how much hard proof do you want other than the very public banning of certain speakers?
google employee's internal diversity memo goes viral
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
how much hard proof do you want other than the very public banning of certain speakers?
For all the positions that are incorrectly filled by inept female candidates because of positive discrimination, I bet there are many more male candidates that are incorerectly favoured in interviews and given job roles that they were in fact unsuitable for. Simply put, I don't think you're in any danger of the PC brigade scuppering your chances in life. I think the pendulum still firmly sways in the favour of the white male. We can't really deny that fact.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
First world problems. Can you blame people taking the black pill and tuning out!
What are you basing that assumption on?
Clearly, it does. Otherwise, the majority of highly paid high profile positions would be filled by women (assuming this so called aggressive take over by the SJW feminazi invaders was really a "thing").
I think what we really have he is a bunch of really insecure and paranoid individuals who doubt their own ability at simply being a man.
See above. Are you really honestly scared?
Bless ya. Is this like the impending Islamic takeover of the west too? Cute
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
Those two things are clearly not the same thing.
Geniuses, everywhere!
Yes, it really does make sense.
When any particular kind of irrational prejudice is popular enough, it's profitable to pander to it. So it's currently profitable in the UK for companies to discriminate against men to some extent because that will improve the company's status and thus its profits. Pandering to dominant irrational prejudices is also a way for a company to protect itself, which is especially important today due to social media and general lack of fact-checking in "news" outlets forced to publish immediately by the rate at which stories can spread on social media. All it takes is a few lies by offended bigots with enough like-minded followers and a company has a PR nightmare on its hands.
Not only do those sections not contain the text you claim they did, they explicitly state something that is fundamentally the opposite of what you claim he wrote. Specifically, he acknowledges the existence of people and of variation between individuals. Repeatedly and explicitly.
So you have made an untrue statement about what he wrote and when challenged on it you made an untrue reference to the text. Did you think I wouldn't check or did you just not care?
If this was a court case, I would be inclined to judge you guilty of libelling this person. You are making untrue statements about this person in order to make this person look bad and thus do them harm.
You're not really making any sense, what does fear have to do with this? Have you got anything coherent to offer? At the moment you're just projecting perhaps instead try offering an argument.
Which part of that text you quoted is "a bit mental"? It all looks rational and factually correct to me, although he might (or might not) be overstating the scale of the ideology's influence.
Maybe you haven't actually read the manifesto?
that these [personality] differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech
He starts when an incorrect assertion and builds from there. The early days of software development saw a 50:50 mix of men and women. Clearly it isn't evolutionary traits that are holding women back. If women could succeed in the days of FORTRAN and COBOL, why can't they succeed in the days of JavaScript and Go?
Have women evolved since the 60s to make them less suited to technology? Or has the industry evolved to be less friendly towards women?
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.
As I said, he claims that the "average" women can't handle stress as well as the "average" man. No evidence, just stated as fact. Not that Google is even trying to hire the average man or woman anyway.
Now there's confirmation bias if ever I saw it.
That isn't clear at all, for two reasons:
1) It would take more time for that to happen without extreme violence.
2) It would be counter-productive for them to make that happen as it would remove a powerful weapon they have.
The "SJW feminazis" you refer to are of little relevance on a large scale. It's the mainstream of the ideology that's the threat to increasingly unfashionable ideas such as equality, freedom of speech and the existence of individuals rather than group identities.
Yadda yadda, real man, blah blah. An effective technique, but not reality. Like your dismissal of all criticism as being just ravings about nazis.
Of course I have. That's how I know that it does not contain the text you claimed it contained. I re-read specifically the section you claimed contained that text, which is how I know it's not there despite your claim that it is.
You claimed (and continue to claim) that this person wrote, and I am quoting you here, "He states, without evidence, that women are genetically unsuitable for computer work."
Your statement is untrue. They did not state that. I know that because I read the memo.
You then stated that they stated that in the section entitled "possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech". Your statement is untrue. That section does not contain that statement. It does not contain anything like that statement. It does contain statements that are in a key way the exact opposite of the statement you wrongly claimed was being made in the memo as a whole and that section in particular. I know that because I re-read that section.
You are repeatedly making untrue statements about a person in order to do them harm, with those statements being publically available. That's pretty much what libel is.