Right now millions of alt-right bros are frantically trying to find altavista.

Cool, which of these did Google violate? Did they prevent him from running for any office or partcipating in any public politics? Did they control his activities or affiliations?

Hmmm, nope. They sure didn't. Thanks for posting the evidence against your idiot ramblings.

This lawyer seems to believe that they are controlling his political affiliations and actions. But you're a fool, so I can understand how myopic you are.

He doesn't have to run for office, moron.

Try working for a conservative boss. Some are as soft as trump and have all kinds of words they will police you for.

'Don't talk about your spouse. Don't call yourself a woman.
You can't worship that.
Your fired for dancing. We don't just don't traditionally believe in that.'

'Give birth or else'.

Criticizing their president and politics gets the boxers bunched most.

This is just hilarious.

1. The deplorables have completely jettisoned any meaning behind "Leftist" & "Rightist". To them, it's simply a matter that things they don't like are called "Leftist", and their team is the "Rightists". That's it.

2. This leads them to the LOL-tastical spectcle of these arch conservatives calling the owners of F500 companies "Leftists", while LOL-tastically chatting up employee speech rights in the private workplace, and the wonders of governmental interference in the form of the NLRB.

3. Do these deplorables have any policy recommendations? LMFAO at anyone who said "maybe?". Of course they do not. They aren't interested in any general principles... like actually partially extending the US 1st-A into the workplace. Instead it just makes them so mad when they hear shiz they don't like... like when peeps are mean to their fellow deplorables. They don't GAF about anyone or anything else.

4. The perfect example of the above was the deplorable reaction to C.Kaepernick & his fellow NFLers spewing their politics at the NFL workplaces. They were all 100% against that speech in those workplaces.

5. This whole non-news interlude should make it obvious to all who aren't drinking this OSJer/SJWer koolaid... that this whole "PC Police run amok"/OSJer-v-SJWer/Phree Screech Rites/Milo/Cultural Marxism/etc/etc isn't really politics at all. None of this stuff is policy related. None of this stuff is actionable. Nobody is ever going to "do something" about this stuff. None of this stuff even makes a lick-o-sense.

It's a politics themed entertainment product. Pure & simple.

Same goes for the pizza delivery guy. How is your hypothetical at all relevant? He was an employee, not a vendor.

Did he write it on company time? Honestly don't know, but hadn't heard that.

Do you really think if an employee wrote a manifesto, even on company time, that called for more diversity, or was critical of sexual harassment at Google (if that was a problem) that Google would have reacted similarly? I doubt it.

First, see above.

Second, I read the manifesto, and even if you disagree with some of his conclusions, he ultimately said that diversity of thought is more valuable than diversity of gender or race. You might disagree with that (I don't), but it hardly raises to the level of odious. You seem to take pride in not having read the very thing you're ranting about. Why? It takes 15 minutes.

Perhaps it was unprofessional. You'd have to be familiar with Google's culture to make that assessment.

What a hero. The fact is most people don't work in jobs where lives are on the line. He was writing code, not on the front lines in Aleppo. This whole part of your post is irrelevant masturbation.

Diversity of race and gender IS diversity of thought. This is the completely obvious non-secret the alt-right likes to pretend is not true even though there is a mountain of social science research demonstrating it.

It can be, and diversity based on gender and race is good, I think the manifesto said that explicitly.

You're also conceding that men and women are inherently different. Another main point of the manifesto.

Why does that need to be conceded?

Saying that will get you fired at Google. You should read the memo.

Saying what? You shouldn't use the word should when addressing yours truly.

I included both vendors and employees in my example. Sure, it's a hypothetical, in a sense. But again... I'm not just making this shiz up... that kinda manifesto will always get you fired at pretty much any company. If you are focusing on something particular about Google, you are missing the forest for a tree.

Since I keep saying exactly that... that this kinda manifesto will universally get peeps fired... well, yes. For the 1000th time... the alleged content of the manifesto doesn't matter in the slightest.

There are different standards for what is appropriate at a worksite -vs- shiz like Politardia. What the dude spewed was unprofessional. Flat out. It has -zero- place at work.

I didn't do production work on the factory floor. Those folks are the heroes. Coding is arguably more dangerous work than what I did (apart from the huge part of my job that was coding). See carpel tunnel, deep vein thrombosis, and loss of vision.

The point, which I'll admit was aimed that way, went way over your head. On the factory floor cowboys are dangerous, but they are also counter-productive. It isn't some kinda video game I'm the best free for all out there. But... it works the same way in the office cubicles too... without the overriding safety concerns.

Cowboys, like this fool, imagine it's some kinda video game I'm the best coder free for all being waged cubicle to cubicle. It is not. The dude needs to put down Atlas Shruggled, and pick up The Mythical Man-Month. The key to success in large scale IT work is... person-2-person communication skills. The very stuff this fool dismisses as a woman's weakness.

Sad.

Saying what to whom?

What does whom say to who said what?

Yeah, these OSJer fools got two problems here. The first, and less catastrophic, is that their "science" is pure junk.

The second, and completely fatal, problem is that they're pushing a logical fallacy here. They are, of course, trying to pull off an is-ought.

There's no need for them to wade off into the toxic weeds of junk science here. The fact that they are so happy to do so is telling. If they really just wanted to make their "point" that chicks & dudes are different... all they gotta say is chicks can squeeze out kids, while dudes cannot. Nobody is going to argue about that. "Point" made.

What these deplorables then are going on to "prove" is that since chicks & dudes are different (the "is"), then /QED they should be treated different (the "ought"). Sad.

It shouldn't need to be. I find it completely obvious. But if you believe that, then it might lead you to believe a few other things that don't quite fit the narrative several of you hold so dear.

Such that because men and women are different women should have less opportunities at certain positions?

The point of the manifesto was not that the culture of Google hiring should change in order to include more women and that maybe engineering as a profession needs to go through radical changes, but that because the job of engineering is built a certain way, women are less applicable for it.

He is specifically stating that women SHOULD have less opportunities in engineering because of their differences.

Nobody is disagreeing with the statement that women are different. We are disagreeing with the conclusions drawn from such statement

Oh, dear narratives, I see. And beliefs, wow. Like being surprised about tight fits. But no clothes doesn't have fits at all.


Human Resources does or doesn't need to know that you think of customers, peers, and coworkers like this or like that depending on your job's description narrative.

Not in the memo.

Not in the memo

Not in the memo.

Allow me to remind you:

Again, all "ought" conclusions allegedly drawn from any "is" are logical fallacies. Flat out.

Are you Cherry-picking the memorial ? You don't have an interpretation of your own?

Everyone concedes that.


No. He was fired for saying that men and women are different in these specific ways, that these differences are important to the company's success, that these differences are biological and immutable and explain any disparity in hiring or wages. And then he concludes that direct attempts at increasing diversity are discriminatory unless that diversity means more conservatives. Then you can discriminate all you want.

Every single point he makes there and allows for a way to improve he follows up with a qualifier. "We could do X... I'm not saying that Google necessarily should, but that is one way." Again, of he isn't proposing solutions ( He isn't, all of his qualifiers contradict his supposed solutions) then what was the point of the screed other than "I am mad at the way that Google hires people, namely women, and here are some "scientific reasons" that women totally shouldn't represent more than the 1/3 of workers that are already represented at this company.