Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The SJW thread The SJW thread

08-09-2017 , 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
Hahaha! I don't want to understand things, because I already don't understand things, so why would I want to start understanding things?...
Who said anything about not understanding things? I said the dude's spew is old and uninteresting and doesn't make any sense. I've already examined, so to speak, this kinda gibberish... before this particular fool, and proly you too, were even born. It's timeless crap. I don't need a refresher course.

Once again, that's not the point. The point is... once again...

That there are different standards regarding what is appropriate in the workplace -vs- on 4-chan/Politardia/etc.
08-09-2017 , 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
Who said anything about not understanding things? I said the dude's spew is old and uninteresting and doesn't make any sense. I've already examined, so to speak, this kinda gibberish... before this particular fool, and proly you too, were even born. It's timeless crap. I don't need a refresher course.

Once again, that's not the point. The point is... once again...

That there are different standards regarding what is appropriate in the workplace -vs- on 4-chan/Politardia/etc.
I haven't read it. I can't address it. But shiz and shiz. JFC?!?

You continue to miss the point. And if you'd read his paper, one of the points he is making is THAT SJW shiz is leaving the Politardia and infecting the workplace.

What is the view like with your head so far up your ass?
08-09-2017 , 03:03 AM
Jiggy, maybe it would help to consider what shame is saying from your p.o.v.

You know how some posters you don't agree with behave here? You wouldn't want them sacked for how they behave here but suppose they behaved the same way at work?
08-09-2017 , 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
... one of the points he is making is THAT SJW shiz is leaving the Politardia and infecting the workplace...
LMFAO.

For some reason you don't believe me when I tell you that spewing crap like that fool's manifesto on company time y/o the company's dime, will get you insta-fired at every-single publicly traded F500 company. This has been true since before the interwebs. This has been true since before electricity.

The world of OSJers-vs-SJWers, and all this other conspiracy theory shiz, is all just fantasyland entertainment. The richest and most powerful companies in the history of the world aren't "Leftist" y/o "Marxist"/etc/etc. This whole stinking pile is absurd on it's very face.

This ex-google fool is just now learning this lesson the hard way. That's what's going on here... Mr.Jones.
08-09-2017 , 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Tamer
it doesn't swing both ways, when you present an argument in the form of a well cited manuscript (which is the original document) you don't need to go ahead and find more things to prove him

the onus is on others to debunk a well cited manuscript, there have been no one who he cited that came forward and said he was wrong.

I feel like I'm in some bizarro world. Why don't you read his original manuscript and find the problems with it and then we can talk. A well cited well researched document does not need more reinforcement. and yes it isn't very interesting because everything James wrote about is bland and uncontroversial in the scientific world, its only on the hysterical left that its controversial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Tamer
he wrote a well cited document and in that quote the guy essentially said James was wrong in every way while saying he himself was unqualified and providing no actual arguments

its as absurd as me insulting hawking's stance on black hole radiation after a cursory read of a brief history of time.



you don't even have an undergrad degree do you?

Here was my favorite citation he used:

https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/conser...hed-on-campus/

Bizarro-world is right you drooling abortion.
08-09-2017 , 03:34 AM
Bwahahaah wait.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Tamer
....



you don't even have an undergrad degree do you?

Pick a metric, pick a $$ amount, and let's roll, f**kface.

I'll make it appealing: I never even graduated HS.
08-09-2017 , 03:39 AM
Lawl these f**kfaces are going all in with the notion that nobody has read the memo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
"some creepy undertones?" Like, he comes straight out the gate telling us that women are biologically inferior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6ix
And it's not even just that, it's that his takes are practically copypasted from r/theredpill. Like, if this were an assignment he'd be dangerously close to failing due to plagiarism, before the actual content were graded.

There are so many gems. I like how he put citations in his footnotes like he's David Foster Wallace.

And, one of these citations is to Kyle ****ing Smith from the New York Post.

Also, he cites that women are more neurotic than men, overlooking that none of his lady coworkers are stricken with the compulsions to bang out 10page manifestos of sophomoric nonsense.

The whole "Why We're Blind" section is pure gold.
08-09-2017 , 03:50 AM
Clownshoes.

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-j...es-339f3d2d05f

Quote:
Full James Damore Memo — Uncensored Memo with Charts and Cites

Fake news site Gizmodo (previously owned by Gawker) published an edited James Damore memo. What were they hiding?

You can read the full memo with charts and citations below.

They were probably trying to protect the poor kid from further embarrassment.

Look, all the smart money is on dude trying to chat up a female coworker, her saying F OFF DWEEB, and him going to r/theredpill, whereby he was invigorated and banged out that memofesto all within the same day.
08-09-2017 , 04:06 AM
Two things we aren't hearing outta google I find interesting here...

#1. We aren't hearing squat about this fool's technical coding/etc skilz.

Now, I'm sure the boss googlers are all working hard to keep all this stuff in house... but so far, they haven't been up to that task. The fact that we aren't hearing squat about his technical skilz tells me he is (relatively speaking for a noob just out of school at the very minimum) quite 3lite.

#2. We aren't hearing the fool had a history of posting this kinda shiz.

We are hearing the heads of his grad school department @Harvard felt it necessary to apologize for an allegedly sexist skit this fool was involved in staging. These kinda fools are so poorly socialized that it stretches credulity to imagine he could have kept his "crazy" under his hat for 3+ years @google. But, so far, as far as we know, it's at least possible that he totally blindsided everyone when he unfurled his freak-flag on Friday.
08-09-2017 , 08:53 AM
Quote:
There are so many gems. I like how he put citations in his footnotes like he's David Foster Wallace.
lol. I thought the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6ix
Lawl these f**kfaces are going all in with the notion that nobody has read the memo.
This is a bizarre take since I pulled have a dozen quotes from it two posts after Foldn first posted it.
08-09-2017 , 09:01 AM
Hahahahaha, read what?
08-09-2017 , 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Jiggy, maybe it would help to consider what shame is saying from your p.o.v.

You know how some posters you don't agree with behave here? You wouldn't want them sacked for how they behave here but suppose they behaved the same way at work?
People who don't agree with me DO behave that same way at work - apparently they have carte blanche at Google to behave that way. They don't get fired for it.

I know what Shame is "trying" to say. His points might have had more weight a decade ago, but today this thinking is outdated. To be fair, people were probably MORE open at work (while succeeding better at leaving politics at home) before we had social media so everyone could pass around memos and get "offended" by something that they didn't even take the time to read.

If you watched the interview, James mentions how many have come to him saying they're being forced to leave Google because of this SJWism run amok.


Let's discuss how Sundar Pichai has created a hostile work environment for Conservatives and those who have differing political views. Interesting, I'll be those Conservatives still went to work the next day after Sundar's bigoted actions.
08-09-2017 , 09:36 AM
Hrmmmm....let's consult and employment lawyer:
https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/no...iversity-.html

I mean, I know Shame worked in a manufacturing plant that one time, so he's the obvious authority here. He's very up to date on California laws. Or not. But still....

Quote:
Federal law allows employees to talk about working conditions.
Eaton points out that employees are allowed to talk among themselves about working conditions. This is why your boss can't ban you from sharing your salary with your co-workers. Google went through a different nightmare last year when employees started collecting and sharing salary information.

But working conditions aren't limited to salary discussions. The purpose of his essay was to talk about what he perceived as a need for change in the company. He shared it internally, with his co-workers. In other words, this just might be a protected activity.

You can't fire someone for political views--in California.
In most states, political views aren't protected in the workplace, but in California they are. Love his views or hate them, they are definitely political in nature. Attorney Eaton writes:

An employee does not have free reign [sic] to engage in political speech that disrupts the workplace, but punishing an employee for deviating from company orthodoxy on a political issue is not allowed either. Brown [Google's vice president of diversity, integrity & governance] acknowledged that when she wrote that "an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions."
California law prohibits employers from threatening employees in order to get them to change their political views.

The engineer as a whistleblower.
Damore claimed that some of Google's practices violate federal discrimination laws. When we talk about affirmative action, federal law allows you to hire a woman or minority candidate over a male or white candidate if both are equally qualified. But what it doesn't allow you to do is hire a less qualified female or minority candidate. Damore believed Google's policies were doing just that.

To be protected, "the engineer doesn't have to be right that some of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are."

Former senior Google employee Yonatan Zunger wrote that this engineer should have been fired because his memo makes it clear that Damore was a terrible engineer. I know nothing about computer engineering, so I'll take Zunger's word for it. Maybe this guy was terrible.

However, the problem with firing him now is that it is retaliation for the memo. If Damore was on a performance improvement plan and this was his last ditch effort to save his job, then, no, he's not protected. But if he was considered an acceptable performer the day before he wrote the memo, then his engineering skills can't come into play in this decision.

Damore has stated that he is looking into his legal options. I'm sure a lawsuit will be forthcoming.
Google might be in more trouble than I originally speculated.
(http://employmentattorneyla.com/fire...ws-california/ - looks like the CA law site is down with all the traffic they're getting from this.)
08-09-2017 , 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
Hrmmmm....let's consult and employment lawyer:
https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/no...iversity-.html

"Federal law allows employees to talk about working conditions.
Eaton points out that employees are allowed to talk among themselves about working conditions. This is why your boss can't ban you from sharing your salary with your co-workers. Google went through a different nightmare last year when employees started collecting and sharing salary information.

But working conditions aren't limited to salary discussions. The purpose of his essay was to talk about what he perceived as a need for change in the company. He shared it internally, with his co-workers. In other words, this just might be a protected activity.

You can't fire someone for political views--in California.
In most states, political views aren't protected in the workplace, but in California they are. Love his views or hate them, they are definitely political in nature. Attorney Eaton writes:

An employee does not have free reign [sic] to engage in political speech that disrupts the workplace, but punishing an employee for deviating from company orthodoxy on a political issue is not allowed either. Brown [Google's vice president of diversity, integrity & governance] acknowledged that when she wrote that "an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions."
California law prohibits employers from threatening employees in order to get them to change their political views.

The engineer as a whistleblower.
Damore claimed that some of Google's practices violate federal discrimination laws. When we talk about affirmative action, federal law allows you to hire a woman or minority candidate over a male or white candidate if both are equally qualified. But what it doesn't allow you to do is hire a less qualified female or minority candidate. Damore believed Google's policies were doing just that.

To be protected, "the engineer doesn't have to be right that some of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are."

Former senior Google employee Yonatan Zunger wrote that this engineer should have been fired because his memo makes it clear that Damore was a terrible engineer. I know nothing about computer engineering, so I'll take Zunger's word for it. Maybe this guy was terrible.

However, the problem with firing him now is that it is retaliation for the memo. If Damore was on a performance improvement plan and this was his last ditch effort to save his job, then, no, he's not protected. But if he was considered an acceptable performer the day before he wrote the memo, then his engineering skills can't come into play in this decision.

Damore has stated that he is looking into his legal options. I'm sure a lawsuit will be forthcoming."

I mean, I know Shame worked in a manufacturing plant that one time, so he's the obvious authority here. He's very up to date on California laws. Or not. But still....



Google might be in more trouble than I originally speculated.
(http://employmentattorneyla.com/fire...ws-california/ - looks like the CA law site is down with all the traffic they're getting from this.)


I've bolded the important piece. This was a clear disruption to the workplace.

Thanks for playing
08-09-2017 , 09:48 AM
Also, I made my post ten minutes after you and got right into the CA law website, so you're either lying, or you're bad at computers.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml
08-09-2017 , 09:50 AM
Also, according to your final link.

" For instance, if you participate in a political activity that creates a conflict of interest with your employer’s business model, your job could potentially be on the line. Additionally, if you are not able to get your work done due to your on-the-clock political activities, it could be perfectly legal for your employer to demote or fire you if they see you as a liability."

Ooops, looks like he probably shouldnt have been spending hours crafting his manifesto and then posting it on company time.
08-09-2017 , 09:50 AM
How many threads will the trumpists derail and make about the manifesto of stereotyping in the workplace?
08-09-2017 , 09:52 AM
Here's the law:
CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )

1101.
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

(Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.)


He said he crafted the memo on a 12 hour plane ride to China. He could have crafted it during his 20% time at Google or at home as well. He does have a right to discuss the hostile work conditions he is enduring - that IS protected by the law.

What is with you Leftists not being able to read entire documents???

Damore claimed that some of Google's practices violate federal discrimination laws. When we talk about affirmative action, federal law allows you to hire a woman or minority candidate over a male or white candidate if both are equally qualified. But what it doesn't allow you to do is hire a less qualified female or minority candidate. Damore believed Google's policies were doing just that.

To be protected, "the engineer doesn't have to be right that some of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are."
08-09-2017 , 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6ix
Bwahahaah wait.





Pick a metric, pick a $$ amount, and let's roll, f**kface.

I'll make it appealing: I never even graduated HS.
? huNL for rolls?
08-09-2017 , 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
Damore claimed that some of Google's practices violate federal discrimination laws. When we talk about affirmative action, federal law allows you to hire a woman or minority candidate over a male or white candidate if both are equally qualified. But what it doesn't allow you to do is hire a less qualified female or minority candidate. Damore believed Google's policies were doing just that.

To be protected, "the engineer doesn't have to be right that some of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are."
lol at the dumb people who believe this.

It's illegal to hire a less-qualified candidate? What if you want to pay someone less? Who decides what "qualified"" means?
08-09-2017 , 10:14 AM
None of the alleged scientific facts contained in the manifesto matters as evidence of disqualified coworkers because any single altzi can merely believe their coworkers are less qualified based on their conservative stereotypes of leftists and women and whoever else ? Hmmmmm.
08-09-2017 , 10:23 AM
Anyone think that employees creating lists of coworkers to intimidate creates a hostile work environment? Buehler? Buehler?

08-09-2017 , 10:33 AM
Here is a public list of people who make public lists of people.
08-09-2017 , 10:34 AM
Stereotypers can't exceed individualizers.
08-09-2017 , 10:44 AM
And of course this Googlbro runs right towards conspiracy theorists like Stephan Molyneux to get his message out. We called it.

This isn't hard, y'all.

      
m