A software engineer’s 10-page screed against Google’s diversity initiatives is going viral inside the company, being shared on an internal meme network and Google+.

In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women.

"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)."

It's an interesting read, and I generally support what the guy is saying.  

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-...1797564320


Probably pointless for me to start this thread, because there just aren't any liberals on this message board. So no one is going to argue the opposite point of view. But I thought it was interesting anyway.

---

And now there is word that the guy who wrote it has been fired.

I guess it's okay to hold certain views, but not others.

His manifesto raised several points which were worth discussing. First, is it safe to assume that a lack of diversity always results from discrimination, and secondly, is it fair to address past discrimination with more discrimination, tilting the playing field in the opposite direction. And then of course, the next question is, should a person be fired for expressing a legitimate point of view that disagrees with management.

I know what everyone who participates on this political message board would say to this. I would genuinely like to read a response from someone who is on the opposite side, but like I said before, there aren't any liberals on this message board.

---

I'll bite.

Interesting piece from Cain I agree with.

https://www.hermancain.com/googles-meltd...-employees

---

I think this is a pretty serious issue.  Here's another article I agree with.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/opinions/g...index.html

---

"I suppose you've all heard by now that one of Google's engineers anonymously released a 10-page memo criticizing Google's corporate culture where contrary opinions are silenced. So how did Google management respond? They first proclaimed their commitment to 'diversity of opinion' -- and then they tracked down and fired the guy. I guess one of the job requirements for positions in Google management is a completely atrophied sense of irony."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm about as liberal as they come. I don't have a problem with pretty much anything he said other than the appearance of implying that women are biologically disposed to be less successful in the fields he refereed to. The outrage sure seems overblown considering the scale of it however.

My SO is a doctor and her response was basically "for a very long time women were told they were inferior to men and could not be doctors or engineers or other professionals because their brains and dispositions or whatever were not up to the task like a man's was. I thought we were past this and letting people sink or swim based on their own abilities"

Based on her response it's pretty easy see why women would be pretty offended by assertions that seem to made in the memo. Especially older women.

I am much more interested in the response over his firing than I am the content of the memo itself. Each side of the right to work /worker's rights debate are taking opposite sides in regards to his firing. Those who agree with his assertions don't think they should have been able to fire him over his opinion piece while those opposed to his memo are exalting in his firing when normally these two ideological sides take the opposite stances.

---

An interesting read for sure. I think a big issue is the employer feels the woman can't handle the balance of work/home/parenting without a breakdown somewhere in the chain. And many can't without one of those things suffering. But not all, and that's where his idea of dealing with each person as an individual and not as a group, in this case the group is women. Not all women are the same at all, and being stereotyped is maddening.

As far as him being fired. It's crap. I had to laugh when I read the statement at the end by the new VP of Diversity, Integrity and Governance. "Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws."

So, I guess their CoC has nothing on sitting a guy down and talking about what just happened. They just straight up fire him. Their culture reminds me of that of the fictional social media company in the book, The Circle.

---

I think the guy was making some completely valid points, such as, why does "diversity" not include ideological diversity, and maybe lack of diversity is not simply a result of discrimination. Anyone who reads his so-called "manifesto" can see that it is NOT "anti-diversity." He is simply trying to raise some possible other reasons why women are under-represented in technology.

It seems like every day I read articles about how women are better than men at this or that, but when anyone wants to say men might be better than women at anything, they get attacked.

So often it seems like people try to make up for the lack of a level playing field in the past by tilting the playing field completely in the other direction. They try to make up for past discrimination with more discrimination. Such practices are very destructive to our unity as a society, because now we have created a whole new set of victims and a whole new set of grievances.

---

I think the guy was making some completely valid points, such as, why does "diversity" not include ideological diversity, and maybe lack of diversity is not simply a result of discrimination.   Anyone who reads his so-called "manifesto" can see that it is NOT "anti-diversity."   He is simply trying to raise some possible other reasons why women are under-represented in technology.  

It seems like every day I read articles about how women are better than men at this or that, but when anyone wants to say men might be better than women at anything, they get attacked.

So often it seems like people try to make up for the lack of a level playing field in the past by tilting the playing field completely in the other direction.   They try to make up for past discrimination with more discrimination.  Such practices are very destructive to our unity as a society, because now we have created a whole new set of victims and a whole new set of grievances.

They dont want equality, they want revenge. Revenge for something that didn't happen to them agaist people who didn't do it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think the guy was making some completely valid points, such as, why does "diversity" not include ideological diversity, and maybe lack of diversity is not simply a result of discrimination.   Anyone who reads his so-called "manifesto" can see that it is NOT "anti-diversity."   He is simply trying to raise some possible other reasons why women are under-represented in technology.  

It seems like every day I read articles about how women are better than men at this or that, but when anyone wants to say men might be better than women at anything, they get attacked.

So often it seems like people try to make up for the lack of a level playing field in the past by tilting the playing field completely in the other direction.   They try to make up for past discrimination with more discrimination.  Such practices are very destructive to our unity as a society, because now we have created a whole new set of victims and a whole new set of grievances.

They dont want equality, they want revenge. Revenge for something that didn't happen to them agaist people who didn't do it.

I agree with both.

And it's interesting that you say they want revenge for something that didn't happen to them against people who didn't do it. 

I'm currently reading a book called, Assimilate Or Go Home, by a woman who was a preacher's daughter and felt called at an early age to be a missionary to a third world country. She always felt an affinity toward refugees because she and her family were moving every few years when her dad was asked to be the pastor to a different church and she always felt somewhat homeless. 

I can totally identify with that. What I can't identify with is her feeling the injustice of what was done to the refugees who were sent here to the US to resettle and have a new life. She goes on and on as if she suffered the same injustices. And I mean she REALLY feels this way. She deliberately lives in low income housing so she can better identify with the Somali Bantu refugees who live in those housings (which is great if that's what you want to do) and IMHO feel sorry for herself for growing up white and privileged. Her definition of privileged seems to be that of one who grows up in a country where everything from law enforcement to the political system is geared to favor white folks. And maybe that is the current definition of privilege or what a lot of folks call white privilege, I don't know. But she seems to hate herself for being white and having grown up in this country instead of being thankful for having the opportunities here that her Somali neighbors never had. The same opportunities that allowed her to be compassionate toward and educated in such a way that she is able to teach these refugees what it's like to live in America when they've never even seen a light switch in their entire lives. It's like she wants to have been them with all the trauma and isolation that comes with it. 

I know there are people who feel a responsibility toward others who are less fortunate. I know there are folks who make it their mission in life to seek justice for those who are mistreated. I didn't really know there are people in this country like her- people who feel such a sense of..... I don't even know the word to use. But your description of the folks who want revenge made me think of this woman. I'm 70% into the book and I am only still reading it because I can't not finish a book. But her constant whining about how she feels so crappy for "being born white and having all the advantages" she had has not made it an easy read. 

Most of my own life has been about survival. Mentally and physically. The last 6 years are the most stable my life has been in my 45 years of life. You don't hear me [BLEEP] and moaning about how bad my life was and how unfair it was that I was mistreated by people who were supposed to protect me or how I was so depressed I tried to kill myself, etc. Yes, I've mentioned things in the context of conversation, but I don't complain about it like I'm owed something. [BLEEP] happens and you suck it up and drive on. If you ever have the opportunity you take what you've learned and help others who encounter similar things, which is something I do. 

I would say most of the folks who work at Google have a mindset more like hers than mine. The persecuted mindset, that is. Or maybe something in between- hopefully. I guess I shouldn't ever apply to work there. I wouldn't last very long at all.

---

Just because people want equality and it impacts another groups superior status doesn't mean they want revenge. I could see how those that who's superior status are negatively effected in that manner might feel that way however.

---

competition brings the best of all people. When we fail to compete in order to push someone less qualified forward we run into issues later.

Nothing is given everything is earned. That lesson is not being taught enough.

---

Go Jags!
*To stay up for atleast 2 years 3/6/17
2016 draft players I think will be good

• On the Fournette train, will be best back of his class 3/6/17
  
• Lattimore please,  Lockdowns on both sides would be nice
  
• Engram at TE and the MJD clone Samaje Perine
  

Just because  people want equality and it impacts another groups superior status doesn't mean they want revenge. I could see how those that who's superior status are negatively effected in that manner might feel that way however.

Depending on how they go about it and/or the mindset or attitude behind it can make it look like they do. I believe all people want equality and I don't have a problem with that at all. What I have a problem with is the hate and discontent that seems to fuel the behavior. It does no one any favors to bring negativity to the table, yet so many times we resort to just that.

---

They did a study at it here in Ireland. (According to the study) Generally speaking men tend to attach their self worth and image to their job and pay more so than women do. Women tend to have exterior items they attach self worth to like their house , family or friends. The study showed that when women are interviewing for a new job they tend to come into the interview having already decided they want the job and will take it unless negations go horribly. Men on the other hand tend to be more aggressive in the same setting and will keep on open mind on a few different jobs and will take the one with the most pay/boost to self worth.

I don't know if I agree with it all but it can explain some parts of it.

---

They did a study at it here in Ireland. (According to the study) Generally speaking men tend to attach their self worth and image to their job and pay more so than women do. Women tend to have exterior items they attach self worth to like their house , family or friends. The study showed that when women are interviewing for a new job they tend to come into the interview having already decided they want the job and will take it unless negations go horribly. Men on the other hand tend to be more aggressive in the same setting and will keep on open mind on a few different jobs and will take the one with the most pay/boost to self worth.  

I don't know if I agree with it all but it can explain some parts of it.

There are really two levels to this. 

1) Why are there so many more men than women in tech jobs. 

2) Why are we not willing to discuss question #1 with an open mind, and why would a person with a certain point of view about question #1 get fired for expressing it.  Really, from reading his so-called "manifesto," the impression I got was that his main point was, "Why can't we have an open discussion about this?"   There was nothing in what he wrote that should lead to him getting fired.

---

Just because  people want equality and it impacts another groups superior status doesn't mean they want revenge. I could see how those that who's superior status are negatively effected in that manner might feel that way however.

They don't want equality, they want superiority and to punish those whom they displace. That's human nature and to think it's not so is foolish.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Just because  people want equality and it impacts another groups superior status doesn't mean they want revenge. I could see how those that who's superior status are negatively effected in that manner might feel that way however.

You see it as certain groups having a "superior status". I don't see that status. How is it easier for me? I'd like specific examples, please.

---