Be Scientifically Right, Get Fired
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-08-11 08:43 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 490 references Ignore this thread
Be Scientifically Right, Get Fired
[Comments enabled]  

So it is offensive and not ok to speak the truth.

The engineer in question who penned the piece probably knew the odds were high that he'd get canned.  Nonetheless, having read the entire thing, it's not only correct on an ideological basis (conservatives are considered persona-non-grata in many environments) it's also scientifically accurate.

“To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK,” part of the CEO's note, entitled “Our words matter,” reportedly read.

That's not what the piece said, so obviously lying is now part of Google's "words" that "matter."

What the piece pointed out were some pretty-basic facts and how they might influence personal choice when it comes to fields of employment.

For example, it is a biological fact that men are biologically disposable.  The old saw about a man's minimum contribution to creating a new life being over in 20 seconds, while for a woman it inevitably requires at least nine months isn't sexism it's science.  Science isn't "offensive", it just is.

Now let's project that onto the workplace.  Let's assume that the collective decision is made by a company to engage in a project that is expected to take more than a year and for which the primary engineering talent is going to be asked to work 60+ hour weeks for the duration every single week.

Never been there, you say?  I have -- multiple times -- in my professional career.  Let me note that in none of those instances was the "request" a surprise; in fact in all cases I took the job knowing that was the "ask".  In the last case since I was founding the company I knew exactly what the expectations were going to be.

Could I also have, during the same 2-year period, become a father?  Yes.

Could a woman also, during the same 2-year period, become a mother?  No.

That's not sexism it's scientific fact.  It would have been physically impossible to both meet the requirements of the job and bear a child; even with an extremely aggressive (short) time off to actually have the kid, and zero complications it would have been physically impossible to perform the tasks put before me.

This doesn't mean that a woman cannot choose not to have kids at any given point in time.  But I will also point out that the period of time in most people's lives where they can do the "burn the candle on both ends and not wind up in the morgue doing it" game is in the key ~22-35 time frame -- exactly when most people would possibly like to start or add to families.

So if just half of women in the workforce decide that they'd like to have kids then they would not take jobs that had these demands.  That right there explains why you have one in five, roughly, women in hard-driving engineering areas -- and that makes the assumption that only half of all women would like to bear children!  In fact I suspect the percentage is much higher than 50%.

The outcome is not due to discrimination it's due to individual choice and both men and women have the right to make said choice.

Of course today we can and do turn this "problem" (that is, the choice someone makes) into sexism against men by demanding that no company ever place such a schedule before its engineering staff, and we can do it quite-effectively by mandating various policies such as paid parental leave whether equally available to both genders or not and other similar political decisions.

But if we do so then we cripple those firms that would otherwise be able to embark on such a project and succeed because we make that endeavor illegal to undertake.

This is, incidentally, exactly what the fired engineer was talking about.

When people speak of "high pressure" jobs most folks who have never done that sort of work have no idea what the hell they're referring to.  I do -- basically my entire professional career consisted of doing exactly those sorts of jobs under that sort of pressure.  It'll probably kill me some day; I'm sure I clocked off some years on my longevity by making that choice.

Make no mistake folks -- it was a choice, it was willingly made, and I do not regret it.

Can women make that choice?  Of course.  But by doing so they preclude other choices, such as having a family during that period of time.  That's science, not sexism.  A man can create a family under those conditions.  Maybe he won't choose to and maybe he shouldn't choose to, but he can, where a woman simply cannot.  It's virtually a biological impossibility and it has been a flat legal impossibility for decades.

To state as a matter of "corporate principle" that there are no biological and scientific differences between the sexes that bear on their representation in various parts of the workforce is a lie.  To state that one will not accept those differences that exist is to reduce the potential of said collective firm to the lowest common denominator of capacity of either sex in all respects because instead of forming groups within a company to utilize the strengths of each sex you instead demand that the inability expressed by any employee in the company become that to which all must conform.

This is exactly the argument that people like Sheryl Sandberg of Face****er likes to make and her argument has nothing to do with equality but is rather intended to cripple any firm that could challenge Facebook by making it impossible for them to do what Facebook previously did -- which involved requiring that sort of work schedule and output by its engineers!

Sheryl, in other words, wishes to mandate under threat of being shot that any potential competitor be crippled so as to not be able to take Facebook on.  For this she should be tried and imprisoned, along with the rest of Facebook management, under 100+ year old law that forbids monopolistic practices such as this (15 USC Ch 1.)

That's what Google allegedly "supports" but just like Sheryl Google's "support" has zero to do with "justice"; it is entirely-focused on suppressing competition.

It's also what the grievance industry and social justice warriors want, support and demand.  But at the same time they refuse to prosecute their war against those firms that built themselves up using and today live by the above scientific fact or even worse, just plain discriminate and yet give lip-service and pander to their bull****.  Take a look around the boardrooms and top executive positions at various competitively-successful firms and may I note that most board members in most firms are old enough that further child-bearing is not at issue.  Boeing anyone -- right in the middle of SJW heaven in Seattle.   How many women?  Two.  How about Amazon? Google itself?  Gee, the bastion of this screamfest has what percentage of women on the board -- and zero, I might add, in the top four officer positions!  How many officers on Netflix's board are women?

Now tell me again all about the SJW demands and why those four firms along with all the rest are given "exemption certificates".......

Guess what?  You can demand all you want, you can even get that infantile screaming turned into law in the United States but you can't force the rest of the world to put up with your bull**** and it won't.

Adopting such positions as a company is in fact how you lose in a competitive world.

Adopting such positions as a nation is how you get buried competitively on a global scale. 

There are plenty of people, myself included, who will not start a company under these conditions.  Had they existed in 1993 I would not have founded MCSNet.  Until and unless they go away that's a final decision on my part and, I argue, the only logical decision for any person in the US to make.  No more business ventures in this environment -- period. The SJW folks can stuff it.

Those are facts folks, and we as a nation must choose.  We must choose to either die competitively as a result of these "social justice" ****heads or we must, while respecting their right to speak, say "no" to them, shun them, refuse to play their game and in fact destroy them and their attempted strong-arm garbage exactly as they seek to destroy everyone else through their puerile and outrageous denial of facts.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
A One-Sentence Bill To Force The Health-Care Issue

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info Be Scientifically Right, Get Fired in forum [Market-Ticker]
Bagbalm
Posts: 5264
Incept: 2009-03-19

Just North of Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I wonder if this fellow was home schooled? Usually they teach you in public school not to make any reference to embarrassing reality.
For example all this zero tolerance stuff in school - I want them to raid every teacher's lounge in the country and arrest administrator enabling keeping a KNIFE to cut cake.
Jpg
Posts: 434
Incept: 2009-03-23

MI
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Recall that Lawrence Summers was canned as president of Harvard in 2005 for making generally the same observation.
Gantww
Posts: 1416
Incept: 2011-04-22

Nashville, TN
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I spoke to a silicon valley entrepreneur who had VC backing about the possibility of outsourcing in-country. Given that much of the country is teetering on second world or third world status, has a lower cost of living than the valley, while still speaking English and being subject to American law. I was told "We don't want to hire a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic inbreeders. We don't want that crap in our company." This was done in front of witnesses in a loud voice with absolutely zero fear of repercussions to himself or his business. That includes blatant violation of California employment law, btw.

The SJW set, especially the silicon valley type, needs to take a hard fall onto a hard surface. I'm told the guy that got fired also filed a NLRB complaint, so it may be interesting if they fired him as a reprisal.

----------
Pissing on the host in the middle of the living room with guests present is a pretty good reason for the host to forcibly remove one from the scene, in my humble and correct opinion. - Jack_Crabb
Kellywood
Posts: 9
Incept: 2017-05-24

Great Lakes
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
After 13 plus years in an industry that required at least 55 hours a week to successfully be employed and competitive, I do agree that after having my first child I had to choose. I made that choice not under duress but did financially suffer the consequences. I was 35 years old. I do not regret my choice to raise children. Hardly. My opinion, from experience, it that less regulation within corporations and a lot more well thought out Human Resource decisions should be implemented. I get the legality of it all, but there is always wiggle room to mentor and inspire those you employ and to offer the "right fit" if the employee is willing. I never at anytime felt injustice. I new what the "ask" was and embraced it. When I couldn't stay mentally healthy balancing children and work I simply made a choice. That simple.
Vernonb
Posts: 1848
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Now let's project that onto the workplace. Let's assume that the collective decision is made by a company to engage in a project that is expected to take more than a year and for which the primary engineering talent is going to be asked to work 60+ hour weeks for the duration every single week.


Let's try 80+ hours a week at times on an engineering and chemical reearch task. I had a team of 4 people including myself to pull this off. We did in 2 years with 500K (equipment, supplies, consulation, and salaries) what our competition failed to do in 5 years spending 5 million dollars. All of us worked grueling hours. No one was absent during that period for unscheduled or unintended consequences. My team was all male and I was the only unmarried member.

It was one of those do or die moments. We either succeed or we were out of business. That was in 2000. We are still in business!

Sometimes time is NOT a luxury.



----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Killben
Posts: 269
Incept: 2009-12-07

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Not exactly on the topic but something on similar lines about expressing an idea or thought in India.

From http://indianexpress.com/article/india/b....

India's outgoing Vice-President, Hamid Ansari said...

He quoted Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan: A democracy is distinguished by the protection it gives to minorities. A democracy is likely to degenerate into tyranny if it does not allow the Opposition groups to criticise fairly, freely and frankly the policies of the Government. But, at the same time, minorities also have their responsibilities. Well, they have every right to criticise, their right to criticise should not degenerate into wilful hampering and obstruction of the work of Parliament. All groups, therefore, have their right and have their responsibilities.

PTI report quoted Vice President-elect M Venkaiah Naidu rejecting as political propaganda the view that there was a sense of insecurity among minorities. Without naming anyone, Naidu said: Some people are saying minorities are insecure. It is a political propaganda. Compared to the entire world, minorities are more safe and secure in India and they get their due.

I am not saying whether Ansari is right or wrong. All I am saying is he has a view and he expressed it, when he was leaving a constitutional post, when he was not bound by the propreity of office. What is wrong in that? The ruling party immediately pounced on him, which implies that you can only say what the government says you should. Nobody in the ruling party gave a thought to whether he had a point or not and whether they should do something about it.

Any differing view is dissent not to be entertained. Period!

All signs of democracy turning into tyranny everywhere.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149426
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
It was one of those do or die moments. We either succeed or we were out of business. That was in 2000. We are still in business!

Sometimes time is NOT a luxury.

Exactly.

MCSNet was successful because I worked those weekends and overnights. There were others who did too, when the need arose.

My two previous jobs? Both places hired me with the full disclosure that I'd be expected to put in extreme hours a good part of the time and on a continuing basis. The first real (coding) job I had came with the same requirement -- disclosed in advance, and THAT ONE required on-site travel also, often to hit the ground running when the wheels came down.

The entire reason I can run this place today is because I did that. I took it on and succeeded. But there was utterly no way for me to discharge my responsibilities without that sort of time and effort.

It was a trade-off that I willingly took on. There was nothing particularly physically demanding involved (other than humping a router here and there on occasion, which can be a damned heavy piece of gear) but the emotional and intellectual demands are another matter entirely. You either had that capacity or you did not. If you couldn't show up almost-literally every single day and work 12+ hours six days a week and sometimes ALL SEVEN you simply couldn't do the job. Migraines, hangovers, got a cold, allergies, whatever? As long as you can still do the work and be productive, ok -- but if you have call out, and it doesn't matter why -- you're done. There's simply no margin for you failing to pull your weight EVERY DAY. If I had been in ANY way emotionally fragile and unable, as a result, to do that job EVERY SINGLE ****ING DAY I would have failed -- HARD.

When I ran MCSNet at one point we outgrew the original customer management software that basically ran the joint. For security reasons there were two phases of each day's operation; the billing was run and then an export file was used to authenticate the credit card charges on a separate machine. The results from that run were then put back against the operational system. (This was why we never had our CC database broken into; it was literally NOT THERE on the mainline system.) But -- it was 5 years old and built for a time when computers were 1/10th the power they had grown into.

We didn't have the available skilled people to do a "fire team" sort of thing, never mind that giving four or five people each a quarter of the job would have taken a month to design and decide, then months to implement. We didn't have the time and we didn't have the available talent. There was only one way to get it done: I had to do it.

So I told my #1 (Marcus) that absent the FBI raiding the place or a fire in the building knocking on my door was a very bad idea and it was his job to keep people from being fired, which would happen if I was interrupted. I then barricaded myself in my office on a Thursday.

The following Monday morning we had a working replacement, fully-integrated and online. It consisted of several thousand lines of "C" backed by a Postgres database and system software modifications to the FreeBSD OS that actually ran all the user-accessible "things" on the network, along with a custom RADIUS backend plug-in to handle dial-in authentication. NOT ONE LINE OF THAT CODE EXISTED, INCLUDING THE CHARACTER-BASED WINDOW MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND THE SCHEMAS FOR THE DATABASE, WHEN I STARTED. I HAD A FUNCTIONAL FRONT-END RUNNING IN 48 HOURS AND THE ENTIRE SYSTEM UP AND RUNNING IN 96 HOURS -- FROM ZERO, AS ONE MAN.

I think I slept perhaps six hours over the entire four days and I have no idea how much coffee got consumed. I then spent Monday training Liz (Customer Service head), Marcus and a couple of others on how it worked and had them go out on the floor and show everyone how to use it, as it was live and active.

It wasn't flaw-free by any means and it certainly wasn't the best-documented or even "best architected" code I've written but it was working, and over the next month or two the relatively minor bugs that needed to be sorted, were.

Yeah.

Now try that when someone says "I can't; I got a migraine" or "I can't, my 6 month old kid has nobody to watch him/her."

Nope, nope and nope.

----------
Winding it down.

Tsherry
Posts: 864
Incept: 2008-12-09

Spokane WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Direct experience:

-Single or married women who are serious about their lives, intelligent, and who don't have children and aren't planning on having children progress just as quickly in my profession as men. They can work just as hard, long and with the same dedication--if it's in their nature. They'll work unpaid to see the job done right, on time, in excess of expectations and with luck, under budget.

-Single or married women who are not serious about their lives, and who don't have children and aren't planning on having children do not progress in the profession as quickly. They're too busy doing outside activities, having fun, partying, playing, going on vacation. They might be adequate workers, but they will never own the joint. The same goes for non-serious men. If it's not in their nature to see the project complete, and instead punch out at 8 hours, they're demonstrating that they're not interested in working hard, long or with the dedication needed to advance the project or their own careers. They're only present for the paycheck. They're gone at 40 hours a week.

-Mothers generally do not progress as quickly in the profession, unless they are serious, and even then, the time commitment required to raise a child impinges on a potential career path. Ditto for fathers. In their view (and as a Dad, I don't argue) time outside of the company, during the workday to attend a sick kid, a baseball game, preschool, whatever, is just as important as their professional obligations--at that point in time. They might be able to work a few additional hours, but 60 or 80 per week, no.

With mere moments of reflection, no one should be surprised by Google's (or Fb or other SJW infested entities) reaction to the statements made by the engineer. The places appear to be run by people who think that being present at their workstations for 32-40 hours per week (as opposed to actually WORKING ); participating in on-site yoga/self-discovery classes; hanging at the on-site kale bar; discussing Algore's latest movie, etc. for another 10 hours per week, and yet still feel they are entitled to that which they have not earned.

Places like this must just suck the life out of productive, driven people.
Aerius
Posts: 884
Incept: 2008-03-19

GTA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Back when I was younger I worked in an industry where product release deadlines were real, and being on-call and putting in stupidly high hours was a normal and expected part of the product development cycle. Wanna guess the age & gender makeup of the engineering & production testing teams? Damn near everyone was a 20-40 year old male, no one else was able & willing to pull those kinds of shifts while remaining functional.

The product release happens on time or the company goes under, rinse & repeat for every new generation of product. It was truly innovate or die.

It's not a work style that everyone can pull off, and even if they can I completely understand why one would choose not to do it. And that's perfectly fine. Just don't ****ing whine about it like those social justice ****faces, SJWs are up there with pedophiles on my kill list.
Patriarch
Posts: 1175
Incept: 2007-10-18

your account summary
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I want to see how much of their own money (Google board members) is spent on venture capital funding of businesses started and maintained by women, 'minorities', and 'undocumenteds' as well as others on the SJW 'oppressed' lists. Let these equal entrepreneurs soak in that money, and sink or swim on their own.
Then we can be entertained by the excuses of the failed enterprises that start up this way. Of course, it will almost always be someone else's fault, though in the cases where the start-up person 'opts' to 'not trade my quality of life for money', those persons will be lauded by the same SJW crowd.
'Progressives'. Double standards are their starting points.

----------
Our elected take an oath to serve. Time to add: I will not serve in a capacity which I am not able to comprehend or am incapable of by mental defect of any kind, nor will I use the excuse of intellective deficiency if found in violation of this oath/affirmation, which backs charging wayward politicians with treason.
Spence
Posts: 3196
Incept: 2009-09-11


Online
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
In his original paper he even linked to scientific studies that backed up his points. I'm sure Google execs have read a lot of popular science books so they know he's at least partially right, and fired him in an attempt to distort reality to be more PC.

The field of evolutionary psychology has been around at least 30 years. They have done many studies and even studied modern hunter-gatherer societies. The theory is that since humans were hunter-gatherers during most of their existence, evolution caused men and women to have specialization for various tasks.

Studies have been done. For example the men went on hunts into the forest and they were really good at finding their way back, whereas women would be more likely to get lost.

On the other hand, women were doing the gathering and foraging, which they could do kids in tow. Studies have shown women are much more observant. One study put men and women in a waiting room to wait for a volunteer study. Turned out the waiting room was the study. When called in, they would ask them what was in the waiting room. Men would say maybe a table and a lamp. Women would say a table, a lamp, a green ashtray, a stuffed rabbit, a painting of a bird, a stack of magazines, etc.

Stuff like that is what this guy was pointing out.
Kareninca
Posts: 229
Incept: 2011-08-23

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"It'll probably kill me some day; I'm sure I clocked off some years on my longevity by making that choice."

Actually you should be fine, as least with respect to the risk of harm caused by long work hours. It looks like women and men are affected very differently by them: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20....

"Work weeks that averaged 60 hours or more over three decades appear to triple the risk of diabetes, cancer, heart trouble and arthritis for women, according to new research from The Ohio State University. . . . The results among female workers were striking, Dembe said. The analysis found a clear and strong relationship between long hours and heart disease, cancer, arthritis and diabetes.
Men who worked long hours had a higher incidence of arthritis, but none of the other chronic diseases. And those men who worked moderately long hours (41 to 50 hours weekly) had lower risk of heart disease, lung disease and depression than those who worked 40 hours or fewer."

There simply seems to be a biological difference between women and men here. And it's not that women are doing the housework and childrearing in addition to working; this study was done over a course of 32 years and childrearing doesn't take that long. Maybe it's due to different reactions to stress hormones. I do see it anecdotally; women I know who come form healthy backgrounds who become workaholics have ended up with dire ailments. Men often seem to thrive on working like maniacs.
Vernonb
Posts: 1848
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karen,

I think a lot of that has to do with who your co-workers are and their dedication to a task. If they are the whining SJW warrior types they only add to the stress already in that situation. It has been my experience that women are more likely to engage in passive agressive behaviours and bickering in such situations. Men know all of them depend on getting this done together and when the impetus is there they can resolve differences to get the task done especially if the leader is trusted personality.

Not saying all women are that way but it has been my general observation. I've had a few women that were simply outstanding.

Nor have I ever had a guy to come to me on the verge of a breakdown in tears because the "job was too hard" wanting me to offload the responsibilities onto someone else or because "someone spoke mean to me." It's always the people I inherit that seem to have these issues and never the people I hire directly. One hire left for family reasons to relocate across the country but unless retired all persons I have hired are still here and being productive (sometimes in other departments).

I seem to have a knack for recognizing good and decent people but I'm told I make people sweat bullets in job interviews too -lol.

I will not even go ito the cases of resume embellishments that occur in this day an age or how a person even 'graduates' with a D average in their science major from a 'minority' college. Hell many of the kids with an 'A' are missing half the basics! Yet they have a whole list of SJW activities listed on the resume. I will catch you. If I see that combination of **** - it goes directly to File Cabinet #13.





----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Bodhi
Posts: 113
Incept: 2008-02-23

Georgia
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
I will not even go ito the cases of resume embellishments that occur in this day an age or how a person even 'graduates' with a D average in their science major from a 'minority' college. Hell many of the kids with an 'A' are missing half the basics! Yet they have a whole list of SJW activities listed on the resume. I will catch you. If I see that combination of **** - it goes directly to File Cabinet #13.


Many years ago I was the only technician at a fast growing Atlanta telecommunications equipment reseller. My company was finally going to hire me some help as I was getting overwhelmed with the exponential increase in business. I asked the head of HR if I could look at the resumes. She said it was OK and I went to her office. The first one I looked at for about 5 seconds and then dropped it in the trash. She exclaimed, "What are you doing!" I replied, "This person couldn't even take the time to make sure their hometown was spelled correctly." It stayed in the trash. Another one looked good at first glance, but I realized the guy had never spent more than 2 years at any place he worked. I said it would be a waste of time and money to train someone with a track record like that. We ended up hiring two men fresh out of the US Army and they could not have been better employees.
Spence
Posts: 3196
Incept: 2009-09-11


Online
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
New York Times David Brooks calls for Google CEO to resign over this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opini....

Quote:
In his memo, Damore cites a series of studies, making the case, for example, that men tend to be more interested in things and women more interested in people. (Interest is not the same as ability.) Several scientists in the field have backed up his summary of the data. Despite how its been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate, Debra Soh wrote in The Globe and Mail in Toronto.

Geoffrey Miller, a prominent evolutionary psychologist, wrote in Quillette, For what its worth, I think that almost all of the Google memos empirical claims are scientifically accurate.


Also Damore did an Op-Ed in the WSJ today, but most of it is behind a paywall.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-f....
Fasteddie81
Posts: 3
Incept: 2017-05-11

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Google had a golden opportunity here, and they blew it. They could have seized the opportunity to reiterate that Google is blind to sex/color/creed/sexual orientation, whatever. That they hire people based solely on their skills, and the rest of Silicon Valley, and the country, should do the same.

Instead, Google fires the guy, and reiterates the same old "Diversity" mantra.
Nonsensical
Posts: 111
Incept: 2017-06-16

Los Angeles, Ca
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
But the bottom line is, that isn't Google's issue. First, Silicon Valley is not diverse at all, although they like to pretend to be. Just go to their favorite club, the Battery, and it's a white nerd sausage fest.

Google's firing is about liability because Silicon Valley tech companies do have a real budding problem with sexual harassment. A lot of it is due to ego and the fact that a lot of these guys have zero social skills so they come across really badly and vulgar.

Google's firing him is about stirring up a problem they see developing: a class action lawsuit involving sexual harassment and possibly even management not only looking the other way but participating in it.

It's not about whether they believe in diversity or not, they preach it but they don't practice it. Sure they force a few minorities and women in so they can shove them in front of a camera, but that's all PR.

It was the same thing when all of a sudden the NFL got concerned about concussions and started aggressive flagging it. It's because they were facing litigation. Now that it's settled, yeah, they're really concerned.

This is all about Google trying to get in front of a really bad litigation and PR problem they would have. What Google behind the scenes probably thought about this guy: are you an idiot.

This is about Google heading off a bigger problem. And yes, sexual harassment is a real problem in Silicon Valley, which gets over looked. And I get that no one here is condoning sexual harassment. But there's two things involved:

1. Google's actions have at all nothing to do with ideology.

2. And that tech companies can and do get away with sexual harassment (which goes to show how untouchable they've become).

Now I get it, that white males are just more into tech and computers than most minorities and women, so we would expect to see this reflected in the work force. But believing that Silicon Valley is really enforcing diversity beyond some token PR moves is silly.

Also, Silicon Valley has been coming more and more into conflict with the Progreasives in the bay area. And it's been escalating. Remember those Google Glasses back in 2013. It was because of the people of San Francisco that Google dropped it. Not only were they being banned in SF bars and restaurants, people started attacking people wearing them and destroying the glasses on the street. And then there was good ole Tom Perkins when he came to speak in SF in 2014 that he needed police protection because he was going to get lynched possibly.

But this firing was all about liability which is probably why he knew he was going to get fired.

Tickerguy
Posts: 149426
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Google's firing him is about stirring up a problem they see developing: a class action lawsuit involving sexual harassment and possibly even management not only looking the other way but participating in it.

Big shock there. NOT!

What do you think monopolists do?

**** anything in sight, irrespective of its gender or how many legs it has.

----------
Winding it down.
Nonsensical
Posts: 111
Incept: 2017-06-16

Los Angeles, Ca
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Yep, and we the public have been allowing them to bend us over, except in the public's case, it appears consensual.

This is a point I argue with the progressives. If we bust these monopolies up, and get rid of this supposed "free trade" then how many of the problems they cite for why we need this government program or that one would disappear?

We probably wouldn't even need to have a discussion over maternity leave as natural wages and benefit would likely go up as workers have more employment options. This guy who wrote this paper could go work elsewhere if his bosses didn't like it, and if he stayed the people who don't like he wrote it could go work elsewhere. Even start their own company and compete directly.

Remember the day when the man's salary and benefits was enough for a woman to go on maternity leave.

Almost all of these public debates seem reactions to the problem of the consolidation of wealth and power. All of these debates seem like they all stem around fewer and fewer options for employment.
12bolt
Posts: 290
Incept: 2009-08-24

Blueridge
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Feminism and Affirmative Action have been unmitigated disasters for America, for American men, and for the American family.

We've been displaced by lesser qualified minorities and women in the name of fairness.

Thought exercise: Would an NBA team that took on 5'8" white men and obese black women (because diversity) be competitive with a team made up of the best players?

How about a nuclear physics team? Would the team that AA hired a downs syndrome guy be as good as the team that took the best nuclear physicists?

No. And no.

Yet we're supposed to believe that somehow lowering the bar so less qualified people can participate somehow enhances overall performance.

Bull****. 100% pure unadulterated bull****.

Jordan Petersen and Stephen Molyneux speak wisely on this topic.

I wish KD could get on SM's show sometime. That would be a great interview.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149426
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well, if SM contacts me I'd be willing to appear, of course....

----------
Winding it down.
Idiom
Posts: 104
Incept: 2015-02-20

New Zealand
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
As the memo pointed out, if we treated men who slacked off and didn't sacrifice well, tech would equalise as men left.

It's irrationally brutal.

I worked ridiculous high stress hours in remote live tv environments til I hospitalized myself. I had smart well paid young women who were excellent and well treated, just up and quit to retrain as literal school teachers.

Nobody pressured them to stick with the high paying career. Nobody gave them **** for taking up a cushy job.

If a guy did that, especially a married man? His wife would likely leave, especially if she married him because he was in a high sacrifice high reward career. That's the expectation.
Uwe
Posts: 8269
Incept: 2009-01-03
A True American Patriot!
24091
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Oops!


----------
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -- Robert Heinlein
Krzelune
Posts: 5756
Incept: 2007-10-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I've been suspicious of goolag since the day they told everyone don't be evil.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last