Google fires diversity critic

[Fojos]

A company can however fire an employee for violating Company Code of Conduct and for creating a hostile work environment though.

Except the fact google practically rightout said they fired him for his opinions.

[Jun]

Actually read memo, as suggested by other posters. I withdraw my point about said engineer.

Not nearly as saucy as I was lead to believe. I think he's just picking the wrong fight right now; the why isn't so important as the end result, as far as the powers that be are concerned. I don't think he should have been fired, nor made an example of. However, poking a bear with a stick is a great way to get mauled, regardless of how you feel about said bear.

Edit: I don't agree with his argument, but outright dismissing him is no better than outright dismissing the women who work in his field.

[Manabomb]

I read what he wrote, seems okay with me. Shouldn't have gotten fired. It was well written.

So you don't realize why stating 1/3 of your colleagues are exceptions or incompetent is bad for you professionally? Even if it was based on sourced, scientific, factual evidence it's still a far cry from the ethical thing to do.

And getting fired for ethics is pretty much like getting impeached for collusion at this point.

[Endus]

It is really sad that no one actually read the memo. If you read it, you would realize it wasn't as bad as the (you guessed it) "liberal and progressive" news puts it. In fact, he embraced individuals, the company, and diversity, but not the way google forces its way towards it instead of naturally. Regardless of what you think of it, it was well written.

You're not "embracing the company" when you label your company "biased" and accuse them of "shaming" and "silencing" people.
You're not "embracing diversity" when you state, flat-out, that certain phenotypes should be preferentially hired because they're "just better" at those jobs.
You're not "embracing individuals" when you state, flat-out, that a lot of your colleagues are biologically incompetent to do the jobs for which they were hired.

It was written like an undergrad who's read one article and thinks they now know everything.

Is this guy talking about social engineering, because i know lots of engineers and he's way off the mark with this comment:

Engineers I know will tell you it's all about facts and figures.

Then those engineers are BSC grads doing scut work in their first few years in the workplace.

Without the qualities described that you're taking issue with, you're building shit nobody wants and which the client will hate, and you don't care, because "the math works out". Which is why people who know better are telling you what to build and to what specs, and making sure you don't futz about, until you can get enough experience to start to understand how much more there is to the job than "facts and figures".

It's like saying that all you need to be a good doctor is to "understand anatomy".

[Gaidax]

If anyone would bother reading the thing, the one would appreciate some points there.

Namely if there is no 50-50 male female representation in hightech workforce then any attempt to forcefully create 50-50 representation at workplace will automatically mean that you would discriminate against the majority faction.

If people want to fix this, the right way is not to hire based on what people have between their legs, but by education from year 1 where maybe girls should get less cute dollies and more useful educational kits.

Women are fully capable of doing everything, problem is many of them are intentionally/unintentionally steered towards bullshit by their parents and the system during childhood. That's what needs to be fixed, not trying to artificially diversify workplace which means that higher skilled person gets declined over less skilled one just because of incorrect genitalia between legs.

[Zyky]

Of course Google tracked down the author and promptly fired him. So much for free speech and freedom of views. Diversity is not diversity when everyone has to sing from the same song sheet and individual thought is forbidden.

When you're hired to preform a job, you're paid to do your job and to uphold the companies policies. They were in every right to fire him because he doesn't have free speech during office hours or for putting out a memo. His job is to do his job, not bad mouth potential employees just because they want a diverse work space.

[Deletedaccount1]

Okay hun, if you're alright with being proven wrong over the internet by some liberal bi weedsmoking cuck-quean. I thought you people had more teeth than that.

I don't care about having teeth. Getting into an argument where we're both speaking two different political languages and hearing what we want to hear is a waste of both of our time.

[Manabomb]

Except the fact google practically rightout said they fired him for his opinions.

Except "practically right out" isn't the same as saying they fired him for his opinions.

Plus, again, they don't give a reason for termination. But hey, nevermind all the internal policies, ethics clauses and other company binding contracts he unwittingly signed when being hired on and subsequently broke by talking about an internal affairs issue on public forum.

[Gaidax]

And another important point he brings is that there is thought police going full force, where some ideas worth talking about get suppresses because they do not fit the "what's acceptable" bill. And that can be anything starting from negative counterpoints against pride movement or discussing tendency of certain ethnic groups to be more involved in X or the not so nice gender gap facts that do not go with mainstream opinion.

[Manabomb]

I don't care about having teeth. Getting into an argument where we're both speaking two different political languages and hearing what we want to hear is a waste of both of our time.

Well I'm glad you can finally admit you pretty much only exist in an echo chamber. At this point I was worried if reality would end up making your kind so sick you'd end up dying, kind of like the aliens from The War of the Worlds.

But really, I was enjoying the argument. I just wish you had some sense to make. Nothing about that memo was ethical and knee-jerk defending it is such a go-to right winger thing to do, it's sad.

[Deleted]

Gizmodo is dishonest piece of shit site, they are largely omitting huge parts of the memo.

Where he said things like "Treat people as individuals and not as a stereotypes or generalizations of their group."

Or


Oh well thanks again for proving how dangerous and insane this cult is, huge parts of the tech world is infected with this feminism/social justice disease.

They are now suggesting go after everyone who supported the memo aswell, calls for violence and destroying their careers.

Thins again brings out one of the many key differences between conservatives and liberals -- or shall we say, conservatives and leftists, because calling this bunch of dorks "liberals" spits on the whole idea behind the word.

One major difference is that conservatives tolerate internal discussion and criticism without going full jihad mode on dissidents who point out that there are things that could use improving. This is obviously not the case withing leftist liberals. Anyone can notice that the dominant traits of leftist liberals are extreme hypocrisy and narcissism. This means that not only are they pretending to be liberals, but they are also so full of themselves that they can't tolerate even the thought that their ideology could be wrong about something. That would directly hurt their egos that are built entirely on the (false) assumption that they are better than others. They're basically like religious dogmas.

As a result, these mockeries of liberals go on full hateful nazi-bolshevik mode even against their own people who dare to point out potential fallacies in their thinking. They are a truly dangerous bunch of fanatics.

[Lylandra]

He pointed out the fact that fewer women than men are interested in technology and that the makeup of men at Google was based on life choices. This is abundantly supported by fact.

He did offer some superficially true facts. He did not name what science thinks to be the reason for those facts and omitted others who are just as important:

life choices and interests are both dependant on your environment. Interests are encouraged or discouraged by your parents and peers from early on. Life choices can be heavily influenced by what person you are socialized to be. And what opportunities you are given. And what picture "the media" paints of a given field of work.

some other reasons why you see so relatively few women in tech are: frustration since you need to be actually better than a man to be as supported as he is or get the same chances (and this is supported by science AND present in the media), because dudebro environments, because you are told from early on that "science/tech is a boy's thing" or "girls don't get math" or "girls can't code" (you know, based on biology. Like the manifesto writer claimed...).

Also, guy who claims that he "wants people to be treated as individuals" and then goes off to claim "women are..." kind of missed his own point.

[Irian]

Many hard-right conservatives cherish and laud the right to practice discrimination in business service and hiring, be it personal or religious. This is exactly what they want.

I see no reason why this should upset them now.

[PosPosPos]

When you're hired to preform a job, you're paid to do your job and to uphold the companies policies. They were in every right to fire him because he doesn't have free speech during office hours or for putting out a memo. His job is to do his job, not bad mouth potential employees just because they want a diverse work space.

Far-righters are just really mad that people apparently have the nerve to not open up their private properties to allow them to spread their lies, conspiracies and toxic negativity.

Next thing they are going to complain about how the rest of us peaceful and loving folks don't bend down on our knees begging them to preach to us on how to be mean and spiteful to others in our very own homes.

[Jun]

One major difference is that conservatives tolerate internal discussion and criticism without going full jihad mode on dissidents who point out that there are things that could use improving. This is obviously not the case withing leftist liberals. Anyone can notice that the dominant traits of leftist liberals are extreme hypocrisy and narcissism. This means that not only are they pretending to be liberals, but they are also so full of themselves that they can't tolerate even the thought that their ideology could be wrong about something. They're basically like religious dogmas.

Are.... are you real?

[Mormolyce]

One major difference is that conservatives tolerate internal discussion and criticism

Pfffahahahaha!

Unrelated note: remember what got Tomi Lahren fired?

[Manabomb]

And another important point he brings is that there is thought police going full force, where some ideas worth talking about get suppresses because they do not fit the "what's acceptable" bill. And that can be anything starting from negative counterpoints against pride movement or discussing tendency of certain ethnic groups to be more involved in X or the not so nice gender gap facts that do not go with mainstream opinion.

I have a harder time believing the "what's unacceptable" bill that conservatives throw my way.

Every time, I get slapped with a bible they half believe in (mostly Leviticus) and the political rantings of Fox news.

- - - Updated - - -

Thins again brings out one of the many key differences between conservatives and liberals -- or shall we say, conservatives and leftists, because calling this bunch of dorks "liberals" spits on the whole idea behind the word.

One major difference is that conservatives tolerate internal discussion and criticism without going full jihad mode on dissidents who point out that there are things that could use improving. This is obviously not the case withing leftist liberals. Anyone can notice that the dominant traits of leftist liberals are extreme hypocrisy and narcissism. This means that not only are they pretending to be liberals, but they are also so full of themselves that they can't tolerate even the thought that their ideology could be wrong about something. That would directly hurt their egos that are built entirely on the (false) assumption that they are better than others. They're basically like religious dogmas.

As a result, these mockeries of liberals go on full hateful nazi-bolshevik mode even against their own people who dare to point out potential fallacies in their thinking. They are a truly dangerous bunch of fanatics.

Yeah, if conservatives treated my viewpoints as equal, I wouldn't have had to fight tooth and nail for the right for my spouse and I to marry, and I wouldn't have to fight tooth and nail every day for my life saving medicine to be legal.

If conservatives even gave a single fuck about anyone aside from themselves in their tiny little bubble, their fucking heads would explode in a shower of fake snowflakes.

[Endus]

If anyone would bother reading the thing, the one would appreciate some points there.

Namely if there is no 50-50 male female representation in hightech workforce then any attempt to forcefully create 50-50 representation at workplace will automatically mean that you would discriminate against the majority faction.

If people want to fix this, the right way is not to hire based on what people have between their legs, but by education from year 1 where maybe girls should get less cute dollies and more useful educational kits.

It's not that simple, because this delves into deep-rooted acculturation that's starting to set in by the time you're a toddler, and you have an entire culture backing it.

By pursuing a diverse workplace, they send the message that there's a demand for that diversity, which acts to change that cultural balance over time. It's not an elegant fix, and quota systems (which isn't what Google is automatically doing) have pretty negligible efficacy in effecting long-term change, and that is a valid reason to argue against them, but not because they're supposedly "unethical". They aren't.

The big thing people seem to forget about affirmative action is that you're almost never seeking "the most-qualified person" by some single artificial metric (in academics, GPA or SAT scores, typically). You're seeking candidates that are "qualified", period. And then you're looking at secondary factors, to decide who to actually take on. Exceptional scores are one of those factors, but not the only one and definitely not a trump card, especially in employment. Because in employment, hiring someone who's overqualified means there's a good chance they'll keep shopping around and jump off to a new job in the near future, better-suited to their higher qualifications. So you try and hire people who meet those minimums, who you think have potential that you can foster, not the most qualified person on the list. You'll often pass them over completely, solely because of how high their qualifications are. At least, for entry-level positions and such.

[Very Tired]

It's quite disturbing to see how many biased individuals are adopting the policy for this one thread that workers should be mindless drones that should do nothing but work all day while abstaining from something as crazy as voicing their own opinions...

A view I'm sure that will change as soon as it's convenient to them.

[Manabomb]

It's quite disturbing to see how many biased individuals are adopting the policy for this one thread that workers should be mindless drones that should do nothing but work all day while abstaining from something as crazy as voicing their own opinions...

A view I'm sure that will change as soon as it's convenient to them.

There is a difference between voicing an opinion and voicing an opinion that will get you tracked down and fired for HR violations, ethics violations and possible contract violations.

But hey, I'm not the guy that wasted thousands of dollars in education and a shot to work at Google over probably some chick refusing to date him.

Like, can we all please step back and realize this was most likely written by a sweaty nerd that wanted a clever way to get back at all the women that have turned him down? For just a second, please.