|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Campbell's soup CEO and 3m CEO have resigned from Trump's council.
|
Fox News literally ran pieces on how legislators should pass laws that allow drivers to run over protestors, and a number of these bills are still up for consideration in states like Texas. This idea that the Republican Party hasn't invited association with the violent far-right doesn't jive with what has happened these past few years.
|
|
|
wasn't this also the case when these sovereign citizen guys took over the school building or whatever it was? I remember some fox commentators going on about how they're brave guys defending their land and whatnot.
|
On August 17 2017 02:20 Nyxisto wrote:
wasn't this also the case when these sovereign citizen guys took over the school building or whatever it was? I remember some fox commentators going on about how they're brave guys defending their land and whatnot.
The Oregon park land or something?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Yeah, this is kind of expected. It's pretty much lost meaning at this point.
|
On August 17 2017 02:20 Nyxisto wrote:
wasn't this also the case when these sovereign citizen guys took over the school building or whatever it was? I remember some fox commentators going on about how they're brave guys defending their land and whatnot.
Yep, you're thinking of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. These men were lauded publicly by talking heads on the most popular conservative news source in the country.
|
Its almost like all the dog whistle and overt racism is taking a toll on his agenda. But that is what happens when you adopt the motto of Charles Lindbergh.
|
On August 17 2017 02:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:01 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:
[quote]
Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them. He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it. This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize: Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies." Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him." Welcome to corporate life.
The memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him.
They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous.
And Google even contributed to that, by publically denouncing science.
|
United States42539 Posts
Day 1: "I have so many other people who want to come to my party I don't even care of you guys all leave, I'll just invite the even more popular kids and you'll all be so jealous".
Day 2: "I'm cancelling the party, none of you can come anymore, I win".
|
His conclusions regarding a scientific trust was deem unacceptable. Lets not argue that he presented the raw data without inserting his own opinion. And then after he was fired he took a trip down the alt-right youtube channels for his 15 minutes of fame as a victim of at will employment.
Edit: LOL, google denounced science. I guess science also denounced science too. Everyone be denouncing everyone.
|
|
|
United States42539 Posts
On August 17 2017 02:28 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 17 2017 02:01 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them. He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it. This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize: Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies." Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him." Welcome to corporate life. The memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him. They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous.
Even if we assume that he was speaking the scientific truth (a claim I disagree with but it's not really important), that doesn't change that he should have left those truths at home. He had a job to do and that job wasn't to bring the truth of the biological differences between men and women and how those makes it harder for women to code to light. Go to work, do your job, leave your politics at home.
|
On August 17 2017 02:28 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 17 2017 02:01 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them. He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it. This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize: Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies." Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him." Welcome to corporate life. The memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him. They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous. And Google even contributed to that, by publically denouncing science.
mostly you're buying into a nonsense narrative based on feeling like a victim, rather than based on the reality of the situation; it's a problematic victim attitude which parts of the right have been extensively pushing for some time.
The actual correct answer is: he was fired because he was bad press for the company. right and wrong don't matter; if you're bad press for a company you're fired (i.e. if your liabilities are greater than the asset you provide to the company).
there's also of course some considerable issues with the scientific claims.
but we've already litigated this issue very extnesively in the thread some pages back.
claiming google denounced science in this case mostly makes you look like a crazy partisan hack.
|
I'm not even quite sure what those businesses were getting out of this anyway. Generally it's better to deal 1 on 1 with Trump so you can get an absurdly favorable deal in exchange for patting him on the head (see: Carrier deal, all of his deals to date). Or at most as a unit like Pharma did to get him to burn his campaign promise of Medicare drug price negotiation.
It's cute that it took 26 hours to go from "I have plenty of people lined up" to "umm...sooo...bout that..."
Looks like poor little Trump will have to actually think up his own bills rather than foisting them upon people with actual talent (albeit talent that would mostly have been turned towards lining their own pockets).
|
On August 17 2017 02:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:28 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 02:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 17 2017 02:01 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:
[quote]
If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them. He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it. This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize: Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies." Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him." Welcome to corporate life. The memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him. They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous. Even if we assume that he was speaking the scientific truth (a claim I disagree with but it's not really important), that doesn't change that he should have left those truths at home. He had a job to do and that job wasn't to bring the truth of the biological differences between men and women and how those makes it harder for women to code to light. Go to work, do your job, leave your politics at home.
He never said that biology makes it "harder for women to code". This is an extremely important detail because that would make his memo both untrue and sexist. If he said or even hinted at such a conclusion he should absolutely be fired. What he said was that women are less likely to choose a career in tech because on average women prefer working with people over working with things. But once chosen they are as good as men. And that is well documented over many studies in many countries.
Edit:
On August 17 2017 02:37 zlefin wrote:
claiming google denounced science in this case mostly makes you look like a crazy partisan hack.
Yeas they did, here for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/08/09/one-of-googles-highest-ranking-women-has-answered-that-controversial-memo-with-a-very-personal-essay/
“Mom,” her daughter asked her, “is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?"
...
After thinking about all these issues, she wrote, “I looked at my daughter and answered simply. 'No, it’s not true.' ”
|
Campbells CEO just quit and apparently, just now, Blackrock CEO is out as well.
|
On August 17 2017 02:46 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 02:28 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 02:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 17 2017 02:01 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find.
I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them. He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it. This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize: Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies." Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him." Welcome to corporate life. The memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him. They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous. Even if we assume that he was speaking the scientific truth (a claim I disagree with but it's not really important), that doesn't change that he should have left those truths at home. He had a job to do and that job wasn't to bring the truth of the biological differences between men and women and how those makes it harder for women to code to light. Go to work, do your job, leave your politics at home. He never said that biology makes it "harder for women to code". This is an extremely important detail because that would make his memo both untrue and sexist. If he said or even hinted at such a conclusion he should absolutely be fired. What he said was that women are less likely to choose a career in tech because on average women prefer working with people over working with things. But once chosen they are as good as men. And that is well documented over many studies in many countries.
But you see, if we replaced women with “blacks” that memo becomes super racist and no one would argue that he should be fired. So I feel safe in saying that it is super sexist.
|
|
|
On August 17 2017 02:46 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 02:28 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 02:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 17 2017 02:01 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find.
I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them. He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it. This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize: Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies." Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him." Welcome to corporate life. The memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him. They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous. Even if we assume that he was speaking the scientific truth (a claim I disagree with but it's not really important), that doesn't change that he should have left those truths at home. He had a job to do and that job wasn't to bring the truth of the biological differences between men and women and how those makes it harder for women to code to light. Go to work, do your job, leave your politics at home. He never said that biology makes it "harder for women to code". This is an extremely important detail because that would make his memo both untrue and sexist. If he said or even hinted at such a conclusion he should absolutely be fired. What he said was that women are less likely to choose a career in tech because on average women prefer working with people over working with things. But once chosen they are as good as men. And that is well documented over many studies in many countries.
You've not really addressed what Kwark is saying in any way shape or form!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
