Google fires diversity critic

[helebelemon]

Whats toxic is that the company was willing to fire him for having some concerns about it's diversity policy. The guy didn't put anyone down, toss insults, or disrespect the leadership. The fact that they are willing to throw him out for not spewing the same approved opinion is indicative of a toxic organizational culture.

We're deluding ourselves as to why he was fired. He was fired because he is going to have problems working with people because he elected to alienate himself from the people around him, thus making it difficult for him to work with the majority of people in his company. Relating to my post that you responded to, that is why he has committed suicide. If a toxic culture is a culture that expects its employees to get along and not impede team progression, every company in the world has a toxic culture (except for the Indian tech companies).

[Livnthedream]

What is there to debate? Talk shit about the company work for, true or false, get caught and you will be fired. Honestly, debate it til you're blue in the face with whoever will listen, both of you are idiots and the debate is completely irrelevant. I mean, who gives a shit what his opinion is, he wasn't the boss and thats the end of the story.

Remember that shit people, if you aren't the boss your opinion is dogshit.

You really shouldn't have an opinion about things that you don't understand.

The original memo was posted on internal discussion boards that are supposed to facilitate making the organization better. Much along the lines of the 'anonymous suggestion box' most places have. Seeing as this wasn't just criticism, but also solutions on how to make it better, it is foolish to frame it the way that you are.

[Helgrimm]

Plenty of companies allow their employees to talk about rubbish pseudo-scientific social studies as long as the opinion expressed is left wing.

As long as those "social studies" aren't controversial and might hurt the companies PR image. This engineers views are not really good for PR.

[Livnthedream]

We're deluding ourselves as to why he was fired.

Says the person who has zero evidence of that. No one knows the percentage of people who actually had a problem, and how many of those he had to directly work with. Most of those complaining weren't even at the same location, much less building/section/department.

[Livnthedream]

As long as those "social studies" aren't controversial and might hurt the companies PR image. This engineers views are not really good for PR.

Then maybe they should have fired the SJW who leaked it?

[spanishninja]

Feel free to explain how his views on women don't sound like something you'd hear casually in the 20s. Seems pretty clear to me he is trying to use biology to justify thinking women aren't as smart or as technologically inclined while ignoring basically every other possible factor. A thinking more typical to a backwards time rather than now. Now, I'm not saying he doesn't have any reasonable points, but boiling something so complex down to purely biology is silly.

The only thing he said using biology was that men and women aren't identical. What exactly is wrong with saying that women are better than men at certain things and men are better than women at certain things?

Additional point. Let's say you can 100% disprove that biological differences in aptitude and/or preference for different careers exist (and you can't, at least based on currently available data), realize that there are gender disparities going both ways in a variety of different professions across society. How do you explain these differences? Is sexism enough to completely account for the differences in the data? And if so, is it important that we make EVERY single occupation 50/50? Why and why not?

[xChurch]

WHERE?

Do you not understand statistics? Is that the issue?

How is that a statistic?

So you think men and women are 100% the same in how they think? The science be damned?

No, just that it's more complex that just biology.

[Livnthedream]

The only thing he said using biology was that men and women aren't identical. What exactly is wrong with saying that women are better than men at certain things and men are better than women at certain things?

That isn't even what he said. In fact that goes against what he stood for, as the image I linked from damn thing shows.

- - - Updated - - -

How is that a statistic?

So you don't know how statistics work. Please stop jumping to conclusions about shit that you don't understand.

[oxymoronic]

Plenty of companies allow their employees to talk about rubbish pseudo-scientific social studies as long as the opinion expressed is left wing.

i think both sides are guilty of this... but like i always say, the left wing (democrats/liberals) is more educated and tends to be more intelligent. i expect more from them and considering most of my views align with theirs i get more disappointed with them than the others.

[Aurrora]

No, just that it's more complex that just biology.

So you admit that there is biology involved? So what's the issue?

[Underverse]

How is that a statistic?



No, just that it's more complex that just biology.

It is, certainly. But perhaps, before instating race and gender quotas that take jobs out of the hands of those who would otherwise get them, perhaps we should take a look at what the science has to say regarding differences in race and gender outcomes in different fields. An action requires a justification, especially if you're going to be taking from someone to give to someone else.

I don't think the science has convincingly demonstrated that unequal outcomes in certain fields are caused by discrimination. On the other hand, there is quite a bit of science showing how men and women, as populations, are slightly different in the ways they think and the skills they are best at.

[xChurch]

So you don't know how statistics work. Please stop jumping to conclusions about shit that you don't understand.

It seems more to highlight that he thinks genders overlap and not that they're rigid, which is something I agree with, so I'm not really seeing your point. I mean that "statistic" has no numbers anywhere.

It is, certainly. But perhaps, before instating race and gender quotas that take jobs out of the hands of those who would otherwise get them, perhaps we should take a look at what the science has to say regarding differences in race and gender outcomes in different fields. An action requires a justification, especially if you're going to be taking from someone to give to someone else.

I don't think the science has convincingly demonstrated that unequal outcomes in certain fields are caused by discrimination. On the other hand, there is quite a bit of science showing how men and women, as populations, are slightly different in the ways they think and the skills they are best at.

I agree with you, men and women are suited more to some jobs, I just don't want to see humanity go down the path of deciding what men or women should do based on their gender. Also quota's are dumb in nearly every way.

So you admit that there is biology involved? So what's the issue?

Because narrowing this kind of stuff down to just biology tends to go very badly quite quickly.

[Livnthedream]

It seems more to highlight that he thinks genders overlap and not that they're rigid, which is something I agree with, so I'm not really seeing your point. I mean that "statistic" has no numbers anywhere.

I wasn't giving a statistic. The original memo however was talking in terms of statistics. Since that image is directly from it. He said what you just said. Clearly you too think that women are stupid and don't belong in tech. GG.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

I wasn't giving a statistic. The original memo however was talking in terms of statistics. Since that image is directly from it. He said what you just said. Clearly you too think that women are stupid and don't belong in tech. GG.

So I guess you think this is a valid graph too then?

I mean it has words and lines on it, so it must be statistically valid!

[Livnthedream]

So I guess you think this is a valid graph too then?
I mean it has words and lines on it, so it must be statistically valid!

No. Because his was showing what he was describing, not an actual data set. Please learn how to science before shitting your pants over it. You are proving Asimov correct.

[Bapestar]

Why can't people just do their job and stfu?

[elaina]

LOL the manifesto's title includes the phrase "echo chamber". I almost spit soda everywhere laughing. Is there an alt-right buzzword bingo card to go along with this gem???

[TEHPALLYTANK]

No. Because his was showing what he was describing, not an actual data set. Please learn how to science before shitting your pants over it. You are proving Asimov correct.

In other words, he had a picture and you're calling it a statistic.

[spanishninja]

It seems more to highlight that he thinks genders overlap and not that they're rigid, which is something I agree with, so I'm not really seeing your point. I mean that "statistic" has no numbers anywhere.



I agree with you, men and women are suited more to some jobs, I just don't want to see humanity go down the path of deciding what men or women should do based on their gender. Also quota's are dumb in nearly every way.



Because narrowing this kind of stuff down to just biology tends to go very badly quite quickly.

humanity isn't deciding which jobs men and women should do. It's mostly personal choice. On the other hand, diversity hiring IS in fact trying to intervene on this by externally affecting what jobs women should be doing (or doing more of) based on disparities in distribution and its associated perceived injustice.

[Livnthedream]

In other words, he had a picture and you're calling it a statistic.

No. No wonder why you are shitting yourself over the memo, you can't follow the thread.

xChurch made an assertion, which they wouldn't have made if they had actually read it. Especially with the comments afterward given that they stated the precise thing that the memo did.

I pointed out that they hadn't read it, if they did and still held that opinion, then they clearly don't understand statistics. With the picture to illustrate precisely how the statistics cited/drawn from function. IE why it doesn't say what was asserted.

You then proceed to jump in and spaz out because you don't understand what was being said.

The only real question I have at this point is whether xChurch is trolling, or just an asshole given that they appear to not be retarded, nor particularly ignorant, though are still likely ignorant of the original source.