrap.

Swordsmyth

08-15-2017, 03:56 PM

Responses in bold.

I suggested you stop using Google in my first post. Even gave you some alternatives. You want to do so? Go ahead. But that doesn't make your argument that your free speech is somehow being limited by Google any less bullcrap.
If you read any of my posts about the rally you will find that I am opposed to the "alt-right" so you can't tar me with that brush comrade.
And I said free speech is not a right inside a private company just the right thing to do, and I never called for the government to do anything about it let alone street thugs.
Go join antifa if you think anyone who is conservative is a NAZI.

helmuth_hubener

08-16-2017, 04:38 PM

The Social Media Shaming of Pax Dickinson

The social media outrage wheel keeps spinning

Cathy Young | July 9, 2015

Public shaming and professional retaliation, or even destruction, for unpopular speech seems to have become a regular feature of life—but also a subject of growing concern. Most notably, in the past month, scientists, politicians, and others have rallied to the defense of British biochemist and Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt, whose ill-conceived joke about women in science at a conference sparked a Twitter storm and ended his academic career. The pitfalls of social media shaming were recently explored by British journalist Jon Ronson in the acclaimed book "So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed," which examines such notorious incidents as the Twitter mobbing of public relations rep Justine Sacco in December 2013 over a racially insensitive joke.

But before Hunt, before Sacco, before the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich over his opposition to same-sex marriage, there was another drama of career-killing Internet outrage: the undoing of Business Insider Chief Technology Officer Pax Dickinson. It is a story that raises troubling questions about speech and consequences.

Unlike Sacco or Hunt, ruined by a single misinterpreted moment of levity—or Eich, penalized for what had been only recently a mainstream viewpoint—Dickinson had a long history of outrageous Twitter comments that were a mix of deliberate provocation and controversial opinions. His precipitous downfall began when those tweets caught the attention of a writer for Valleywag/Gawker, who described Dickinson as "your new tech bro nightmare."

I followed the Dickinson debacle in September 2013. While I shared his critical view of feminism in tech, which often seems to be less about advancing women than fostering grievance, dispatches from the field made Dickinson sound like a genuine male chauvinist. (One of his much-quoted tweets said, "Tech managers spend as much time worrying about how to hire talented female developers as they do worrying about how to hire a unicorn," which seems to imply that female talent is mythical.) While such opinions certainly shouldn’t be punished or censored by the government, there are certainly good reasons for a company not to want a top executive who publicly voices them—from bad public relations to potential discrimination suits.

I was, therefore, somewhat wary at first when another journalist contacted me with an offer to speak to Dickinson for a possible feature on his professional exile. After several email exchanges, I ended up meeting with him for a long interview at his New Jersey home and speaking to several women who had worked with him in the past. I came away convinced that there was much more to this story than the mainstream media narrative of a sexist "tech bro" getting his comeuppance. Even if Dickinson was in part the victim of his own recklessness, what happened to him was another chapter in the annals of self-righteous online outrage that mobs first and asks questions later.

A lifelong computer geek who dropped out of college after one year to work for his father’s business, taught himself Web development, and rose from help desk technician to highly sought-after tech industry executive, Dickinson, now 42, freely admits that he has always enjoyed being "somewhat trolly" in social media—both expressing strong opinions and being deliberately provocative. In part, this was also related to the fact that for a long time, his following was limited to a small circle of people who knew him and were familiar with his style.

Some of the comments that would later get Dickinson branded sexist and racist were clearly meant as provocative humor, and sometimes arguably as mockery of sexism and racism. One particularly infamous July 2010 tweet—"In Passion Of The Christ 2, Jesus gets raped by a pack of n*****s. It's his own fault for dressing like a whore though"—was spoofing the infamous Mel Gibson phone rant in which he used similar language to tell his girlfriend it would be her fault if she were raped. (That context was forgotten more than three years later when the tweet was publicized.) "It didn’t even get many retweets or make a splash," says Dickinson. "I had 50 followers. Was it edgy? Of course. But everyone knew what it was about."

Other tweets that came back to haunt Dickinson do reflect genuinely-held contrarian views—such as this one from June 2009, more than a year before the start of his time at Business Insider: "Women's suffrage and individual freedom are incompatible. How's that for an unpopular truth?" That’s a reference to the argument, made by some conservatives and libertarians, that female voting leads to government expansion because women favor more activist government. Does Dickinson stand by this statement? Sort of—with a disclaimer: "Saying that I’m against women voting is kind of trolling, because I’m against anyone voting." (For the record, he says he doesn’t vote.) Dickinson, who describes his views as "libertarianish" but thinks libertarians "venerate democracy a little too much," is of the opinion that democracy itself is probably incompatible with freedom since it allows majorities to vote themselves more benefits until the system breaks down. He does believe that the female vote is likely to make the problem worse because women tend to be more safety-minded than men; but he’s not particularly keen on the male popular vote, either.

Whatever one may think of these views, they did not attract attention until the fall of 2013, when Dickinson found himself in a Twitter war over feminism in the tech industry. This was not, he stresses, about equal opportunity for women, but about a wave of censorious overreaction to real or perceived sexist slights. Earlier that year, Dickinson had been troubled by the scandal known as "Donglegate," in which tech specialist and blogger Adria Richards tweeted to complain about two men exchanging innocuous, slightly off-color jokes behind her at a conference—costing one of the culprits his job. In September 2013, he criticized the outrage over "Titstare," a mobile app presented as a joke at a San Francisco tech conference (its purpose was for men to take photos of themselves staring at cleavage). Dickinson argued that while the app was crass and inappropriate, to call it misogynist was to trivialize the term. Soon he found himself tangling with feminists and tweeting, "Feminism in tech remains the champion topic for my block list. My finger is getting tired." Soon enough, Valleywag’s Nitasha Tiku was on his trail, going back through his Twitter timeline, and his fate was sealed.

Dickinson insists that he is no enemy of women in the tech industry: "Any tech manager I’ve ever known who’s hiring people is so desperate for good talent—you do not care if that good talent is male or female or any color of the rainbow." That, he says, was the point of his "hiring a unicorn" tweet: not that talented female developers are mythical, but that a manager doesn’t give any thought to gender because any good talent is rare enough. He also points out that he had no problem reporting to a woman—his boss at Business Insider was CEO Julie Hansen, with whom he got along just fine until the Twitter outrage machine caught up with him—and that many women had no problem working for him or with him.

These would be obviously self-serving claims if I had not spoken to several women who tell the same story. "I never saw him treat women any differently than men," says Dina Ledvina, formerly a quality assurance engineer at Business Insider—a company that she says always had a female-friendly environment. "Sophie," another female tech professional who asked to remain anonymous, says that Dickinson was not only supportive of her work but helpful and understanding when she needed flexible arrangements for family reasons. She wrote to me that she "felt bad for Pax" when watching the media storm: "It’s hard to see your friend being misrepresented."

And then there’s Elissa Shevinsky, Dickinson’s former partner in a start-up called Glimpse, a project to build an app that protects the privacy of online conversations. Shevinsky had met Dickinson in 2012, about a year before his notoriety. "Despite his tweets, Pax evaluates everyone as an individual. He never took me less seriously because I was a woman," she told me in an email. "Pax isn’t afraid of strong women. He believed in me so hard, and it was very easy to believe in what we could do together."

It is a somewhat unlikely testimonial—considering that the Titstare incident, which precipitated Dickinson’s conflict with feminists online, also served as Shevinsky’s feminist epiphany. After the scandal, she left Glimpse. Then, in the spring of 2014, she came back as CEO and agreed to partner with Dickinson once again; he agreed to write a public letter of apology.

The apology was enough for Shevinsky—but not for the industry, which still views Dickinson as too toxic to touch. Eventually, he chose to leave Glimpse after realizing that his presence was a major obstacle for Shevinsky in getting venture capital. To this day, he remains essentially unemployable. He says he has received about a dozen enthusiastic job offers that quickly fizzled after he informed his would-be employers of his 15 minutes of infamy. He has worked on several freelance projects that he cannot put on his resume because the companies that hired him don’t want it known that he worked for them. He and his wife, Kelly, currently depend primarily on her small income from a home-based business selling fine china.

"Is it fair that Business Insider fired me? Sure," says Dickinson. "I made the company look bad. Having those libertarian sympathies, I don’t think anyone should have to employ someone they don’t want to employ. But I think being blacklisted and pressure being put on any company that might consider hiring me is a much different issue."

Some influential figures who champion progressive causes in the tech industry have openly encouraged the blacklisting. Shortly after Dickinson’s downfall, technologist and blogger Anil Dash wrote, "If you're a venture capitalist, and you invest in Pax's startup without a profound, meaningful and years-long demonstration of responsibility from Pax beforehand, you're complicit in extending the tech industry's awful track record of exclusion, and it's unacceptable."

Shevinsky strongly disagrees. "I worry about efforts to ostracize people from the community," she wrote to me. "What does it mean if we try to take the right to work away from people with opinions that we find dangerous?"

Dickinson makes the same point in his own still-contrarian, bloodied-but-unbowed style. "I’m very used to working with people who have politics that I find reprehensible," he says. "I mean, I find everyone’s politics reprehensible, and I don’t mind working with them or being friends with them. I’m used to that. It seems other people aren’t."

Ensuring that women and minority groups are not excluded from workplace opportunities is a worthy goal. But the exclusion of people guilty of holding unpopular views is still exclusion—and that’s a trend now spreading to far more innocuous forms of thought-crime than Dickinson’s provocative tweets. After linking to a piece about the Tim Hunt debacle, Dickinson says he received a message from a fellow software developer. It said, "You were the canary in the coal mine in so many ways."

-- http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/09/the-social-media-shaming-of-pax-dickinso

charrob

08-16-2017, 09:32 PM

Things of interest from the memo in the original post:

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. [...] Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

For women in tech, the above should be the most important thing he said: ie. that women are individuals and should not be pigeon-holed into some group based on the fact of being a woman. He's generalizing women, but he realizes that his generalizations are not always accurate. Going through his "women, on average" list (posted below): at work I prefer ideas over feelings and aesthetics. I have more interest in working with things than people. Although many years ago I created a couple of simplistic prototypes with a GUI interface created with Oracle Forms, I much prefer back-end work writing code for stored procedures in databases or low level 3gl 'c' programming. The further away from the front end i can get, the better i like it. Am not extroverted, gregarious, or assertive. Am not anxious or stressed if i can sit at my desk and be creative; am both anxious and stressed if i have to go to stupid meetings all day. As long as he realizes that his generalizations are not accurate for every woman (which he seems to understand), I don't see what the problem is.

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.

UWDude

08-16-2017, 10:09 PM

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/02/googles_billion.php

Google's Billions In Internet Subsidies...
Posted by Tom Foremski - February 17, 2010

Scott Cleland, head of Precursor, is a leading Google critic especially of its position supporting net neutrality. Google has been lobbying the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain net neutrality regulations, which prevent Telcos from charging companies for bandwidth based on usage. He claims that Google is pushing net neutrality because it is the biggest beneficiary of such rules.

- Google received $89 million in taxpayer subsidies from the state of North Carolina to build a data center. It does not disclose subsidies received from other data center sites.

helmuth_hubener

08-17-2017, 01:47 PM

But that doesn't make your argument that your free speech is somehow being limited by Google

Oh, no, free speech is totally alive and well
No problem at all far as PierzStyx can tell

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/silicon-valleys-anti-nazi-purge-kicks-into-overdrive