Current Events > The Google employee who wrote that manifesto got fired

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Xeno14 08/08/17 8:44:49 AM #154:	Darkman124 posted... Xeno14 posted... NO. freedom of speech does not refer only to speech by the government. read some f**ing john stuart mills(probably one of the most influential people when it came to liberalism) before making this dumbass point. if you want to understand legally upheld* free speech in the US you have to look at the warren court rulings, and they are all pretty clearly written about government's limitations on censorship and regulation of speech Xeno14 posted... and btw he does have a case for incorrect dismissal the expansion of right to work will eventually wipe this out. but since CA doesn't have it yet, it may be possible for him to secure some assets for incorrect dismissal. still, i expect that google would be successful in using a defense of 'creating hostile workplace environment' due to the vagueness of that justification No you want to incorrectly pigeonhole freedom of speech as only something the government can do, read John Stuart Mills. people aren't citing court cases here, they are making the case for the on philosophical grounds. this is as dumb as any deflection about the first amendment. and no federal labor laws can cover this guy. but leave it to "liberals", so called champions of the people to want to weaken employees position in relations to employers. this is why you are such a two faced liar about issues. --- http://i.imgur.com/brMr5Ig.jpg http://i.imgur.com/MoXxySu.gif https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyGM7qMXgAAwhbT.jpg:large <cite>Xeno14 posted [p:884392607] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Xeno14 posted...</cite> <quote> NO. freedom of speech does not refer only to speech by the government. read some f***ing john stuart mills(probably one of the most influential people when it came to liberalism) before making this dumbass point. </quote> if you want to understand legally upheld free speech in the US you have to look at the warren court rulings, and they are all pretty clearly written about government's limitations on censorship and regulation of speech <cite>Xeno14 posted...</cite> <quote>and btw he does have a case for incorrect dismissal </quote> the expansion of right to work will eventually wipe this out. but since CA doesn't have it yet, it may be possible for him to secure some assets for incorrect dismissal. still, i expect that google would be successful in using a defense of 'creating hostile workplace environment' due to the vagueness of that justification</quote> No you want to incorrectly pigeonhole freedom of speech as only something the government can do, read John Stuart Mills. people aren't citing court cases here, they are making the case for the on philosophical grounds. this is as dumb as any deflection about the first amendment. and no federal labor laws can cover this guy. but leave it to "liberals", so called champions of the people to want to weaken employees position in relations to employers. this is why you are such a two faced liar about issues.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 08/08/17 8:47:42 AM #155:	Xeno14 posted... you want don't tell me what i want. Xeno14 posted... people aren't citing court cases here, they are making the case for the on philosophical grounds. and the problem is that google retains the right to reject the philosophy of others. Xeno14 posted... and no federal labor laws can cover this guy. i hope they can. i fear the growing power of businesses more than most. i think most workers who are fired for non-malicious behavior ought to be protected. i am skeptical that they will succeed in covering him, though. for the reasons i have stated, and because it honestly seems very easy to apply them to this case. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:884392695] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Xeno14 posted...</cite> <quote>you want </quote> don't tell me what i want. <cite>Xeno14 posted...</cite> <quote>people aren't citing court cases here, they are making the case for the on philosophical grounds. </quote> and the problem is that google retains the right to reject the philosophy of others. <cite>Xeno14 posted...</cite> <quote> and no federal labor laws can cover this guy. </quote> i hope they can. i fear the growing power of businesses more than most. i think most workers who are fired for non-malicious behavior ought to be protected. i am skeptical that they will succeed in covering him, though. for the reasons i have stated, and because it honestly seems very easy to apply them to this case.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Inferno Dive Dragoon 08/08/17 9:15:18 AM #156:	If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now. --- Les aristocrates a la lanterne! Les aristocrates on les pendra! <cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted [p:884393580] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
D34D5P4C3 08/08/17 9:17:54 AM #157:	Inferno Dive Dragoon posted... If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now. true. you can say anything about how there's too many white men in the industry and no one cares <cite>D34D5P4C3 posted [p:884393689] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...</cite> <quote>If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now.</quote> true. you can say anything about how there's too many white men in the industry and no one cares</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Twinmold 08/08/17 9:24:53 AM #158:	For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now. Lmao, sheesh, when are conservatives going to get over their persecution complex? I know it's a core tenant, but it would be nice to see them grow up and act like adults. --- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain <cite>Twinmold posted [p:884393935] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><quote>For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now.</quote> Lmao, sheesh, when are conservatives going to get over their persecution complex? I know it's a core tenant, but it would be nice to see them grow up and act like adults.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Inferno Dive Dragoon 08/08/17 9:30:57 AM #159:	D34D5P4C3 posted... Inferno Dive Dragoon posted... If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now. true. you can say anything about how there's too many white men in the industry and no one cares Hell, you could actively and aggressively campaign that places stop hiring/start kicking out white men and you wouldn't be at risk of getting yourself terminated or scrutinized for such comments. --- Les aristocrates a la lanterne! Les aristocrates on les pendra! <cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted [p:884394132] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>D34D5P4C3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...</cite> <quote>If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now.</quote> true. you can say anything about how there's too many white men in the industry and no one cares</quote> Hell, you could actively and aggressively campaign that places stop hiring/start kicking out white men and you wouldn't be at risk of getting yourself terminated or scrutinized for such comments.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QassTank 08/08/17 9:32:53 AM #160:	Inferno Dive Dragoon posted... D34D5P4C3 posted... Inferno Dive Dragoon posted... If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now. true. you can say anything about how there's too many white men in the industry and no one cares Hell, you could actively and aggressively campaign that places stop hiring/start kicking out white men and you wouldn't be at risk of getting yourself terminated or scrutinized for such comments. I think what they were trying to say is that if someone got fired for posting such a manifesto urging the company to stop hiring white people, liberals would be outraged over it. --- John 6:53 Jesus promoting cannibalism. AssultTank at work! Work PC 1 account. <cite>QassTank posted [p:884394201] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>D34D5P4C3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...</cite> <quote>If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now.</quote> true. you can say anything about how there's too many white men in the industry and no one cares</quote> Hell, you could actively and aggressively campaign that places stop hiring/start kicking out white men and you wouldn't be at risk of getting yourself terminated or scrutinized for such comments.</quote> I think what they were trying to say is that if someone got fired for posting such a manifesto urging the company to stop hiring white people, liberals would be outraged over it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TommyG663513 08/08/17 3:28:48 PM #161:	CE seems to be handling this significantly better than the Facebook comment sections. That usually happens to be true, but it is more surprising with this topic. --- just tell them all your base doesn't belong to us because we were getting stoned...they'll understand-Ken156 <cite>TommyG663513 posted [p:884412543] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>CE seems to be handling this significantly better than the Facebook comment sections. That usually happens to be true, but it is more surprising with this topic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/08/17 3:32:23 PM #162:	what federal protections does this person have? also I think you mean at-will employment rather than right to work laws. iirc unions never proliferated white collar professions, partially because the legislation nationalizing unions didn't apply to those trades but its been a while since I took an HR class which is the only reason I would know that --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:884412754] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>what federal protections does this person have? also I think you mean at-will employment rather than right to work laws. iirc unions never proliferated white collar professions, partially because the legislation nationalizing unions didn't apply to those trades but its been a while since I took an HR class which is the only reason I would know that</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
luigi13579 08/08/17 3:39:31 PM #163:	TommyG663513 posted... CE seems to be handling this significantly better than the Facebook comment sections. That usually happens to be true, but it is more surprising with this topic. I'm not that surprised, honestly. Facebook comments are on a completely different level. It shows that anonymity doesn't really make that much difference. When emotions are running high, arguments will happen regardless. <cite>luigi13579 posted [p:884413195] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>TommyG663513 posted...</cite> <quote>CE seems to be handling this significantly better than the Facebook comment sections. That usually happens to be true, but it is more surprising with this topic.</quote> I'm not that surprised, honestly. Facebook comments are on a completely different level. It shows that anonymity doesn't really make that much difference. When emotions are running high, arguments will happen regardless.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/08/17 3:40:32 PM #164:	I just read that link I really doubt he has much of a case in terms of getting fired but I guess we'll see. The memo that says why he got fired tries to make it clear he's being fired for saying insulting stuff, not for questioning their policies etc. And it is really hard to win these kind of suits in general anyway --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:884413250] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>I just read that link I really doubt he has much of a case in terms of getting fired but I guess we'll see. The memo that says why he got fired tries to make it clear he's being fired for saying insulting stuff, not for questioning their policies etc. And it is really hard to win these kind of suits in general anyway</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 08/08/17 3:44:40 PM #165:	Balrog0 posted... I just read that link I really doubt he has much of a case in terms of getting fired but I guess we'll see. The memo that says why he got fired tries to make it clear he's being fired for saying insulting stuff, not for questioning their policies etc. And it is really hard to win these kind of suits in general anyway Haven't been following this topic all the way but I heard somewhere he could potentially claim something about him trying to whistleblow and even in an at will state, you can't be fired for whistleblowing (allegedly..im stupid with law)....kind of an interesting angle <cite>Romes187 posted [p:884413494] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I just read that link I really doubt he has much of a case in terms of getting fired but I guess we'll see. The memo that says why he got fired tries to make it clear he's being fired for saying insulting stuff, not for questioning their policies etc. And it is really hard to win these kind of suits in general anyway</quote> Haven't been following this topic all the way but I heard somewhere he could potentially claim something about him trying to whistleblow and even in an at will state, you can't be fired for whistleblowing (allegedly..im stupid with law)....kind of an interesting angle</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 08/08/17 3:47:19 PM #166:	Romes187 posted... Balrog0 posted... I just read that link I really doubt he has much of a case in terms of getting fired but I guess we'll see. The memo that says why he got fired tries to make it clear he's being fired for saying insulting stuff, not for questioning their policies etc. And it is really hard to win these kind of suits in general anyway Haven't been following this topic all the way but I heard somewhere he could potentially claim something about him trying to whistleblow and even in an at will state, you can't be fired for whistleblowing (allegedly..im stupid with law)....kind of an interesting angle No but you can be fired for something unrelated and never have anything come about from whistleblowing. The thing people tend to forget is that HR is not there to protect the employee, it's there to protect the company. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:884413637] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I just read that link I really doubt he has much of a case in terms of getting fired but I guess we'll see. The memo that says why he got fired tries to make it clear he's being fired for saying insulting stuff, not for questioning their policies etc. And it is really hard to win these kind of suits in general anyway</quote> Haven't been following this topic all the way but I heard somewhere he could potentially claim something about him trying to whistleblow and even in an at will state, you can't be fired for whistleblowing (allegedly..im stupid with law)....kind of an interesting angle</quote> No but you can be fired for something unrelated and never have anything come about from whistleblowing. The thing people tend to forget is that HR is not there to protect the employee, it's there to protect the company.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Inferno Dive Dragoon 08/08/17 3:53:37 PM #167:	QassTank posted... Inferno Dive Dragoon posted... D34D5P4C3 posted... Inferno Dive Dragoon posted... If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now. true. you can say anything about how there's too many white men in the industry and no one cares Hell, you could actively and aggressively campaign that places stop hiring/start kicking out white men and you wouldn't be at risk of getting yourself terminated or scrutinized for such comments. I think what they were trying to say is that if someone got fired for posting such a manifesto urging the company to stop hiring white people, liberals would be outraged over it. Ah, right, that makes much more sense. Liberals absolutely would be furious if one of their own ever faced consequences for anything, especially an allegation of being prejudice. --- Les aristocrates a la lanterne! Les aristocrates on les pendra! <cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted [p:884414017] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>QassTank posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>D34D5P4C3 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...</cite> <quote>If someone posted a manifesto about how many white men there were and how it's absolutely ridiculous, they'd probably get fired too and the left would be up in arms. Wait, what? Since when has anyone ever gotten in trouble for bashing white men? For that matter, why would the left ever be upset by someone doing it? That's exactly the sort of sentiment they've been encouraging for years now.</quote> true. you can say anything about how there's too many white men in the industry and no one cares</quote> Hell, you could actively and aggressively campaign that places stop hiring/start kicking out white men and you wouldn't be at risk of getting yourself terminated or scrutinized for such comments.</quote> I think what they were trying to say is that if someone got fired for posting such a manifesto urging the company to stop hiring white people, liberals would be outraged over it.</quote> Ah, right, that makes much more sense. Liberals absolutely would be furious if one of their own ever faced consequences for anything, especially an allegation of being prejudice.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Xeno14 08/09/17 8:20:09 AM #168:	Darkman124 posted... don't tell me what i want. I was speaking more in general of the "liberals" on this board, but yeah you fall into that as well. if you can't see the outcome of your support in such decisions, don't say you don't support the conclusions darkman. His memo is just an example of how when you can't have any sort of discussion with people from your ideology because they seek retribution. it Darkman124 posted... and the problem is that google retains the right to reject the philosophy of others. it doesn't retain the right to fire employees based on seeking improvement of the work place. so all the things about first amendment actually apply since it does provide some protections of workers from business. Like when seeking to improve the conditions of work place, have you actually read the piece at this point if you are going with hostile workplace angle, or are you just going off headlines and poorly written pieces? Balrog0 posted... I just read that link I really doubt he has much of a case in terms of getting fired but I guess we'll see. The memo that says why he got fired tries to make it clear he's being fired for saying insulting stuff, not for questioning their policies etc. And it is really hard to win these kind of suits in general anyway what insulting stuff did he say though? that people should be treated as individuals rather then members of group? that individual members of a group don't follow all the traits of said group. His words are far more nuanced then is let on in 90% of the pieces written by this let on. as for laws First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. California law which "prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action --- http://i.imgur.com/brMr5Ig.jpg http://i.imgur.com/MoXxySu.gif https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyGM7qMXgAAwhbT.jpg:large <cite>Xeno14 posted [p:884453879] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote> don't tell me what i want. </quote> I was speaking more in general of the "liberals" on this board, but yeah you fall into that as well. if you can't see the outcome of your support in such decisions, don't say you don't support the conclusions darkman. His memo is just an example of how when you can't have any sort of discussion with people from your ideology because they seek retribution. it <cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote> and the problem is that google retains the right to reject the philosophy of others. </quote> it doesn't retain the right to fire employees based on seeking improvement of the work place. so all the things about first amendment actually apply since it does provide some protections of workers from business. Like when seeking to improve the conditions of work place, have you actually read the piece at this point if you are going with hostile workplace angle, or are you just going off headlines and poorly written pieces? <cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>I just read that link I really doubt he has much of a case in terms of getting fired but I guess we'll see. The memo that says why he got fired tries to make it clear he's being fired for saying insulting stuff, not for questioning their policies etc. And it is really hard to win these kind of suits in general anyway</quote> what insulting stuff did he say though? that people should be treated as individuals rather then members of group? that individual members of a group don't follow all the traits of said group. His words are far more nuanced then is let on in 90% of the pieces written by this let on. as for laws First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. California law which "prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/09/17 10:11:25 AM #169:	Balrog0 posted... what federal protections does this person have? Not a lot. However, California is involved. http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-speech-termination-20170808-story.html tl;dr summary: Xeno14 posted... California law which "prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:884457765] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>what federal protections does this person have?</quote> Not a lot. However, California is involved. http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-speech-termination-20170808-story.html tl;dr summary: <cite>Xeno14 posted...</cite> <quote>California law which "prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paerarru 08/09/17 11:37:49 AM #170:	Google engineer and idiot, not mutually exclusive. Got it. <cite>paerarru posted [p:884462071] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>Google engineer and idiot, not mutually exclusive. Got it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/09/17 11:41:49 AM #171:	paerarru posted... Google engineer and idiot, not mutually exclusive. Got it. Guy's got a Harvard degree, and included quite a few footnotes and citations. Dumbass maybe, but definitely not an idiot. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:884462327] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>paerarru posted...</cite> <quote>Google engineer and idiot, not mutually exclusive. Got it.</quote> Guy's got a Harvard degree, and included quite a few footnotes and citations. Dumbass maybe, but definitely not an idiot.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paerarru 08/09/17 11:43:54 AM #172:	Questionmarktarius posted... paerarru posted... Google engineer and idiot, not mutually exclusive. Got it. Guy's got a Harvard degree, and included quite a few footnotes and citations. Dumbass maybe, but definitely not an idiot. An idiot through and through. An educated idiot, which is worse. ...and "footnotes and citations"? lol? smh <cite>paerarru posted [p:884462441] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>paerarru posted...</cite> <quote>Google engineer and idiot, not mutually exclusive. Got it.</quote> Guy's got a Harvard degree, and included quite a few footnotes and citations. Dumbass maybe, but definitely not an idiot.</quote> An idiot through and through. An educated idiot, which is worse. ...and "footnotes and citations"? lol? smh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
chrono625 08/09/17 11:44:22 AM #173:	The people bashing the engineer who wrote the manifesto really need to actually understand what he was trying to convey instead of... "omg racist bigot", just because he was a white male who did not agree with Google hiring people solely on superficial features. He brings up a strong argument and supports it with data and he's immediately dismissed because feelings. --- http://i.imgur.com/Rqk1DYV.gif - Super Bowl XXI/XXV/XLII/XLVI Champions - NY Giants Eli Manning SB tracker: 2/2 Superbowls 2/2 SBMVP's <cite>chrono625 posted [p:884462469] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>The people bashing the engineer who wrote the manifesto really need to actually understand what he was trying to convey instead of... "omg racist bigot", just because he was a white male who did not agree with Google hiring people solely on superficial features. He brings up a strong argument and supports it with data and he's immediately dismissed because feelings.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/09/17 11:50:17 AM #174:	paerarru posted... ...and "footnotes and citations"? lol? smh https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf Click on anything blue. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:884462753] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>paerarru posted...</cite> <quote>...and "footnotes and citations"? lol? smh</quote> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf Click on anything blue.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paerarru 08/09/17 11:52:01 AM #175:	His argument and support for it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. It doesn't matter AT ALL what he was "trying to convey". He could have said he liked blue. Or he could have said he liked red. It makes absolutely no difference. Can you understand that? Then you understand why he's an idiot. An idiot noticed by and given attention by a society of idiots! <cite>paerarru posted [p:884462863] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>His argument and support for it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. It doesn't matter AT ALL what he was "trying to convey". He could have said he liked blue. Or he could have said he liked red. It makes absolutely no difference. Can you understand that? Then you understand why he's an idiot. An idiot noticed by and given attention by a society of idiots!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
chrono625 08/09/17 12:01:00 PM #176:	paerarru posted... His argument and support for it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. It doesn't matter AT ALL what he was "trying to convey". He could have said he liked blue. Or he could have said he liked red. It makes absolutely no difference. Can you understand that? Then you understand why he's an idiot. An idiot noticed by and given attention by a society of idiots! His message was that Google in particular hires based on superficial merits. Not based on accomplishments, achievements, skill and talent. That was his problem. I don't think it's fair to call him an idiot because he has an issue with companies that put class, race and gender as a main hiring aspect, or rather to hit quotas. --- http://i.imgur.com/Rqk1DYV.gif - Super Bowl XXI/XXV/XLII/XLVI Champions - NY Giants Eli Manning SB tracker: 2/2 Superbowls 2/2 SBMVP's <cite>chrono625 posted [p:884463273] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>paerarru posted...</cite> <quote>His argument and support for it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. It doesn't matter AT ALL what he was "trying to convey". He could have said he liked blue. Or he could have said he liked red. It makes absolutely no difference. Can you understand that? Then you understand why he's an idiot. An idiot noticed by and given attention by a society of idiots!</quote> His message was that Google in particular hires based on superficial merits. Not based on accomplishments, achievements, skill and talent. That was his problem. I don't think it's fair to call him an idiot because he has an issue with companies that put class, race and gender as a main hiring aspect, or rather to hit quotas.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paerarru 08/09/17 12:17:38 PM #177:	chrono625 posted... paerarru posted... His argument and support for it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. It doesn't matter AT ALL what he was "trying to convey". He could have said he liked blue. Or he could have said he liked red. It makes absolutely no difference. Can you understand that? Then you understand why he's an idiot. An idiot noticed by and given attention by a society of idiots! His message was that Google in particular hires based on superficial merits. Not based on accomplishments, achievements, skill and talent. That was his problem. I don't think it's fair to call him an idiot because he has an issue with companies that put class, race and gender as a main hiring aspect, or rather to hit quotas. So he's a BUTTHURT idiot. ...and? He's an idiot who complained about the way his company (Google, no less!) does business. Not in any constructive way, but just another pissy little whiner bitching and moaning. <cite>paerarru posted [p:884464106] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>chrono625 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>paerarru posted...</cite> <quote>His argument and support for it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. It doesn't matter AT ALL what he was "trying to convey". He could have said he liked blue. Or he could have said he liked red. It makes absolutely no difference. Can you understand that? Then you understand why he's an idiot. An idiot noticed by and given attention by a society of idiots!</quote> His message was that Google in particular hires based on superficial merits. Not based on accomplishments, achievements, skill and talent. That was his problem. I don't think it's fair to call him an idiot because he has an issue with companies that put class, race and gender as a main hiring aspect, or rather to hit quotas.</quote> So he's a BUTTHURT idiot. ...and? He's an idiot who complained about the way his company (Google, no less!) does business. Not in any constructive way, but just another pissy little whiner bitching and moaning.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
chrono625 08/09/17 12:32:42 PM #178:	paerarru posted... Not in any constructive way, but just another pissy little whiner bitching and moaning. Wat --- http://i.imgur.com/Rqk1DYV.gif - Super Bowl XXI/XXV/XLII/XLVI Champions - NY Giants Eli Manning SB tracker: 2/2 Superbowls 2/2 SBMVP's <cite>chrono625 posted [p:884464920] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>paerarru posted...</cite> <quote>Not in any constructive way, but just another pissy little whiner bitching and moaning.</quote> Wat</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paerarru 08/09/17 12:41:18 PM #179:	chrono625 posted... paerarru posted... Not in any constructive way, but just another pissy little whiner bitching and moaning. Wat Just another idiot with obviously nothing better to do than complain about who his company (again, Google no less) hires. I thought we'd had enough of those? Obviously not! It's a whole society of idiots... <cite>paerarru posted [p:884465396] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>chrono625 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>paerarru posted...</cite> <quote>Not in any constructive way, but just another pissy little whiner bitching and moaning.</quote> Wat</quote> Just another idiot with obviously nothing better to do than complain about who his company (again, Google no less) hires. I thought we'd had enough of those? Obviously not! It's a whole society of idiots...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Transcendentia 08/09/17 12:42:03 PM #180:	Jordan Peterson has a video conversation with him. It's pretty great although I haven't gotten a chance to watch the whole thing. --- Humans are aliens too dumbass - clearaflagrantj <cite>Transcendentia posted [p:884465449] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>Jordan Peterson has a video conversation with him. It's pretty great although I haven't gotten a chance to watch the whole thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Esrac 08/09/17 12:42:36 PM #181:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw&feature=youtu.be James Damore and Jordan Peterson having a chat about the memo. --- http://steamcommunity.com/id/Esrac <cite>Esrac posted [p:884465476] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw&feature=youtu.be James Damore and Jordan Peterson having a chat about the memo.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/09/17 3:33:18 PM #182:	Xeno14 posted... what insulting stuff did he say though? that people should be treated as individuals rather then members of group? that individual members of a group don't follow all the traits of said group. His words are far more nuanced then is let on in 90% of the pieces written by this let on. I mean, I read it, and the content isn't exactly offensive but it's presentation sort of is. For instance, saying something like this: Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts. to me this seems transparently intentionally offensive lol the real analogy would be to say that it's equivalent to mandating decreases in men's representation in the homeless etc population which still conveys the point that the issue is more complex and multifaceted than just getting some dark people with vaginas in the room without implying the social good caused by more women working in tech is the same as the social good caused by more women being homeless but I mean idk man, I'm not saying it is offensive, just that I can't imagine an employer losing an argument that that's why they fired him, even in california --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:884475305] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Xeno14 posted...</cite> <quote>what insulting stuff did he say though? that people should be treated as individuals rather then members of group? that individual members of a group don't follow all the traits of said group. His words are far more nuanced then is let on in 90% of the pieces written by this let on. </quote> I mean, I read it, and the content isn't exactly offensive but it's presentation sort of is. For instance, saying something like this: Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts. to me this seems transparently intentionally offensive lol the real analogy would be to say that it's equivalent to mandating decreases in men's representation in the homeless etc population which still conveys the point that the issue is more complex and multifaceted than just getting some dark people with vaginas in the room without implying the social good caused by more women working in tech is the same as the social good caused by more women being homeless but I mean idk man, I'm not saying it is offensive, just that I can't imagine an employer losing an argument that that's why they fired him, even in california</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 08/09/17 3:36:01 PM #183:	I don't think he has any data at all in this that I can see you can argue some of his citations are fact but definitely not all of them, e.g., [7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” but that's not what businesses (or government, for that matter) base their diversity initiatives on at all; the actual influence these intellectuals have is pretty limited and there aren't that many of them also that's just not a citation. it's him explaining something as an aside. edit -- oops, I haven't read the version with hyperlinks, so disregard --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:884475439] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>I don't think he has any data at all in this that I can see you can argue some of his citations are fact but definitely not all of them, e.g., [7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” but that's not what businesses (or government, for that matter) base their diversity initiatives on at all; the actual influence these intellectuals have is pretty limited and there aren't that many of them also that's just not a citation. it's him explaining something as an aside. edit -- oops, I haven't read the version with hyperlinks, so disregard</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Samurai_Shinjo 08/10/17 6:33:41 PM #184:	tag <cite>Samurai_Shinjo posted [p:884546989] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>tag</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/10/17 7:21:15 PM #185:	Balrog0 posted... but that's not what businesses (or government, for that matter) base their diversity initiatives on at all; the actual influence these intellectuals have is pretty limited and there aren't that many of them That's one of the Rand-ish tangents I was referring to earlier. It seems like an attempt to conflate gender/race politics with communism, and thus failure. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:884549445] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>but that's not what businesses (or government, for that matter) base their diversity initiatives on at all; the actual influence these intellectuals have is pretty limited and there aren't that many of them</quote> That's one of the Rand-ish tangents I was referring to earlier. It seems like an attempt to conflate gender/race politics with communism, and thus failure.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/10/17 7:49:31 PM #186:	http://mattbruenig.com/2017/08/10/the-trump-nlrb-will-smash-the-google-guy/ tl;dr: guy makes argument that under Trump's NLRB, given its general pro-company slant, the Google guy is much less likely to be reinstated than under Obama's. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:884550975] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote>http://mattbruenig.com/2017/08/10/the-trump-nlrb-will-smash-the-google-guy/ tl;dr: guy makes argument that under Trump's NLRB, given its general pro-company slant, the Google guy is much less likely to be reinstated than under Obama's.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/10/17 8:14:48 PM #187:	Antifar posted... http://mattbruenig.com/2017/08/10/the-trump-nlrb-will-smash-the-google-guy/ tl;dr: guy makes argument that under Trump's NLRB, given its general pro-company slant, the Google guy is much less likely to be reinstated than under Obama's. Basically, the guy is assuming a future regulatory change. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:884552423] in The Google... [t:75648434]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>http://mattbruenig.com/2017/08/10/the-trump-nlrb-will-smash-the-google-guy/ tl;dr: guy makes argument that under Trump's NLRB, given its general pro-company slant, the Google guy is much less likely to be reinstated than under Obama's.</quote> Basically, the guy is assuming a future regulatory change.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > The Google employee who wrote that manifesto got fired (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > The Google employee who wrote that manifesto got fired