Was Google right to sack anti-Diversity engineer?

Didn't read thread. Couple of thinking points:

1. I wonder what level and types of outright, in your face activism Google allows from the other direction, not just statements of opinion? I have my suspicions. We have been under a hegemonic media barrage of lies for 50 years about fabricated discrimination against women that is actually sly advocacy of discriminatory policies against men. Google has special front page graphics for Muslim holidays but not Christian. Draw your own conclusions.

In fact, I'll go ahead and offer to wager a shiny internet dime that there are all kinds of discriminatory, generalizing, offensive goings on at Google in the guise of advocacy that are hunky dory just so long as the target is white, male, Christian, etc. i.e. not a favored group.

It's interesting that we have been so brainwashed against anything "discriminatory" that no source I can find is exploring the LEGITIMATE BACKLASH aspects of this story.

2. I've never been fired from a big corporate job, but have left several over the years. I won't go back, and pro female gender discrimination/BS female games, their catastrophic effects on morale and productivity, are huge reasons why. A large portion of women in the workplace are using it as their own personal sexy soap opera. Another large chunk don't take the work seriously, refuse to actually learn their jobs, and blithely shuffle the actual work onto untrained, unqualified assistants, associates and administrative staff while keeping the menial work for themselves so as to appear busy. Another chunk folds like a cheap lawn chair at the slightest pressure, long hours, inconvenience, and immediately starts looking for a man to shuffle the burden off onto. The real piss in the face is when one of these gets promoted wrongfully to make quotas or for "diversity."

All that said, there are a small minority of women who are every bit as competent, work every bit as hard as men, but let's be REAL CLEAR here, it's NOT anything close to an equal amount. The bads outweigh the good 5:1 or worse.

Want to hear a far more adamant, curse-filled estimation of this phenomenon of modern effeminate garbage corporate culture in the U.S.? Ask one of those exceptional competent, hard-working women. They are far and away the most brutally vocal decriers of "precious princess" culture in the workplace. I can't count on fingers and toes the times I've heard far more "colorful" statements of the facts in this post from women and female clients who achieve based on merit and then have the awful task of managing the vast majority of female dregs.

EDIT: One other thing. Our cultural and economic effeminacy is a result of $$ as much as any other cause. Who is more susceptible to advertising, celebrity culture, herd mentality? Who will more readily trade freedom for security? Who make far better "consumption pods?" Who uses vastly more telecomm and social media? The big tech and media companies know -exactly- who their best (and easy to manipulate) customers are, and it's not guys out in the garage changing the oil and cleaning the gutters. Is it any wonder feminism is a market mentality in addition to a faux morality? Zuckerberg is a flaming liberal, as is google, amazon, etc. WELL FING DUH!! Follow the damn money.

 

That's an interesting observation- that women are more consumerist. I don't have data or a study but there's this:
Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridge...ould-know-about-women-consumers/#3d4c452c6a8b

That would certainly explain why companies would want to create the pro-female public image.

It chimes neatly with what I have been saying about the relative value human work - as technology advances the economic contribution of humans to production is decreasing but their importance as consumers remains. So companies pushing for equality at the expense of quality workers makes sense because labor costs are a decreasing fraction of overall costs anyway, so marginal increases are less important.

 

Actually we're trying to look at tendencies across large populations. Any random individual woman could easily be better than a random individual man at any particular task.

 

I don't GAS who Google employs but this might give you some insight into their ranks of snowflakes.

 

Interestingly enough, a disgusting white male wins Google's Code Jam 2017.

I literally can't even...clearly Google is part of the alt right patriarchy!

 

I have heard something similar from female scientists and engineers, not in a curse-filled way, but in a disdainful, women-are-beneath-contempt, kind of way. It's not the same as locker-room talk, though. It's interesting how few female friends smart women have. I knew a female computer programmer who had zero female friends, and a smart female job-hopper who thought all old ladies looked alike even though she was the same age as them. She didn't even get along with her two sisters.

Scary.

 

No One Expects The Google Inquisition, But It’s Coming: The Google memo controversy could tear up the implicit social contract we’ve all accepted with the big technology companies to whom we entrust our data.

These big companies are dangerous. They need to be broken up and regulated. In the public interest.

 

THE GOOGLE ARCHIPELAGO: In an article at the Weekly Standard that was likely written before Google’s meltdown this week headlined, “You Can’t Say That,” a review of the recent book The Demon in Democracy , Matthew B. Crawford asks, “Has liberalism taken a Soviet turn?”

Through the ’80s, ’90s, and into the new millennium, the phrase “politically correct” would crop up here and there. Among people who were credited as being sophisticated, use of the term would be met with a certain exasperation: It was needling and stale. The phrase had been picked up by the likes of College Republicans and Fox News, and if you had an ear for intellectual class distinctions you avoided it.

Originally a witticism, the term suggested there was something Soviet-like in the policing of liberal opinion. When it first came into wide circulation, was it anything but humorous hyperbole? Is that still the case today?

A sociologist might point to a decline in social trust over the past few decades—they have ways of measuring this—and speculate about its bearing on political speech. One wonders: Who am I talking to? How will my utterances be received? What sort of allegiances are in play here? In the absence of trust, it becomes necessary to send explicit signals. We become fastidious in speech and observe gestures of affirmation and condemnation that would be unnecessary among friends.

It’s a great review, and well worth your time to read the whole thing. Crawford’s question, “Has liberalism taken a Soviet turn?”

 

But seriously, look at the contestants in the picture. There's your problem right there. There are virtually no women competing!

How can women win if they aren't competing in the first place.

Here are the previous results for 1 2 and 3 place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Code_Jam#Past_winners
I can't see any women, could be wrong with some of the FE Asian names, but don't think so...

 

That's an interesting observation. Would certainly explain why there is so much emphasis on value signalling over analysis on the online world.

Strangely, I feel the world has become more tolerant of diverse opinion in the "face to face" world, though.

 

We just cracked the 70% disapproval mark! This seems in line with other online polls.

 

Indeed. Its not even the size of Google Inc, but rather its ubiquity. Its become something of a utility.

I don't know if regulation would help or hinder. It is regulation, or the fear of it, that is making Google take up censorship of unsavoury sites. But it is choosing the criteria for censorship, and something like 70% of the censorship occurs automatically without any human input. So its totally policy driven. Very dangerous indeed.

Promoting competition (maybe by breaking up) might be a better way to go.

 

My theory is that he didn't know he would get fired. Many software engineers are slightly autistic and have poor social skills. That combined with the fact that Google (claims to) encourage scientific thinking suggests he didn't understand that when science conflicts with political correctness political correctness wins every time.

 

I'd fire the thin skinned amazon warriors, myself. Damore and his cohort are the better coders, anyway.

 

Possibly true as well. Of course I know women who would tend to agree with him. Not shrinking violet, dominated by their husband staying at home having baby women, but educated, professional women. Had a very successful female professor once who was a left wing pot smoking artist who put it like this: Sure women should have the right to have these type jobs, but why the hell would they even want to?

 

They must be broken up.

 

There seems to be some status to writing code, although I don't know why. It is telling though that feminists don't complain that there aren't enough women garbage men or coal miners.

 

People always say we need to have a "national discussion" about these things - but then if you say the wrong thing, you get fired.

The irony is this: Pichai caved in to the Diversity Industrial Complex and had the guy fired. But either the guy is right and women (as a group) just aren't as good at tech as men (as a group) are, or google is one helluva sexist company for having such a huge gender disparity in their tech workforce.

 

I would say Google HAS the right to fire, as to whether or not it was a good idea? Not really, its begging for a lawsuit to be so public about it. Should pulled this guy in and got rid of him quietly...

 

I don't think he said anything in particular about ability, rather preferences. But you're right, Google and the rest of Silicon Valley are profit-making enterprises, if there was such a huge pool of untapped cheap talent they would have exploited it long ago.

 

There would have been little point to that, the mob was chanting for blood.

Unfortunately you can either feed them or deny them, but there's no middle ground. They would have called anything short of public denouncement and firing as a lack of commitment to niceness.

 

I'll have you know that all women are also slightly autistic with poor social skills! So they should be 50% of software engineers

 

Companies that blindly cater to the mob eventually perish because the mob is a fickle beast. Google should have quelled and handled it in a better manner.

 

I think it's an opportunity for other companies to crack Google's (and Youtube's) monopoly. Your selling point could be, "The ONLY search engine that doesn't censor right-wing results!" Even left-wingers would be curious to see what they aren't seeing. That being the case, I don't think breaking Google up is necessary. There was some call some years back that Walmart needed to be broken up because it was becoming a monopoly. But now Dollar Tree and some of the other dollar stores have cracked Walmart's hegemony, without any help from government.

 

I'm sure the real reason they wanted to break them up was because they are non union.