Board 8 > This is how political correctness dies

(+) Yeah! (+)

I wonder if the cultural marxist side here (I'm looking at LotM, mc, etc.) will comment on that at all.

The lady at the end says it best:

No matter how controversial it is or how great the pushback, I believe it's important to speak out, because if we can't discuss scientific truths, where does that leave us?

---

The worst thing about this is, the leftists are now saying it's absolutely fine to fire people based upon differing opinions at work. This means someone religious would be fine firing LGBTQ because it doesn't fit their ideology and there'd be no recourse. People who view women as less intelligent could discriminate openly.

These people are fucking morons. Absolute... fucking... morons.

Stop pissing on the progress you've made because it suits your current agenda you massive dicks. Fucking hell.
---

I said this in another topic, but views like this are not radical extremist views that the progressives can just stomp out or silence, and hope these ideas go away. They're mainstream views, and I think progressives need to be better about encouraging a dialogue with the other side if they want to make any progress.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle
---

Vlado posted...

Lots of empires and companies thought they were too big to fail once... Google won't be any different. But it's more likely they'll simply get rid of most of the insanity. By then, of course, they'll have shrunk in size.

How does Google compare to other real life empires/companies like Shin-Ra for example?
---

I say the same thing, then right wingers try to say that's what they're saying then twist it to mean whatever insult they want to hurl. It's a political war, not a discourse and it exploded around the time Trump became "eligible" for the presidency.

There's no listening, there's no discourse, there's that view differs from my own interpretation now you're the enemy... and it benefits noone. Especially when a lot of it boils down to pseudo science and differing opinions, sure the right wing has some of the nastiest people I can think of and I'd happily fire some into the sun with a cannon, but the same can be said of the hateful rhetoric the lefts using.

It's all predicated upon hatred. I don't think people (discourse on this board aside for the most part) even particularly care about the issues anymore, they just want to fight the perceived enemy.

I kind of wonder what would happen if Trump said women were smarter than men, because of the recent and growing trend in education in the US. Would the right accept it? Would the left? There's evidence to back it up currently, it wouldn't be a totally fallacious claim.
---

MenuWars posted...

The worst thing about this is, the leftists are now saying it's absolutely fine to fire people based upon differing opinions at work.

pretty sure leftists (and everyone else) have been saying that for as long as there have been jobs. there just tends to be disagreement on A) what counts as an opinion and B) which opinions should be fireable offenses
---

MenuWars posted...

There's no listening, there's no discourse, there's that view differs from my own interpretation now you're the enemy... and it benefits noone. Especially when a lot of it boils down to pseudo science and differing opinions, sure the right wing has some of the nastiest people I can think of and I'd happily fire some into the sun with a cannon, but the same can be said of the hateful rhetoric the lefts using.

Pretty much this.

I think that a career is more important to a man's happiness than a woman's. It does not mean defund planned parenthood, harass actresses in ghostbusters movies staring women online, or vote for Trump, or that women shouldnt be allowed to be in stem fields. I get labeled this way by my left friends. Yet i support mostly leftist ideas about economics (trickle down is bullshit) and social topics....

I just think the one thing (or maybe the one thing i observe) the right gets correct more often than the left is they are more likely to acknowledge that a man's career is more important to his happiness.
---

Metal_DK posted...

I think that a career is more important to a man's happiness than a woman's. It does not mean defund planned parenthood, harass actresses in ghostbusters movies staring women online, or vote for Trump, or that women shouldnt be allowed to be in stem fields. I get labeled this way by my left friends. Yet i support mostly leftist ideas about economics (trickle down is bullshit) and social topics....

I just think the one thing (or maybe the one thing i observe) the right gets correct more often than the left is they are more likely to acknowledge that a man's career is more important to his happiness.

Serious question (and maybe I just missed where you mentioned it earlier, sorry if so) but what are the implications of this? Like say the left accepts it -- what happens then? We don't usually legislate based on people's happiness (whether we should is a different matter) so I'm curious what you see the end game here as being.
---

I mean, if I was a manager and he had raised this issue internally through proper channels I likely would have had a talk with him rather than firing him. Once it came out though, Google was forced to choose between firing this guy or likely losing a decent fraction of qualified female potential employees to rival companies. That sounds like a pretty clear business decision to me.
---

Actually I think that'd be very indicative of the current situation as most current arguments for lgbtq rights are absolutely about happiness. Using the correct pronoun, accepting the state of or lack of transition, supporting them despite science heavily insinuating it's a mental condition, forcibly making your workforce more diverse in spite of qualifications to meet a quota. Disallowing the expressing of certain opinions, but openly embracing others.

Don't get me wrong there's tons of finesse and nuance to this, but as a whole isn't it all about happiness?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I mean, if I was a manager and he had raised this issue internally through proper channels I likely would have had a talk with him rather than firing him. Once it came out though, Google was forced to choose between firing this guy or likely losing a decent fraction of qualified female potential employees to rival companies. That sounds like a pretty clear business decision to me.

So you think people would've left the company to work elsewhere because of one persons opinion?
---

Kenri posted...

Serious question (and maybe I just missed where you mentioned it earlier, sorry if so) but what are the implications of this? Like say the left accepts it -- what happens then? We don't usually legislate based on people's happiness (whether we should is a different matter) so I'm curious what you see the end game here as being.

Don't legislate anything, but stop lying to men about the whole "once women have the good jobs women who are doctors will marry these low income men!" (i linked the assortative mating article as well which kinda explains this tbh). I see fewer leftists actually saything these type of things now after, oddly enough, Trump winning. Small sample size of only a few months, but still I have noticed it.

Its this lying that has created the false illusion that the male gender role is as flexible as the female one, when the vast amount of evidence points to otherwise. I've said a few times now that childless millennial women outearn childless millennial men in every major city in the USA except Silicon Valley, and the same thing was the case when Gen X was in their 20s/30s back in the 80s/90s/early 00s. Women should be celebrating how they have more options now, yet their happiness has declined and we get articles like this:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3bj5yv/youre-single-because-there-arent-enough-men-253

There are more men of this age range than women according to the census bureau. There "aren't enough" men on the same level as them is what the article is saying. Which means there is an added incentive for men to be more powerful than women, as women tend to want men at least on their level, while men don't have nearly as much of a demand on women.

Finally, I think the gamergate stuff, ghostbusters stuff, Trump winning, etc, are symptoms of this anger/frustration. The people who are advocates for that time of crap are just not able to articulate whats really bothering them.
---

MenuWars posted...

Actually I think that'd be very indicative of the current situation as most current arguments for lgbtq rights are absolutely about happiness. Using the correct pronoun, accepting the state of or lack of transition, supporting them despite science heavily insinuating it's a mental condition, forcibly making your workforce more diverse in spite of qualifications to meet a quota. Disallowing the expressing of certain opinions, but openly embracing others.

Don't get me wrong there's tons of finesse and nuance to this, but as a whole isn't it all about happiness?

Uh, no. Most of that is about health and equality, not happiness, and you'll notice that most of it hasn't actually been a subject of legislation either (advocacy, though, yes is frequently about happiness).
---

MenuWars posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

I mean, if I was a manager and he had raised this issue internally through proper channels I likely would have had a talk with him rather than firing him. Once it came out though, Google was forced to choose between firing this guy or likely losing a decent fraction of qualified female potential employees to rival companies. That sounds like a pretty clear business decision to me.

So you think people would've left the company to work elsewhere because of one persons opinion?

I don't think many would leave, though some might; I'm taking more about potential new hires who have multiple job offers. It's also much less about this specific employee and more the implication Google would be sending about their attitudes towards women were they to do nothing.
---

Kenri posted...

MenuWars posted...

Actually I think that'd be very indicative of the current situation as most current arguments for lgbtq rights are absolutely about happiness. Using the correct pronoun, accepting the state of or lack of transition, supporting them despite science heavily insinuating it's a mental condition, forcibly making your workforce more diverse in spite of qualifications to meet a quota. Disallowing the expressing of certain opinions, but openly embracing others.

Don't get me wrong there's tons of finesse and nuance to this, but as a whole isn't it all about happiness?

Uh, no. Most of that is about health and equality, not happiness, and you'll notice that most of it hasn't actually been a subject of legislation either (advocacy, though, yes is frequently about happiness).

Yet men's mental health has been abandoned for decades, cultural appropriation is a one way street, diversity without qualification can have a negative impact to those who have the qualifications and are shunned.

It's a very one sided argument, and the opposite is just as bad. So why are we not looking for middle ground where everyone benefits?

Do you not think there's a duality to the mob mentality? Do you think it is all progressive and good? There is no room for improvement?
---

lol @ the "if we can't discuss scientific truths anymore where does that lead us?!?" thing.

IQ being race-related is not a "scientific truth," sorry.
---

Metal_DK posted...

Don't legislate anything, but stop lying to men about the whole "once women have the good jobs women who are doctors will marry these low income men!" (i linked the assortative mating article as well which kinda explains this tbh). I see fewer leftists actually saything these type of things now after, oddly enough, Trump winning. Small sample size of only a few months, but still I have noticed it.

Okay, sure, I guess. If this is all about the dating scene it's way way less interesting to me. I will also tentatively agree with you about not telling men this lie (which I do think is a lie, though I haven't actually heard it told ever I don't think). I don't see any reason anyone should date someone who isn't good enough for them, and income can be a part of that, though it's not the only one.

Metal_DK posted...

Its this lying that has created the false illusion that the male gender role is as flexible as the female one, when the vast amount of evidence points to otherwise.

This though, idk about this. It's not like gender roles are static. Do you think it's just the current one that's less flexible for men than women? Because I could get on board with that, maybe, though I'd say maybe that they're inflexible in different ways. But if you think there's only been one across all of history then uh you've lost me.
---

Apart from the obvious hate mongers on the left who just go full fascist for attention, it's the first time I've actually genuinely thought of the left as having a big fascist outcry. Usually that bullshits left in the gutter where it belongs.
---

MenuWars posted...

it's the first time I've actually genuinely thought of the left as having a big fascist outcry.

don't you think you're exaggerating a bit?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

lol @ the "if we can't discuss scientific truths anymore where does that lead us?!?" thing.

IQ being race-related is not a "scientific truth," sorry.

Indeed, but from what I've read of the memo it completely advocates judging the individual and not the defined "class/race/gender". Diversity is indeed essential I think, but there is a limit... and the enforcement of such does have negative repercussions as well as positive.

The fact we can only discuss the positives of one side and decry the negatives of the other... is essentially whitewashing.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MenuWars posted...

it's the first time I've actually genuinely thought of the left as having a big fascist outcry.

don't you think you're exaggerating a bit?

No.
---

MenuWars posted...

Yet men's mental health has been abandoned for decades, cultural appropriation is a one way street, diversity without qualification can have a negative impact to those who have the qualifications and are shunned.

It's a very one sided argument, and the opposite is just as bad. So why are we not looking for middle ground where everyone benefits?

Do you not think there's a duality to the mob mentality? Do you think it is all progressive and good? There is no room for improvement?

Our mental health care in the US (and likely lots of other places but I'm not as informed about the rest of the world) sucks for everyone, yes including men for sure.

Cultural appropriation is a one way street because it's power related, though I think it could be two way if we were talking, like, Chinese culture and Mexican culture in the US or something? If white people are involved it's one way because of power dynamics. This is, like, central to cultural appropriation, so maybe you just disagree with the whole concept.

Diversity without qualification I haven't seen evidence for.

Yes, we should make a road where everyone benefits. If we want equality, the people with less with have to benefit more until they're caught up, though, right?

I'm not sure how this relates to men's careers being more relevant to their happiness but good talk anyway.
---

Not sure if you're including me in that category or not, but I don't think he "deserved" to get fired (although I do think his argument was dumb). However, it's not Google's responsibility to put this guy's interests above their own.
---

Kenri posted...

This though, idk about this. It's not like gender roles are static. Do you think it's just the current one that's less flexible for men than women? Because I could get on board with that, maybe, though I'd say maybe that they're inflexible in different ways. But if you think there's only been one across all of history then uh you've lost me.

The male gender role throughout history has pretty much been the same thing. Protect and provide. Primarily for women and children, but also for your fellow man

Women, at least post WW2, now have 3 options. Work, prison, stay at home wife/mother. Men still only get 2. Even the Scandinavian countries (progressive hubs for gender equality!) still see like 15% of stay at home parents be male. And if i recall the government pays stay at home dads

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/part-5-why-sweden-pays-dads-cash-to-stay-home-with-the-kids/article1216303

"Both parents here are given generous time off to care for young children, but men receive a bonus for trading the office for diaper duty - cash, if they take an equal share of the leave, plus two additional "daddy months" that only they can use."
---

I agree, Vlado; this topic has indeed slain political correctness
---

Metal_DK posted...

The male gender role throughout history has pretty much been the same thing. Protect and provide. Primarily for women and children, but also for your fellow man

That's very very simplified, to a point where I think it's just a human role and not a man's.


Metal_DK posted...

Women, at least post WW2, now have 3 options. Work, prison, stay at home wife/mother. Men still only get 2.

Well, by your own argument, isn't this partially because they wouldn't be happy staying at home? You can pretty much rule out prison for the same reason.
---

See I only believe in privilege on a case by case basis. That's somewhere me and the left don't align, the right attacks with it bs memes and rhetoric so I don't align with them either though, so I'm left in the middle going, how can you judge someone just because of their race and gender, isn't that the very definition of racism and sexism? You can attribute power to the powerful sure, systemic oppression because the courts are mostly ruled by old white wealthy guys. We agree. But trying to say someone who is white and homeless faces more oppression than someone who is black and homeless generally doesn't compute, they're both treated like shit by society.

Whereas I've led a pretty privileged life, I know those around me who are orphans, black people who have better lifestyles than me, indians who are rich beyond belief (those textile companies my dad used to sell to were dens of inequity, it was insane) none of it really computes when you just take a look around you.
---

Kenri posted...

That's very very simplified, to a point where I think it's just a human role and not a man's.

Maybe the case now, but throughout the first 190,000 years of human evolution it was the case. Maybe in the last 10,000 or so its been changing, but not really even for most of the ~10,000ish years of civilizations.

Kenri posted...

Well, by your own argument, isn't this partially because they wouldn't be happy staying at home? You can pretty much rule out prison for the same reason.

Well first off, women's happiness has been declining overall fwiw. Also my argument is because men only get 2 options, they are more likely to be aggressive, fearful, etc, all which CAN be harnessed in many ways. I mean haven't studies shown that all these CEOs/inventors/etc all tend to have high neurosis? The become so obsessed with status and power and fame and being correct that it consumes them to 80+ hour weeks. This seems way more common in men, probably because, like i said, men get 2 options. Work or prison.
---

Kenri posted...

Yes, we should make a road where everyone benefits. If we want equality, the people with less with have to benefit more until they're caught up, though, right?

This also is not equality this is balance. They are very different things.

Equality is in providing someone the same chances as everyone else. Giving everyone the same thing is socialism.
---

MenuWars posted...

Giving everyone the same thing is socialism.

false.
---

MenuWars posted...

See I only believe in privilege on a case by case basis. That's somewhere me and the left don't align, the right attacks with it bs memes and rhetoric so I don't align with them either though, so I'm left in the middle going, how can you judge someone just because of their race and gender, isn't that the very definition of racism and sexism? You can attribute power to the powerful sure, systemic oppression because the courts are mostly ruled by old white wealthy guys. We agree. But trying to say someone who is white and homeless faces more oppression than someone who is black and homeless generally doesn't compute, they're both treated like shit by society.

Whereas I've led a pretty privileged life, I know those around me who are orphans, black people who have better lifestyles than me, indians who are rich beyond belief (those textile companies my dad used to sell to were dens of inequity, it was insane) none of it really computes when you just take a look around you.

If you go case-by-case it's not really about privilege anymore, I don't think. It's about societal power and probability and how e.g. a black homeless man is likely to be treated worse than the exact same person if he was white, even if the white guy is also treated like trash. Are there exceptions to all of it? Yeah but that's kind of missing the point -- the fact that there are "exceptions" at all is worrisome because it means there is a general trend.


MenuWars posted...

Equality is in providing someone the same chances as everyone else. Giving everyone the same thing is socialism.

I think we need something between "the same chances" and "just give everyone the same everything". But I'm also pretty much a socialist in a lot of respects so lol


Metal_DK posted...

Maybe the case now, but throughout the first 190,000 years of human evolution it was the case. Maybe in the last 10,000 or so its been changing, but not really even for most of the ~10,000ish years of civilizations.

Nah, even if we go back to hunter/gatherers, women were still providing (by... hunting and gathering) and protecting (part of being a mother and propagating the species, yes?).


Metal_DK posted...

Well first off, women's happiness has been declining overall fwiw. Also my argument is because men only get 2 options, they are more likely to be aggressive, fearful, etc, all which CAN be harnessed in many ways. I mean haven't studies shown that all these CEOs/inventors/etc all tend to have high neurosis? The become so obsessed with status and power that it consumes them to 80+ hour weeks. This seems way more common in men, probably because, like i said, men get 2 options. Work or prison.

I agree that this sounds like a problem even if I'm not necessarily on board with all the causality you're proposing here. Do you have a solution in mind?
---

I think if you're actively advocating for bonuses for (group) then you should be honest about it when trying to say you're trying to balance the scales because you believe systemic oppression is responsible for the situation they find themselves in. Calling it equality, is, and yes I know semantics but honesty is a good thing, a lie... because just like there's lazy white people, there's lazy black people and adjusting scores and metrics can invalidate any progress.

Everyone is just as likely to be as intelligent as everyone else. I believe that. So cooking the books in exams merely feels like a slap in the face, you're basically saying hey, you're not as intelligent so you need the boost, but we want you anyway... and that's about as racist or sexist as you get.
---

MenuWars posted...

I think if you're actively advocating for bonuses for (group) then you should be honest about it when trying to say you're trying to balance the scales because you believe systemic oppression is responsible for the situation they find themselves in. Calling it equality, is, and yes I know semantics but honesty is a good thing, a lie... because just like there's lazy white people, there's lazy black people and adjusting scores and metrics can invalidate any progress.

Everyone is just as likely to be as intelligent as everyone else. I believe that. So cooking the books in exams merely feels like a slap in the face, you're basically saying hey, you're not as intelligent so you need the boost, but we want you anyway... and that's about as racist or sexist as you get.

I mean, I think it depends on if equality is the process or the goal (which, I guess is semantics like you said). If it's the goal, you gotta get there somehow. If you want two people to end a game of golf with the same score, you might have to give someone a handicap, you know?

Now, do you cook the books in an exam or hire people who are unqualified or whatever? Hell no, you address societal factors earlier than that so nobody's at a disadvantage going into an exam or interview just because of their skin color or gender or whatever.

(Our society doesn't really want to address inequality, though, so it's easier to do it the other way, which doesn't really solve anything.)
---

Kenri posted...

Nah, even if we go back to hunter/gatherers, women were still providing (by... hunting and gathering) and protecting (part of being a mother and propagating the species, yes?).

Women weren't hunting. They were at the home with children. The structure was generally men protected women and children, women protected just children. Part of the justification for the "women are better multitaskers than men" truth is due to our hunter gatherer roots. It also exempts the other part, which is men are in general better at focusing very specific tasks for very long periods of time, which is also true.

Kenri posted...

I agree that this sounds like a problem even if I'm not necessarily on board with all the causality you're proposing here. Do you have a solution in mind?

I dont always need to give a solution, and honestly there is none for this. Men have to work. Our gender role, due to not being able to get pregnant, is we pretty much have to work. Women had to be "baby makers" for the longest time (infant mortality was higher), but due to work in most civilized countries no longer being plowing fields, getting black lung in a coal mine, getting stabbed at in a roman legion, shot at at gettysburg, etc, they now get 3 options.

I just dont want men to be lied to about their career importance if they want a family of their own. Thats the number 1 starting point. Its also the underlying reason for why shit has hit the fan in this social media age.
---

MenuWars posted...

The worst thing about this is, the leftists are now saying it's absolutely fine to fire people based upon differing opinions at work. This means someone religious would be fine firing LGBTQ because it doesn't fit their ideology and there'd be no recourse. People who view women as less intelligent could discriminate openly.

These people are fucking morons. Absolute... fucking... morons.

Stop pissing on the progress you've made because it suits your current agenda you massive dicks. Fucking hell.

There's a ton of people at google who have differing opinions who have not been fired

You can't possibly believe that's the only reason this guy got fired
---

foolm0r0n posted...

MenuWars posted...

The worst thing about this is, the leftists are now saying it's absolutely fine to fire people based upon differing opinions at work. This means someone religious would be fine firing LGBTQ because it doesn't fit their ideology and there'd be no recourse. People who view women as less intelligent could discriminate openly.

These people are fucking morons. Absolute... fucking... morons.

Stop pissing on the progress you've made because it suits your current agenda you massive dicks. Fucking hell.

There's a ton of people at google who have differing opinions who have not been fired

You can't possibly believe that's the only reason this guy got fired

Certainly seems like it, and my argument and anger was directed at those who were supporting that thesis. Whether he'd done more and broken internal policies or what have you hadn't been brought up.
---

Metal_DK posted...

Women weren't hunting. They were at the home with children.

Home? There wasn't really a "home" until agriculture IIRC... Women went gathering and if there was, say, a tasty little bunny, they'd hunt it, just like men would gather as they hunt. Why not? It's there and you're hungry. Look up the Throwing Madonna theory. (It's also relevant to linguistics because it relates to the invention of human language!)

Metal_DK posted...

I dont always need to give a solution

You don't; I was just curious if you had one in mind. I'm not really understanding your end goal, I guess, unless it's just education-based, which is what it seems like.
---

Kenri posted...

Metal_DK posted...
Women weren't hunting. They were at the home with children.

Home? There wasn't really a "home" until agriculture IIRC... Women went gathering and if there was, say, a tasty little bunny, they'd hunt it, just like men would gather as they hunt. Why not? It's there and you're hungry. Look up the Throwing Madonna theory. (It's also relevant to linguistics because it relates to the invention of human language!)

Yeah. I'd agree certainly with the point about home. I think gender roles became far more established when we had more effective ways to exist and thrive safely. Until that point you'd want everyone chipping in where they can, with men being biologically the most expendable, you'd still want all hands ready on deck in case of an attack on the camp/cave/whatever and you'd still have to muster hunting parties in cases where your first choices had, had accidents. And it's pretty fucking obvious when you're hunting with shitty weapons accidents are gonna happen. Mens physiology is undoubtedly more suited to the task, but it doesn't mean women wouldn't have been allowed to do so. People need food.

I'm also not entirely sure if womens physiology would've been less suited back then either, perhaps we just developed thicker musculature and bone density because of the activities we partook more often in. It'd make sense.

I might go do more research later this has piqued my interest.
---

MenuWars posted...

I might go do more research later this has piqued my interest.

Wait stop you'll become disqualified for this topic!
---

foolm0r0n posted...

MenuWars posted...

I might go do more research later this has piqued my interest.

Wait stop you'll become disqualified for this topic!

Oops I forgot all my points were coming from a place of ignorance let's uphold the trend!
---

MenuWars posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

MenuWars posted...

The worst thing about this is, the leftists are now saying it's absolutely fine to fire people based upon differing opinions at work. This means someone religious would be fine firing LGBTQ because it doesn't fit their ideology and there'd be no recourse. People who view women as less intelligent could discriminate openly.

These people are fucking morons. Absolute... fucking... morons.

Stop pissing on the progress you've made because it suits your current agenda you massive dicks. Fucking hell.

There's a ton of people at google who have differing opinions who have not been fired

You can't possibly believe that's the only reason this guy got fired

Certainly seems like it, and my argument and anger was directed at those who were supporting that thesis. Whether he'd done more and broken internal policies or what have you hadn't been brought up.

So my prior post about "sent it to the company" was wrong about that, but do you really think huge political posts, even mild ones, are appropriate for work?

Even if it didn't blow up, there's no way this dude wasn't getting written up.
---

MenuWars posted...

Yeah. I'd agree certainly with the point about home. I think gender roles became far more established when we had more effective ways to exist and thrive safely. Until that point you'd want everyone chipping in where they can, with men being biologically the most expendable, you'd still want all hands ready on deck in case of an attack on the camp/cave/whatever and you'd still have to muster hunting parties in cases where your first choices had, had accidents. And it's pretty fucking obvious when you're hunting with shitty weapons accidents are gonna happen. Mens physiology is undoubtedly more suited to the task, but it doesn't mean women wouldn't have been allowed to do so. People need food.

Home meaning where the kids are. Not a physical structure. Women were pregnant way more often due to infant mortality. They weren't hunting alongside men much at all.
---

The kids are with the mom (or dad maybe when they're older?). If they're infants, they're literally being carried by the mom while she's hunting and gathering. They weren't hunting "alongside" the men I don't think, but women were absolutely hunting.
---

https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/vbv54d/google-on-anti-diversity-manifesto-employees-must-feel-safe-sharing-their-opinions?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=amp&utm_source=motherboard.vice.com-RelayMediaAMP

I mean, she basically says toe the company line, whilst also saying we want you to share your opinions and here's where you can do it and mentions the place where he shared his opinion.

So honestly, fuck knows? Cake and eat it time.
---

Kenri posted...

The kids are with the mom (or dad maybe when they're older?). If they're infants, they're literally being carried by the mom while she's hunting and gathering. They weren't hunting "alongside" the men I don't think, but women were absolutely hunting.

Nowhere near to the life and death severity that men were. Their life or death happened due to lack of ability to care for her health during childbirth
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So my prior post about "sent it to the company" was wrong about that, but do you really think huge political posts, even mild ones, are appropriate for work?

depends on the environment. if the idea was to talk about stuff, sure.

bear in mind, among the links in the document there is a google group referenced and it seems to be by google employees based on the URL. and this is the specific sentence where it's linked in:

"Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate"

bold is where the link was.
makes me think that maybe it was partially a response too.
---

I just read the memo again. There's certainly room for debate there, but nothing hateful or anti diversity, seems to be coming from a point of meritocracy which I can relate to, to a degree.

Like, I think the only real points of contention are where he mentions women are neurotic (but expands on this to a good degree, but the word choice was poor) and where he says women spend more than men, which seems to be supposition and situational at best, and a cast away load of rubbish at worse.

I mean to say you want a psychological safe haven for people and for their views to be freely expressed then fire them for it... is, well it's a joke tbh.

I could understand if he were saying something truly damaging but I couldn't find it. Did I miss something? He even proposes solutions that are technically more inclusive in some areas. So idk.
---

MenuWars posted...

I could understand if he were saying something truly damaging but I couldn't find it. Did I miss something?

you don't think "according to science IQ is race-related" is damaging?
---