Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

By Firing the Google Memo Author, the Company Confirms His Thesis

The vast majority of the histrionic reactions on social media and elsewhere have misrepresented not only what the memo says but also its purpose.

Most of the mainstream media refers to the former Google engineer's leaked internal memo as the "anti-diversity memo." Recode calls it "sexist." And Google fired James Damore for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." But in reality, the problem isn't diversity; it's that a senior software engineer admitted, perhaps unwittingly, to pondering three of the most scandalous thought crimes of contemporary American society.

The first crime is proposing that a meritocracy might be healthier for a company than bean-counting race, ethnicity and sex. The second is pointing out that ideological diversity matters. The third and most grievous of all is suggesting that men and women are, in general, physiologically and psychologically different, and thus they tend to excel at different things.

"On average," asserts Damore, "men and women biologically differ in many ways." He then has the temerity to accuse women of generally displaying a "stronger interest in people rather than things," of having empathy and "openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics," and of being less pushy and having less interest in status than male colleagues. Women, this guy says, are "more cooperative" than men and search out better "work-life balance."

There's much more, but I don't want to further upset any female readers.

One of the problems with this kerfuffle was that the vast majority of the histrionic reactions on social media and elsewhere have misrepresented not only what the memo says but also its purpose. It was neither a screed nor anti-diversity. It was the kind of unvarnished, dispassionate and meticulous case that I imagine many engineers offer. It's difficult to believe anyone who read through it with an open mind could interpret the author's notions as an attempt to consolidate the patriarchy or make life less diverse in his field.

The other, bigger problem is the reaction to it demonstrates that the author is completely right about the lack of ideological diversity and the consequences of that lack.

Damore's contentions about the bias at Google is a near-perfect summation of the dangers manifest in all close-minded institutions, including most of the news media and many universities. He points out that conflating "freedom from offense with psychological safety" shames people into silence. Further, he argues that these monocultures foster unhealthy environments where people can no longer honestly debate important topics. Finally, and most destructively, he says that these bubbles then promote "extreme and authoritarian elements."

We see incidents of this close-mindedness all the time. In schools. In government. In business. Just ask Brendan Eich, who was hounded out as CEO of Mozilla in 2013 for having the wrong opinion on gay marriage in 2008, despite zero evidence that he had ever discriminated against anyone in his life.

Or, better yet, ask Danielle Brown, Google's new vice president of diversity, integrity and governance. She wrote in response to the engineer's memo, "Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture," and then rebuked the statement, telling employees that she wouldn't link to the letter because everyone disagrees with its contents. Rather than showing appreciation for diverse thinking among her ranks, Brown even went on to insinuate that the engineer's suggestions in the memo might undermine "discrimination laws."

Does Brown believe that dissenting Google employees will now feel safer sharing their opinions when they see that the company won't stand by those making unpopular ones? Because, after all, any old VP of diversity, integrity and governance can defend positions that confirm the biases of the majority of their workforce.

Of course, nothing in the letter states women aren't as good as men, or that women deserve less money, or that women aren't suited to be good at tech jobs, or that they should be victimized by the company. The author mostly theorized as to why self-selection might account for some of the disparity at Google.

This is certainly well within the boundaries of legitimate debate. Or it used to be. There are still people who believe human beings are diverse and complicated, and judging them solely by sex or color is just a ham-fisted social experiment. "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group," says our engineer. His brand of American egalitarianism and idealism, however, is now frowned upon in large segments of society and at certain companies.

By firing Damore, Google confirms much of what he warns about. Of course, Google can take any political positions it likes. But its overwhelming power and reach into the everyday lives of so many Americans makes it a perfectly legitimate target for criticism.

"If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem," wrote Damore.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I finally read the memo. While a sentence or two can be scary to snowflakes when taken out of context, I was a bit flabbergasted that Google would show its hypocrisy so soon by firing him while proclaiming how much they did it to preserve diversity. Wouldn't it be great if the company provided some way for its employees to look up the meaning of words?

  • NEET||

    This could've been prevented, but we didn't listen.
    https://a.uguu.se/O0MWQtapuqDY.jpg

  • Quixote||

    This article is based on a false premise. Saying that Google "confirms the thesis" by firing the author of an ill-advised memo, is no better than saying, for example, that legal authorities in New York "confirmed the thesis" of a criminal satirist (namely, accusations of plagiarism and other misconduct directed against various distinguished members of the academic community) by arresting and prosecuting him over a period that has now, for our greater benefit, lasted nearly a decade. Such arguments always inappropriately question the judgment of higher authorities, and in the end should be discounted as mere rhetorical tricks. Surely no one here would dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in America's leading criminal "parody" case? See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Mark22||

    This article is based on a false premise. Saying that Google "confirms the thesis" by firing the author of an ill-advised memo

    Your premise is false. Damore didn't write this out of the blue. He wrote it because he was forced to participate in Google's bizarre "diversity training" ritual and because Google invited discussion on these issues.

  • Quixote||

    It is your premise that's false, good fellow. The training you call a "bizarre... ritual" is actually a normal requirement that comes with the job, and he was no more "invited" to write such an outrageous memo than others are "invited" to inappropriately expose allegations of plagiarism that have been properly suppressed by academic administrators.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    'Normal'.......'bizarre'.........such subjective terms.

  • Mark22||

    Yes, it is normal for Google to require their employees to engage in a bizarre training ritual.

    And there is nothing "outrageous" about his memo: he makes the correct point that the lower percentage of women in high tech is easily explained by biology. Just the fact that high IQ is less common among women than among men would be explanation alone for these disparities.

  • Quixote||

    Clearly Google agrees with me that the memo was inappropriate. The "point" signaled above is no more "correct" than the claim advanced in the equally inappropriate "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in our nation's leading criminal "satire" case.

  • Sevo||

    "Surely no one here would dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in America's leading criminal "parody" case? See the documentation at:"

    Surely no one here should use a thread to grind their own axe; that might well be considered spam, spammer.

  • Quixote||

    Surely you are not defending the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge?

  • MarioLanza||

    Libertarians: this the #56,392 reason that libertarians should shun the left. They hate the free interchange of ideas and true diversity.

    I know that conservatives aren't "cool" like Barry Obama. But Obama and his backers (use Google to find out how Google contributed to Obama) have encroached on true freedoms and are promoting group-think. Read sites like the Federalist. Write letters to Slate, the Graunian and Mother Jones (you will be called a "troll" and eventually be banned for truth telling).

  • John C. Randolph||

    They hate the free interchange of ideas and true diversity.

    They hate freedom, period. I had that much figured out by the fourth grade.

    -jcr

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Yes, all leftists are exactly the same. Every. Single. One.

  • Gezzer||

    Funny how a few here seemed to also miss the over all point isn't it?

  • Mark22||

    When it comes to freedom, by definition, they are exactly the same. Every. Single. One.

  • Sevo||

    "Yes, all leftists are exactly the same. Every. Single. One."

    Of course they're not, but if you subscribe to lefty dogma, you, by definition, support using coercion to support your causes.
    So as regards political discussion, I really don't care if one is a sort of a nice guy while the other is as short-fused as I am; they both are willing to use the overwhelming power of the state to at the very least, limit my freedoms.
    And if I object sufficiently, to kill me.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    encroached on true freedoms and are promoting group-think

    Conservatives certainly aren't guilty of that.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Sad.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    So what? They weren't invilved in THIS case, so aside from stupid whataboutism, who cares.

    Maybe you should read the post he was responding to, dumbass.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Ok, to answer your question - the comment he was responding to was hypocritical bullshit, and his reponse was not in any way whatsoever whataboutism.

    You get it yet?

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    My point is supported by the text. Misrepresenting it in an attempt to distract from its substance changes nothing.

    The original post included the quoted part, and then immediately transitioned to a defense of conservatives that very clearly implied that conservatives weren't just as guilty of the original criticism of liberals, even using the conjunction 'but' to set the two ideas against each other.

    Learn to read, and then learn to debate.

  • DarrenM||

    Assume that both "sides" are equally guilty of whatever you think they are guilty of. Who has historically had the most power and inclination to implement policies that advance this? Both sides screw up. However, the types of screw-ups Republicans are responsible for are generally more easily reversible and short-lived than those Democrats are responsible for.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I'm not sure the sentence I quoted can even be read as anything other than a comparison.

    Tulpa's just desperate today.

  • Cy||

    Just pointing massive and clear bias on forums like MMM gets you banned by moderators. It's great if you're frugal. Not so great if you're frugal and conservative.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Progressives are evil, and our enemies. They are at war with us. Best to figure out how to deal with them while there's still time.

  • ||

    I love the part about how Danielle asserts he was encouraging discrimination when in fact Google is the one practicing discrimination.

    It's straight Bizzaro craziness and hypocrisy of the highest order.

    What a mess and this guy is like Edward Snowden to the extent he exposed the bull shit and disgusting behaviour of corporate diversity programs. Granted, I understand this is mostly driven by special interest and government pressuring businesses to engage in this grotesque practice but Google is not coming out looking good. At all.

  • Dead inside||

    Danielle, her name, her response and her very existence as Directory of Diversity (or whatever her title is) is proof positive that the memo author is spot-on, "Nuff Said"

  • SamHell||

    I wonder if they're allowed to use alternative search engines to avoid being monitored...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    DuckDuckGo

  • croaker||

    Because Google is so 1984...

  • ParmaJohn||

    Thank you. My default browser is now set the DuckDuckGo.

    Now I need replacements for maps, translate, a browser... I think it's time to get this company out of my daily life.

  • RenaD||

    Bing Maps and Bing Translator are as good as, if not better than, its Goofle counterparts.

  • Real Books||

    The latest from Google's CEO:

    "some of you are worried that you cannot speak out at work freely."

    Gee, I wonder why they'd think that!

    http://tinyurl.com/yandz6g

  • Rat on a train||

    You are free to express any approved message.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    And please don't hesitate to rat out a fellow employee. Fascism wasn't built in a day.

  • Microaggressor||

  • Mark22||

    Fake news and disinformation must be stamped out; it said so even in the 25 Point Program. Since progressives know the correct answer to everything, obviously, only their viewpoints are therefore allowed.

  • Sevo||

    "You are free to express any approved message."

    I know this is true. I got the memo from the Vice President of Right-Think.

  • croaker||

    The link goes to some Indian-language web board I can't read.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    The link goes to some Indian-language web board I can't read.

    Thai, actually. I'd have thought the word "Siam" in the title would have been a clue.

  • NEET||

    You know what's even worse than Google's disgusting disregard towards meritocracy and politically-incorrect opinions? Their continual and ever increasing disregard to their customers' privacy, and their image searching method. While the latter is shared by most websites and web services, they seem to always be pioneering new ways to rub your junk. The only people who can rub my junk is myself, my asian poolboy, and my 2D wife. But what really pisses me off is the latter. When I want to reverse-image-search a picture, I'm given garbage results most of the time. Where as yandex will give me a good result more often than not--fucking yandex! Google's being raped over by their russian imitator, but they'd rather waste their god damn time with probing my ass and committing themselves to muh diversity and muh soggy knees.

    If you're still using googles' services, then I suggest looking for alternatives. Here, I"ll help you start out:
    Search engine: https://www.startpage.com/, https://searx.me/
    Mail: https://tutanota.com/, https://protonmail.com/, https://www.fastmail.com/
    Phone: Get one that's easy to root and has good custom ROM support
    While you can't escape 100% escape the botnet unless you live in third-world country, you can try to minimize it.

  • ||

    Crusty volunteers to rub ur junk

  • Mark22||

    Based on your handle, it looks like he rubbed yours.

  • Jerryskids||

    It was the kind of unvarnished, dispassionate and meticulous case that I imagine many engineers offer. It's difficult to believe anyone who read through it with an open mind could interpret the author's notions as an attempt to consolidate the patriarchy or make life less diverse in his field.

    No, that's exactly the problem. He was dealing with the issue in a clear, logical, methodical, reasoned manner - exactly like a man, in other words. That's not how women approach a problem and it was sexist of him to assume that approaching the problem as a man would be acceptable. The scientific method itself is sexist in that it privileges male thought processes over female thought processes and in an egalitarian society that cannot stand. So what if we have to reject a few thousand years of human progress in science, reject the laws of math and physics and biology and chemistry - it's just not fair that logic and reasoning, facts and data should determine the "truth" of things rather than that "truth" should be a matter of opinion and feelings, emotion and intuition. Women's "different way of knowing" is just as valid as a man's reliance on experimental and empirical evidence when you're trying to get at the truth.

  • John C. Randolph||

    So his sin was "mansplaining". Of course!

    -jcr

  • Stormy Dragon||

    He was dealing with the issue in a clear, logical, methodical, reasoned manner - exactly like a man, in other words.

    He thought about what he wished was true, then googled a bunch of factoids that justified his preordained conclusion, and then claimed this meant he was being "clear, logical, and methodical". As Heinlein said, "[a human] is not a rational animal, but rather a rationalizing one"

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It is a weird read for that reason. He talks a lot about biases, and concedes that he has his own biases. He also opens the memo with the word "authoritarian," and makes a lot of declarations of fact with relatively few citations.

    (though I don't know about him searching out factoids; supposedly he studied this in school? hard to know what's true in these stupid controversies)

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Most of these controversies basically come down to person A going "there's a secret treasure buried 100 miles to the east!" and then person B goes "that's not true! And since it's not true, that must mean the secret treasure is buried 100 miles to the west!"

    Pretty soon 95% of society has polarized into die-hard camps, each digging a hole somewhere.

  • BYODB||

    "There is no truth!", he says with conviction.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Yes, because "Neither of these two groups is right" is totally the same as "There is no truth".

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So maybe he is a classical liberal after all.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    then googled a bunch of factoids that justified his preordained conclusion

    No, he basically presented a solid summary of exactly where the current scholarship into biological gender differences stands. Sorry if tumblr had a different conclusion.

    But don't take my word for it.

    "I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I've taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo's author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters' level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences."

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And ironically, you do exactly what Damore did. You take a body of information with both positive and negative information and pick out a single sentence that supports your thesis and then completely discard the rest. You then act like being able to reference this one sentence means you thoroughly researched the subject.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    He's posting a quote from an authority in the field by way of rebutting your bullshit argument that Damore cherrypicked his way to a preordained conclusion, you fucking mouthbreather.

  • BYODB||

    Well, it appears that Stormy at least is on board with post-rational thought.

    "Nothing can be known!", he says declaratively.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    You take a body of information with both positive and negative information and pick out a single sentence that supports your thesis and then completely discard the rest. You then act like being able to reference this one sentence means you thoroughly researched the subject.

    Actually, I did none of those things. I quoted an expert in the field who directly disagrees with your statement. I made no conclusions, and pretended to no expertise or research.

    Maybe if you weren't busy being a hysterical sockpuppet, you wouldn't read context into sentences that doesn't exist.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You also ignored the expert further down in your own article who says Damore is misinterpretting research because the his only focuses on the different in means while ignoring the variances of both populations are far larger.

  • Roger Knights||

    His graphic showed the wider spread of the variances of both groups compared to the difference in the means. In his interview with Peterson, Peterson pointed that out and Damore nodded and said Yes. He may not have explicitly made the point in his memo, though.

  • Mark22||

    Since you don't know accept basic, well-established scientific results on sex differences, and you don't accept clear statements from scientific authorities, what would convince you?

  • Violent Sociopath||

    He thought about what he wished was true, then googled a bunch of factoids that justified his preordained conclusion, and then claimed this meant he was being "clear, logical, and methodical".

    Uh, no. He provided meticulous references for his claims.

    It's nice that Reason permits retards like you to comment, but you don't get to lie about what he wrote.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Sure he does.

  • DarrenM||

    What conclusion was that?

  • Mark22||

    He thought about what he wished was true, then googled a bunch of factoids that justified his preordained conclusion, and then claimed this meant he was being "clear, logical, and methodical".

    The only thing your statement indicates is your own ignorance, and your propensity for fabricating facts ("googled a bunch of factoids") in order to reach a "preordained conclusion".

    Anybody with a basic understanding of biology knows that there is nothing scientifically particularly controversial in Damore's statements about sex differences. And we had the same sort of bullshit discussion 10 years ago when Summers made the same kind of remarks, was torn apart over it by leftists, and vindicated by biologists; apparently, you're not just ignorant of science, you're also ignorant of the history of this discussion.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The whole memo could be summed up as 'bitches be thinkin' too much'.

  • BYODB||

    God damn Jerry, you nailed that shit right onto the church door huh?

  • Longtobefree||

    Google: "In the name of diversity, you are fired for having a diverse, fact based opinion"

  • Jerryskids||

    And while we're talking about Google, you really ought to read this piece by Julian Assange. It's a book excerpt so it's kinda long and sounds a little tin-foil hattish, but there's a lot to the fact that Google works hand-in-and with the intelligence agencies as a super-snooper and that their trans-nationalist corporate overlord ambitions are pretty clear. And there's something to be said for the fact that a corporate slogan of "Don't Be Evil" would be exactly what you would expect an evil corporation to say.

    On a personal level, Schmidt and Cohen are perfectly likable people. But Google's chairman is a classic "head of industry" player, with all of the ideological baggage that comes with that role. Schmidt fits exactly where he is: the point where the centrist, liberal, and imperialist tendencies meet in American political life. By all appearances, Google's bosses genuinely believe in the civilizing power of enlightened multinational corporations, and they see this mission as continuous with the shaping of the world according to the better judgment of the "benevolent superpower." They will tell you that open-mindedness is a virtue, but all perspectives that challenge the exceptionalist drive at the heart of American foreign policy will remain invisible to them. This is the impenetrable banality of "don't be evil." They believe that they are doing good. And that is a problem.

  • JWatts||

    "And there's something to be said for the fact that a corporate slogan of "Don't Be Evil" would be exactly what you would expect an evil corporation to say."

    That's the first thing I thought the very first time I heard the motto.

  • JWatts||

    "And there's something to be said for the fact that a corporate slogan of "Don't Be Evil" would be exactly what you would expect an evil corporation to say."

    That's the first thing I thought the very first time I heard the motto.

  • PurityDiluting||

    I was going to post my agreement with that observation, but you've already seconded it for me.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Schmidt is a goddamned weasel who sat on Apple's board of directors while they were working on a knock-off of the iPhone. As an AAPL shareholder, I'm furious that the company didn't sue that asshole for breaching his fiduciary duty. Fuck him, and fuck Google.

    -jcr

  • lap83||

    Thank you for that. Google is basically a real-life "Kochtopus" with friendly marketing. And boy, are progs susceptible to marketing.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Leftist organizations like Google are why we need McCarthyism back. There is no co-existence with marxists.

  • DarrenM||

    Isn't there a word for this close collusion of government and large corporations?

  • Brewer/Expat||

    Orwell from the left, ineptitude from the right. Everyone is nuts.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    OK Google, what is diversity?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Diversity is when you google Desert and it asks did you mean Dessert?

  • PurityDiluting||

    diversity is everyone/everything except white male heterosexuals and whatever they say

  • Tony||

    Unscientific MRA jerkoff session deemed "fact-based" by MRA-friendly internet community. Story at 11.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You're just mad there's a jerkoff session that you weren't invited to.

  • Tony||

    How many times do I have to tell you people that pale aspie nerds are not my type.

  • Tony||

    The internet?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You could stop breathing too. That would be just awesome. You're an oxygen thief anyway.

  • LTRone||

    I find your use of the derogatory term "aspie" to be highly offensive.

  • Mark22||

    You take what you can get.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Yeah, you're more into your cousins.

  • Eric||

    The reaction to this by the left comforts me when I question why I no longer call myself "liberal". 20 years ago this memo would have been accepted as mainstream (even mainstream liberal) by almost everyone. He reiterates throughout his writing that he's a proponent of diversity. Never does he denigrate any minority group. His whole thesis is simply arguing what everyone already knows in their hearts, and that's that women and men (by and large) are different, and have different psychological drivers that affect their job selection. He offers alternative solutions to achieve more diversity. How is this a "jerkoff session"?

  • Tony||

    "20 years ago this memo would have been accepted as mainstream (even mainstream liberal) by almost everyone."

    Do you not see the problem with this sentence all by itself?

    The problem is however intuitive he may think his conclusion about men vs. women is, it's not backed by any science. Variances in spatial reasoning ability, for example, are not large enough to account for the workplace gender variance. It's "sciency" not science.

  • Microaggressor||

    When science hurts Tony's feelings, it's not real science. Glad we cleared that up.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Of Google's programmers, what percentage are women?

  • Eric||

    It's the best we've got without raising humans in controlled labs to see how the genders express themselves with no externalalities.
    We know, scientifically, that increasing testosterone tends to make a person more aggressive and assertive (and increases sex drive).
    We know that estrogen and progesterone have effects on mood, anxiety and depression.
    We know that males (generally) produce more testosterone and that females produce more estrogen and progesterone.
    We can observe hundreds of cultures around the world that have evolved separately from each other, and in almost every one of them the same gender roles express themselves repeatedly.

    I agree that there are social constructs that likely affect the level to which genders express themselves, and there is a legitimate argument to be had regarding how to address them. However, the left won't even have that argument. Instead they simply cry sexist, or jerkoff in an effort to stifle discussion. That's fine when some troglodyte on the right is arguing out of bad faith, but this guy isn't doing that. And the left is showing that they are not the "science" faction, nor are they open-minded either.

  • Tony||

    As I just said, we have a simple correlation. Everyone agrees that there are variations in skills and interests between the genders and between individuals. But that variation is too small to account for the actual distribution of genders in certain fields. "Sexism," I agree, is too easy an answer, but what the left is really talking about is how male-dominated cultures reinforce male dominance. "Hey, I'm a white male, I'm pretty special, and this guy's a white male, so he might be pretty special too! I should hire him."

  • Eric||

    You're moving the goalposts. This guy didn't advocate for white male privilege. He simply challenged the predominant group-think at Google, and did his best to present a rational and fair argument. And instead of engaging him, the left shouts him down.

  • Microaggressor||

    "Hey, I'm a white male, I'm pretty special, and this guy's a white male, so he might be pretty special too! I should hire him."

    Your active imagination neglects the fact that HR bends over backwards to accommodate female applicants in STEM. But it's not enough, due to the lack of applicants. That's why the manifesto pointed out the interest gap. It's bigger than you think, and your ideology prevents you from seeing that.

  • @TheBitcoinimist||

    ...but what the left is really talking about is how male-dominated cultures reinforce male dominance. "Hey, I'm a white male, I'm pretty special, and this guy's a white male, so he might be pretty special too! I should hire him."

    Well, duh. Humans are demonstrably more comfortable around those that mirror themselves. So of course your idea is sometimes true. And often it is not. And everyone often does some self-serving version of it, in all different contexts. There's nothing wrong with that, even if some people dislike that people naturally do it.

    The larger point remains: people aren't equal. Ever. There's no reason that, in the complete absence of all discrimination, every employer everywhere at all levels would be statistically representative of every non-job related trait. Especially as the number of employees tends to dwindle at higher levels.

    In fact, the ONLY way to create such empty diversity would be to bean-count physical traits unrelated to job performance. That's beyond stupid in almost any context.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Tony,

    Let us begin with the acknowledgment of the fact that there are far more male plumbers than female. Then, let us assume that there are no physiological or psychological differences between men and women. This would lead us to conclude that, of all the people in the world who want or have wanted to become plumbers, there must be a roughly 50/50 split between men and women.

    Yet this is clearly not the case.

    Is it because the Patriarchy has been working covertly to prevent women from becoming plumbers? Or could it be that women, with a few exceptions, choose to take up another profession than plumber? If the latter is the case, then it might indicate some kind of psychological difference between men and women. That's basically what the guy was saying. Women tend to choose other jobs than computer programmer, and there might be reasons for it other than evil menfolk not wanting tits bouncing around their workplace.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    If you're not babbling incoherently about 'white male privilige' or 'racism' it's all pops and buzzes to Tony.

  • rudehost||

    "But that variation is too small to account for the actual distribution of genders in certain fields"

    It probably doesn't account for all variation. That seems obvious. Could it? A 5% talent difference say in the NFL could account for a 100% difference in employment. This is not a linear relationship where 5% less aptitude means 5% less employment. This is especially true in places hiring elite talent like the NFL or google.

    I'll also note that the my current and previous employer both insisted that we should prefer women in hiring for engineer positions if possible. If anything my experience suggests there is a bias that prefers women in technology even at lower talent levels. Personally I hire people if they can answer my technical questions that do have right or wrong answers. I can't ever recall summarizing my recommendation as "Hey this guy is a white male so we should hire him"

  • Sevo||

    rudehost|8.12.17 @ 11:58AM|#
    "But that variation is too small to account for the actual distribution of genders in certain fields"
    --------------------
    "It probably doesn't account for all variation. That seems obvious. Could it? A 5% talent difference say in the NFL could account for a 100% difference in employment. This is not a linear relationship where 5% less aptitude means 5% less employment. This is especially true in places hiring elite talent like the NFL or google."

    The claim is also an assertion masquerading as an argument.
    IOWs, the proper response should be: "Prove it"

  • Rebel Scum||

    workplace gender variance

    Exists because men and women make different choices because men and women have inherent differences. The end.

  • Tony||

    Oh the end huh. More "it's true because it's all I want to bother thinking about." Logic!

  • Microaggressor||

    The funny thing is that your lack of self-awareness prevents you from realizing this is a projection of your ideology's stance.

    The discrimination narrative is true because it's all I want to bother thinking about.

  • EdFinnerty||

    Fake Science, you mean.

  • John C. Randolph||

    it's not backed by any science.

    Sure it is. Go find the original memo without the links stripped out.

    -jcr

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    You do realize that actual scientists have come out and said the memo was sound, right?

    This would be funny if you hadn't already spent years on here telling scientists that they don't really know science, from the comfort of your trailer in Oklahoma.

  • Rebel Scum||

    It's also funny because he usually defaults to the authority of self-proclaimed "scientists" when it comes to climate change.

  • Mark22||

    Unscientific MRA jerkoff session deemed "fact-based" by MRA-friendly internet community. Story at 11.

    A funny statement given that the Google witch hunt is mainly conducted by rich, powerful white/Asian males.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Google cancels town hall meeting on gender memo, citing safety concerns for employees

    We had hoped to have a frank, open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally. Googlers are writing in, concerned about their safety and worried they may be "outed" publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall.

    This is something I've noticed at my own company. The senior management comes up with a plan that has obvious flaws to it, and then when the easily foreseeable results of those flaws occur, seem completely mystified at how these events came to pass.

    But I keep getting told they deserve to be making multiple times what I do because they're just so much more talented than me.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I've found that nearly everyone I've dealt with in real estate finance industry is my intellectual and educational inferior. This includes many people in high level executive positions. Their overall knowledge is usually lacking, and their analytical, strategic, and creative thinking skills are also inferior. They must be likeable or have connections to get these positions, because I wouldn't hire most of them to be my assistant, let alone anything related to management.

    Maybe other industries have more intelligent and talented executives.

  • mortiscrum||

    On a side note, what's with the explosion of article and add links on the bottom? The page keeps getting longer and longer and it's hard to find the comment section.

    Not that this refutes this article's thesis in any way, but I think it's a strange irony that this guy is being fired because he didn't toe the line (I do think he was fired for that reason, for what it's worth), and that Google has this overarching plan of gender-based social engineering. If that's the case, why aren't there more female employees at Google? Why are they being investigated for pay discrimination? Why are there so many stories from ex-Google employees that say what a shitty environment it is for women?

    Matt Yglesias made a good point on this: As it stands, Google has a reputation as a bastion of liberal thought and equality - but that's all it is, a reputation. They're aren't those things in practice, when it comes to the demographics of the company. Thus, when this guy wrote what he wrote, he basically offered himself up to be a sacrifice, an opportunity for Google to maintain their rep and show what fair thinkers they are. If Google was an actual fairly balanced company, they probably wouldn't have reacted to quickly to him, but since they have only a reputation and no follow through to speak of, they had to act and fire him.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Goggle didn't react quickly. The memo was circulated several months ago, and nothing happened until it went viral online. As I said earlier this week, Google really doesn't care one way or the other about the contents of the memo; the engineer was actually fired for the unforgivable sin of ending up as front page news.

  • mortiscrum||

    Well that goes to my point though; the second the post got out in to the public eye, Google fired the guy. It's clearly a move to protect their reputation. If they actually cared about diversity, comfortable working environments, etc., they'd do something to fix those problems. But they don't. This is about signaling, not changing the culture of Google on the ground.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It's a publicly traded company run by a business guy. Google doesn't care about anything but making money.

    I'm generally of the opinion that only companies that are majority owned by a single founder can ever really care about anything other than just making more money.

  • mortiscrum||

    Why did they fire him, then? I don't understand your point.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Because he was front page news and that could interfere with their money making. To paraphrase Bil Cosby, corporations don't care about justice, they want QUIET!

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Was he front page news before or after the firing? I don't know the history of this drama.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The memo was circulated months ago. Nothing happened until last week when it suddenly went viral. A few days later Damore got fired.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Because he was front page news and that could interfere with their money making.

    Still interferes with their money making. I am not using google (except for youtube) anymore.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    That doesn't interfere with their money making. You were never google's customer.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Google's had its balls in a BBQ for the past couple of years for not being "upfront" about their diverse employment ratios. There's a class action suit in progress by the angry wimminz. This guy got canned because his memo went viral about the time Google really, really didn't want or need to call any attention to their hiring stats.

  • JWatts||

    "As I said earlier this week, Google really doesn't care one way or the other about the contents of the memo; the engineer was actually fired for the unforgivable sin of ending up as front page news."

    No, I doubt that's correct. A female engineer that wrote a memo that was highly critical of Google's diversity efforts would not have been fired. Instead, the reaction would have been 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

    SJW's would have been outraged at Google. The media would have pointed out that clearly Google wasn't trying hard enough. Google's new Diversity Vice President would have proclaimed that she would immediately get with the female engineer and address her concerns. Googles upper management would then be giving groveling interviews on how they would address this egregious behavior and praising the female engineer for her courageous actions.

  • John C. Randolph||

    So, the guy could totally flip this situation if he starts wearing dresses and demanding that we call him "Loretta"?

    -jcr

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Google, and most larger American tech companies, should be investigated for Marxist activities.

  • ||

    If the nobody's talking and the chamber encompasses an entire planet, is it still an echo chamber?

    Can't. facepalm. hard. enough.

    A Google engineer who got fired over a controversial memo that criticized the company's diversity policies said that there might be biological reasons there are fewer women engineers. But top computer science schools have proven that a few cultural changes can increase the number of women in the field.
    ...
    women were intimidated by male students who showed off in class. Many had done some programming in high school and they would dominate discussion.

    So, they created a second intro course for students who had no previous experience.
    ...
    they also countered the stereotype that computer geeks were guys who spent all their time alone in a basement. "They had very deliberately made it collaborative and involving teamwork
    ...
    And now, instead of 10 percent in any given year, the number of women computer science majors ranges between 40 percent and 50 percent.

    This almost seems/sounds like toxic femininity.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Do they have a course on how to copy-paste URLs?

  • ||

  • mortiscrum||

    Why is any of this a bad thing? If there was a company who went all-in on gender diversity and failed, I'd be more open to the idea that anti-discrimination measures are a bad thing. However, the available evidence shows the opposite: more diverse companies make better decisions and do better.

    link

  • ||

    Why is any of this a bad thing?

    It's a bad thing by it's own precepts (and your 'study' is crummy too). It's literally the Margaret Thatcher keep the poor poorer scenario where they've lowered everybody's standards in order to make everybody more equal.

    They value a good female (or black) programmer the same or less than bad female programmer. As long as she has a vagina and can work as part of a team, her actual computer programming/science skills don't matter. They're systematically imposing the precept that women shouldn't be valued as equivalent to people who adopt technology early in life and achieve individually because they are women.

    I, and the memo's author, aren't opposed to diversity. We are opposed to diversity for diversity's sake.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    As long as she has a vagina and can work as part of a team, her actual computer programming/science skills don't matter.

    1. You were talking about schools, right?

    2. Who says their skills don't matter?

    3. Meritocracy's a sham. No one is hired (or admitted to a school) based only on one metric. A number of factors are taken into account, and if a business or school wants to add some hokey diversity metric to their list, they can do so. They're not lowering others' standards or forcing the special to be mediocre.

  • ||

    3. Meritocracy's a sham.

    Then diversity is just a sham of a different color.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Yes, pretty much my point. Relativism, baby.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Just saying you favor diversity doesn't make it true. The memo writer frequently comes across as one of those "You know, I'm not racist, but...." types.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    This is a bullshit smear. He never says anything remotely insulting or derogatory about women.

    YOU sound like a racist - 'he didn't say this, but I know what his type REALLY means."

    His entire memo was about ways to improve diversity. All of it. He HAD to include all of the disclaimers because of dishonest shitweasels like you.

  • Microaggressor||

    Stormy is a True Believer, so you should expect that kind of stuff.

    Yes, he was offering constructive criticism on the diversity policies because he correctly pointed out that they don't work. And he offered some alternative diversity policies that are evidence-based and could plausible work toward that goal, and with fewer drawbacks. His crime was doubting the infallible instructions of the cult leaders.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Well Stormy is right that his crime was becoming front page news.

    Google actually was fine with having constructive internal discussions about the topic. But when the document fell into the hands of the hysterical public, constructive internal discussion was impossible. They only fired him because some hysterical people demanded it despite the fact that nobody was harmed - not even psychologically harmed.

    Firing someone is easier than dealing with protestors. Reason nearly did the same thing with the whole woodchipper thing. The institutional self-preservation mindset causes different behaviors than the individual's self-preservation mindset.

    As a person, you either wind up trusting institutions more than individuals, or vice versa. People generally gravitate toward trusting institutions - not because of any proven trustworthiness (institutions have none) but because of safety in numbers.

  • Jerryskids||

    You didn't read the actual memo, did you? Despite what the headlines all said, the guy wasn't anti-diversity, he was just saying that Google's way of going about it was a poor way of doing it. The point he was making is that hiring women and minorities just for the sake of hiring women and minorities is a cargo cult mentality. Diversity is a good thing when you want to get as broad a range of opinions and insights as possible, and there's a place for that. Not every place is a good place for diversity, though. Diversity serves a purpose, it's a means to an end not an end in and of itself.

    You might try passing the assertion that "more diverse companies make better decisions and do better" on to Jerry Jones, let's see how many women he hires for the offensive line next year. Maybe he'll put Caitlyn in at QB? My guess would be that he'd hire a woman for the front office if she's got organizational skills and PR skills that might be put to good use, but he's not stupid enough to hire women to play football.

  • mortiscrum||

    The OP seemed to be suggesting that a school reaching gender parity was proof that the program was also becoming worse - that is, the standards for entry and passing were being shifted downwards to make sure there were as many women as men. I responded by saying gender parity in and of itself is NOT evidence of worse potential or real outcomes. In fact, there's some evidence to the opposite: more diverse companies perform better.

    The football thing is a complete non-sequitur. Nobody worth talking to is claiming there aren't physical disparities between men and women.

  • ||

    The OP seemed to be suggesting that a school reaching gender parity was proof that the program was also becoming worse - that is, the standards for entry and passing were being shifted downwards to make sure there were as many women as men.

    Then you didn't read what was written because I wasn't suggesting. They created a lower tier course to accept more women and no indication of passing, employment, or other productivity or even any sort of parity was being given. There isn't even a pretense of women being equals. It's straight up "Is the program 50% women?" If the answer is "No." they literally want inferior women (because the previous program included women, just not enough) to drive the numbers up.

  • mortiscrum||

    Sorry, I'm not convinced. If I showed up for an "entry level" course and it was dominated by a bunch of people who were clearly not entry level, I'd feel pretty intimidated too. I'd much rather at least start off with people who were actually entry level.

    As for the shift in requirements, like focusing more on team-based work, that seems perfectly logical to me. Very very few jobs are lone wolves pounding away by themselves. Team work and collaboration are incredibly important. Neither of these changes are evidence of lowering standards - changing, sure, but not lowering.

    An absolute slam-dunk for your position would be a company that forcibly diversified its staff who than began to underperform. If you have an example like that, I'd love to see it. However, like I said above, the available evidence points to the exact opposite.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If I showed up for an "entry level" course and it was dominated by a bunch of people who were clearly not entry level, I'd feel pretty intimidated too.

    The problem here is a university that wants to be able to charge students money to teach them things they already know rather than figuring out what they've already covered and placing them into the appropriate starting spot in the program.

  • mortiscrum||

    RE: The problem here is a university that wants to be able to charge students money to teach them things they already know rather than figuring out what they've already covered and placing them into the appropriate starting spot in the program.

    Actually, the university DID make two classes: Comp Sci 1 for Beginners, and Comp Sci 1 for People with a Bit of Experience. Is that to your satisfaction?

  • ||

    I'd much rather at least start off with people who were actually entry level.
    ...
    - changing, sure, but not lowering.

    Your a lying sack, fuck off. Matter of fact, you're a sack of shit lying to support socialist/collectivist policies without regard for any other considerations. Fuck off, slaver.

  • mortiscrum||

    Guess we're done here.....

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Always has been under the "aw, shucks" guise (a disingenuous, lefty, stealth shitweasel).

  • Sevo||

    "Always has been under the "aw, shucks" guise (a disingenuous, lefty, stealth shitweasel)."

    Yes, mortiscrum is probably among the least honest lefties populating the space. 'Oh, are you sure? I don't understand.'
    Mortiscrum, you been busted by more than me by now. Fuck off.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Maybe he'll put Caitlyn in at QB?

    Well, to be fair, that is a former world-class athlete you're talking about...

    -jcr

  • DarrenM||

    Or....companies that do better financially can afford the luxury of going out of their way with regard to diversity of physical attributes.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    They had very deliberately made it collaborative and involving teamwork instead of being lonely

    I HATE HATE HATED group programming projects in college.

  • Drave Robber||

    Group programming is about as good as group cooking.

  • ||

    Actual group cooking or euphemistic group cooking?

  • notJoe||

    Huh. I loved them. (And I usually did the majority of the work.)

    Guess I should have picked a job that didn't involve working by myself for the last quarter century.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Huh. I loved them. (And I usually did the majority of the work.)

    So yes, you loved them by turning them into individual projects. ;P

  • notJoe||

    Yeah, guess you're right on that.

    Some day we should compile a list of H&R commentariat who are *not* programmers. I'm starting to suspect it'll be a short one...

  • Cyto||

    That's why I hated group projects too. It is certainly an important skill, and no major projects get done without significant collaboration. But school group projects are very difficult - not everyone is sufficiently motivated, many of the people don't want to collaborate, many are not highly skilled, and many have difficulty listening and want to go it alone and do things their way.

    Which makes the project very difficult and one person usually ends up doing most of it.

    Which might explain why they keep using it..... it does teach some valuable lessons for the workplace.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    1) In real world group projects, someone is clearly in charge and thus has the final say on resolving agreements, you can't build a house if each construction worker has their own vision of what is going to be built

    2) In real world group projects, someone not pulling weight can be eliminated

    3) In real world group projects, my individual education attainment is not the primary end goal of the project. Any part of the course material that's being done by a different part of the group is necessarily material I'm not learning as well as I would have doing it myself.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And I agree that learning to work in a group is important. So make it a class of it's own. Something like what my first employer did: there was an internally run course on project management where the "project" for the class was assembling a lego-style model of the international space station. Anyone in the room could have put the model together themselves, but the actual completed model wasn't the important thing, it was just a framework to use to learn about things like WBS structures, critical path scheduling, earned value analysis, etc.

  • DarrenM||

    I had a small programming project with two other guys. I got a little fed up with one guy being too busy and the other guy being too lazy and just did the thing myself.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    I HATE HATE HATED group programming projects in college.

    Me ,too.

    But they taught me the most valuable lesson for a future in IT: Most people are fucking useless and insist on butting in.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Holy shit, this. I get tired of people that are not technical telling me how to do things. Number one way to piss me off is to come to me and tell me the solution you expect me to deliver, especially when it is wrong.

    Is it really so hard to give me requirements or the problem and wait for a retort containing the solution?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The mediocre people tend to gang up on the superior minority. The way to derail that phenomenon is to make them afraid to cross you from the very beginning.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    OK Google, aren't women just like the worst?

  • notJoe||

    "Can't live with them, can't leave them by the curb when you're done with them."

  • Ariki||

    Sure you can. Just make sure they haven't had any alcohol or drugs in the previous 48 hours and you have a notarized sexual consent form in triplicate and a video recording of her taking a breath test before looking into the camera and saying "yes I want you /insert name to have sex with me on /insert date & time".

    I'm pretty sure that if you have all those things in place you can leave her at the curb if you wish.

    You probably won't get charged with rape. Maybe just sex trafficking when her slutts remorse kicks in.

    The price we pay to get laid.

  • John C. Randolph||

    If you're a Mac user, in Safari hit command-comma to bring up the preferences window. Hit the magnifying glass icon. Use the popup menu to choose a search engine.

    I'm trying each of them for a week. So far, I'm not noticing any significant difference in user experience when using Bing.

    -jcr

  • Sevo||

    I've been using Bing for years, only to contribute to a Google competitor.
    Kinda like I was sorry when the USSR tanked; it allowed the US gov't to adopt all sorts of stuff, since you could no longer point to "the bad guys" doing the same.

  • mtrueman||

    ""Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group," says our engineer. "

    What Google knows is that Americans are quite happy to be treated as members of their group. It's members of the nation's most privileged group, the stale, pale and male, who have a problem with this.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Come on, man. We're already full up on retards.

  • JWatts||

    "We're already full up on retards."

    That's not possible. 0 + 0 + 0 still equals 0.

  • Sevo||

    trueman posts this sort of bullshit as if it were "profound!"
    His best so far is nonsense on stilts.

  • BYODB||


    It's members of the nation's most privileged group, the stale, pale and male, who have a problem with this.

    Please tell me more about how the Irish were treated better than everyone else when they arrived on these golden shores up through today. Dumbass.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    I'm happy in my group. It's a group of one, but I like it. The rest of you can stay the hell away from my group.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Looks like they canceled it out of fear, not safety.

    I didn't see anything in the article where threats were made. It was canceled because some people thought they would be "outed", but it doesn't say what that means.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    people thought they would be "outed", but it doesn't say what that means.

    Anyone saying anything supporting one side of the issue will get called out on twitter by the other side's followers.

    This started with Damore getting publicly called out by the SJW types, and now the people who have been criticizing Damore at the company have been getting called out by the ant-SJW types.

    Neither side wants any actual dialog, so they're united in trying to silence everyone.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    "Histrionic" is sort of a red-flag word to use when describing the reaction to a discussion of how women are treated in society. Unless your intention is to set off a frenzy of hysterical screeching - which can be fun as an end in itself, but probably isn't the reaction you are going for.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    From Wiki:

    "Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive attention-seeking emotions.....HPD affects four times as many women as men."

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Wiki is so sexist.

  • Juice||

    Hey, Reason. When trying to scroll down to the comments, I am now met with a continuously increasing stream of Trending Now ads/links.

    You have to scroll really really fast if you want to get past them to see the comments. Otherwise the stream will go on forever and you never reach the bottom.

    This looks like a screw up to me. Please fix it, thanks.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    If only there was a Google engineer available to fix these kinds of problems...

  • BYODB||

    I suspect this is a ninja revenue raising idea they had since they already know no one reads the stories and goes straight to the comments. Hell, they might as well put the comments for the story before the story. The more ad's they cram in there, the more likely it will be that you accidentally click one.


    It's how I would design a webpage if I was an asshole, basically. Come to think of it, I am probably an asshole and I still wouldn't design a webpage like this.

  • Curt||

    Move your mouse to the left or right so that it isn't in the box of ads. Continue scrolling.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    People sure do have some opinions about Google.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    If only there was some way to search the internet for those opinions. Man, I bet if someone came up with something like that, they could make, like, a million dollars!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Hang on, i'll go Ask Jeeves.

  • GILMORE™||

    sorta OT:

    How is Google/Youtube demonetizing and shadowbanning 'right-wing' content (blocking content from coming up on searches/recommends, etc) from people with opinions they don't like....

    ... any different from the "anti-gay*" bakery that didn't want to sell people gay-themed wedding cakes?

    I'm aware there are some fundamental differences between "media access" and "consumables" that make it an imperfect comparison...

    ...but i think there's enough similarity between the two in 'not wanting X customer's message to be associated w/ your business', that it makes useful.

    everyone got all up in arms about "public access" in one case, but pretend YT is perfectly within its rights in the other. Haven't seen any media make note of the dissonance here.

    [re: "anti" - *i've never liked the use of the "anti" term to describe businesses that simply don't want to provide products/services for certain demos; e.g. I used to DJ professionally; 90% was club work, but i'd do the occasional wedding gig for friends, but i turned down a dozen high$ offers to do Bar-Mitzvahs: was it because i'm an anti-semite? or because i hate 13yr old kids? or maybe i just don't want the agita? Or maybe i just thought it was just !(*@()#$ lame? Assuming that 'refusal' equates to active-hatred of some refused group is intellectually dishonest and shitty journalism]

  • GILMORE™||

    *the fact that YT also mendaciously tries to pretend that its NOT doing 'arbitrary, selective-access' is an additional absurd angle; they hide behind some claim that one is "family friendly" and other content is "unsafe" and should be restricted.

  • Jerryskids||

    We jumped the shark with the "anti" thing when we started talking about phobias. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I have an irrational fear of it, but calling everything a phobia is a way of shutting down the conversation. Xenophobia, Islamaphobia, homophobia - how you going to argue with somebody who's - by definition - irrational? But bless his heart, he can't help it he's so scared he can't think straight, he's got a phobia don't you know.

  • GILMORE™||

    everyone got all up in arms about "public access" in one case, but pretend YT is perfectly within its rights in the other.

    Even more ridiculous -

    "bakeries" aren't exactly scarce either; if one doesn't want to do business with you, it would be difficult to prove that this in anyway disadvantages you, given that there are surely a dozen competitors available who would gladly take your business.

    whereas Youtube is effectively an internet-media-monopoly*; there are obvious huge disadvantages if any particular group is blacklisted, and the potential for reaching a wide audience is severely restricted.

    (*ok fine, Hulu and Vimeo exist, but the point is that 'denying equal YT access' has significant deleterious effects on the shunned groups, where simply driving to a different baker isn't quite the same 'back of the bus' situation)

  • lap83||

    given that there are surely a dozen competitors available who would gladly take your business.

    Or you could look up a recipe online, Google willing

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Did you know that the Internet is an optional part of your life?

  • GILMORE™||

    and cakes are an optional feature at weddings. so what? if you're responding to some specific point, quote it.

  • ||

    'denying equal YT access' has significant deleterious effects on the shunned groups, where simply driving to a different baker isn't quite the same 'back of the bus' situation

    Also and maybe again, along the monopoly; the baker who puts in 300 cake hours every minute isn't refusing homosexuals their cake after they click 'OK' on the EULA, but the video service actively goes in, after the fact and at cost, to exercise the videos. I'm a little confused at how EULA's cut only one-way in this regard. Not having read it, it seems... inconsistent, especially in regard to social contracts and public accommodations.

  • GILMORE™||

    good point, if additional/separate to mine.

    I do think YT reserves the right to make those post-hoc changes, and always has. but what's weirder is that the way they've applied it is extremely dubious. Many people with completely unobjectionable content have had their entire channel demonetized because they've chosen to COVER the issue of YT blacklisting, or featured interviews with Known Wrongthinkers, or simply have subscriber overlap with the latter. they're not actually following the terms of their EULA and exercising discretion based on content - its just guilt-by-association/attempts to simply squash whole categories of content.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The people watching videos on You Tube aren't Google's customers, and the people producing the videos on You Tube aren't Google's customers.

    The people buying ads on You Tube are Google's customers. And those customers don't want their ads showing up on alt-right videos

  • Elias Fakaname||

    What is an 'alt-right video'?

  • eyeroller||

    Maybe it's worth pointing out that Google has the right to fire anyone they want to.

    (The problem is that their right would not be respected in many other situations.)

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Nick wrote a good article yesterday making that point.

  • ||

    Maybe it's worth pointing out that Google has the right to fire anyone they want to.

    Maybe it's worth pointing out that the firing isn't the point of the article. Nowhere does it say he couldn't or shouldn't have been fired. What it does say is that, not just in spite of his firing but sorta because of it, we know he was right.

    It also goes on to, you know, mention that Google is the largest service provider in the country and leaves somewhat unsaid the fact that it's a known backdoor for domestic spying.

  • posmoo||

    They can't fire someone for complaining about title vii discrimation.

  • beteille||

    Wow, for a publication that advocates for the rights and sovereignty of the individual, you seem to be bending over backwards to defend the importance of "differences in distributions of traits" between classes of individuals.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I don't get it.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    That's not unusual....at all.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    True.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    drink?

  • Dillinger||

    free Brendan Eich.

  • Bgoptmst||

    The guys memo (if you take the time to skim it) isn't what the net or main stream media made it out to be. There is a huge difference in practices that are biased (all white guys get in) versus the outcome of practices that don't result in a perfect demographic split.

    I would like the SWJ types to come out an be frank about what their end state is. Let's make maternity leave the same for men and women. Let's fire everyone that is over their quota of the demographic breakdown of America. Too many women work in the restaurant business ... to bad your fired. Too many Asian males in computers ... fired. Sports are now all coed, and we boycott the Olympics until they comply.

    That's the end state of what they want, so they could at least be honest about it. I am interested in how the planned lawsuit plays out.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Does this mean we will be limiting the number of pro ball payers who are black?

  • Paper Wasp||

    Can we be real for a moment about what it's like in tech when you have to work with an org that is at that libtard-approved "sweet spot" of 50/50? I've worked in software for 20 years, for multiple firms. There are two groups out there that are always at least 50% women: HR and Localization. (FYI Loc is the group that translates your software into other languages.)

    There is no such thing as a thread with either of these groups that is resolved in 3 weeks time. Never happens. Why? First you deal with the fact that they read only the top line of your email and skip the rest. Then you have to get several conflicting and wrong answers from 4-5 different women. Then you try to get so-and-so principal on the thread to settle the dispute, but she's out on maternity leave. Again. For the third time in 5 years. Because it's her employer's job to pay her to grunt out kids. We could hire someone who is going to actually be in the office and WORK, oh, but no.

    Finally, you get a response that basically asks you/your team to do something manual and costly that makes no sense whatsoever, because their team is still using shitty tools that are compatible with nothing, they don't understand tech, and because they never focus on and fix problems. They're not at the office enough; they're "working from home" taking their kids to Build-a-Bear and getting paid for it.

    Thank DOG women don't choose tech, because they manage to fuck it up enough from the periphery as it is.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    And then this idiot comes along and proves the other point...

  • Sevo||

    I'm curious if that isn't a false-flag post.
    Or, as you suggest, from a troglodyte.

  • MaleMatters||

    On the gender wage gap:

    Even today, 50 years after the quest for gender equality began, most women and men expect the husband to be the primary provider, a role that can impose on men the same restrictions as sole provider.

    That means men still focus on money-making far more than women. Most men feel they need a good income to attract the other sex and gain society's respect. Unlike women, they often link their self-worth to their net-worth.

    The different roles have instilled in the sexes a different psychology regarding money.

    Ergo the gender wage gap.

    For much more, see:

    "Salary Secrecy — Discrimination Against Women?" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....nst-women/

  • John C. Randolph||

    Most men feel they need a good income to attract the other sex and gain society's respect.

    Oh, they only feel that because it's so plainly obvious. Try asking any woman if they're open to dating or marrying a guy who earns half or less of what they do.

    -jcr

  • John B. Egan||

    Kind of hard to fault Google for firing a guy who comes out with nonsense science to back up his personal opinion, particularly as Google has been under the gun for about a year now for underpaying women... If I were Google, I'd fire his ass as well for stirring things up. Who needs an unhappy worker causing trouble?

    It's easy to pontificate in favor of a bigot if you aren't under the microscope. What would Reason's position be if they were subject to the following?:

    Google systemically underpays women, regulator says - LA Times https://tinyurl.com/mstthrn

    Google accused of 'extreme' gender pay discrimination by US labor department | https://tinyurl.com/mbqdofw

    More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap | https://tinyurl.com/yad29pjh

  • Bgoptmst||

    Did you read the memo? If you did we have very different opinions on what is or isn't nonsense. I also think calling him a bigot is a stretch to try and make your point stronger than it is. I get bigot means intolerant, but how you are using the word makes you a bigot of anyone that is in favor of the memo.

    If you don't like the guy then you should still respect his dissenting view as it forces people to have the conversation about what they believe and act on it. The guy got fired a month later due to publicity, and it's dangerous to say anyone with a dissenting opinion makes for a hostile workforce. In fact that makes diversity even more unlikely to be successful.

  • Sevo||

    John B. Egan|8.11.17 @ 5:55PM|#
    "Kind of hard to fault Google for firing a guy who comes out with nonsense science to back up his personal opinion,"

    John B. Egan, newest imbecile!
    Welcome, John! We always appreciate lefties posting new levels of stupid to laugh at. You've got a good start, so now we know that any of your posts are the product of a fucking lefty ignoramus.
    Oh, and it you kindly fuck off, no one will gripe. Your pathetic excuse for argument is exactly what the guy wrote about.

  • Empress Trudy||

    I like it. I want Gargoyle to fire 100% of its white male employees, hopefully all the non LGBTQs

  • Ariki||

    Fuck this world. Fuck these fucken hypocritical projection sheep that couldn't identify the meaning of individual freedom if it they had painted it on the white house with their own shit.

    They are like fucken children who never want to grow up and take responsibility for themselves.

    Children who never want to accept that other people have had different experiences that lead to different opinions and ideas. No! we must all be the same! Shun the black sheep! SHUNNNNN HIMMMM!

    But I am the "privilaged" bigot/racist/sexist/rapist/arsehole because i have a dick between my legs and half my blood is white.

    Fuck these people. I'm getting to the point where I want to help them all get their wish. That their self described "cancer" of the human race should be removed. Self hating human humans is an actual reality........ who fucken knew?

    The only being we know of who is capable of pondering the very nature of the existance itself and we cant even accept that men and women are biologically different without farming outrage like it's the end of civilisation as we know it. Fuck these people.

  • Ariki||

    I think I'll run for POTUS so I can push the nuclear reset button on humanity.

    All people who believe that human beings are a cancer on this earth should vote for me.

    I will give you the global death and destruction you crave with every fibre of your being and I'll do it with a god dammed smile on my face.

    I will end the terrible hardship you go through everyday as you drive your air conditioned SUV to the supermarket to buy any fucken food you want for a pittance of its real energetic value before you wander into Starbucks to cry into your foamed bovine lactation while blogging on your overpriced Apple electron mover about the terrible inequality you feel in your day to day life. I will make it all go away.
    Vote for me.

    #MHGA (make humanity great again..... by ending it)

    /rant.

    But seriously fuck these fucken people with shit covered fence posts

  • ProjectSports||

    Finally, some reason on the topic. I'm so sick of the impulsive and emotionally driven responses to individuals who demonstrate critical thinking skills. I hope someone recognises his ability and gives him the job and recognition he deserves.

  • SamHell||

    Groundskeeper Willie for Mayor

  • tinder download||

    very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online