SJW meltdown

[John51]

I've just done my microscopic bit for free speech and got the DuckDuckGo app for Chrome. Should have done it when I learned of Goggle fiddling search results during the US election but better late than never.

[Errol]

Paul Joseph Watson weighs in on the Google insanity:

 

[Errol]

[Habeas Domus]

Google were absolutely right to fire him.

Even if you agree with his opinions that's not the point and not the reason he was fired.

Also Brietbart is full of ALT-Right misinformation why would anyone visit that website? it's only a hop and a skip away from the National Front.

[Errol]

15 minutes ago, Habeas Domus said:

Google were absolutely right to fire him.

Even if you agree with his opinions that's not the point and not the reason he was fired.

He posted the study on an employee forum that had been specifically set up by google to allow employees to discuss controversial ideas and ideas that people felt were not being addressed by Google.

Google basically proved his point by firing him.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, Habeas Domus said:

Google were absolutely right to fire him.

Even if you agree with his opinions that's not the point and not the reason he was fired.

Also Brietbart is full of ALT-Right misinformation why would anyone visit that website? it's only a hop and a skip away from the National Front.

It's been in the mainstream news as well.

If that's not the point and not the reason he was fired then what is? He wasn't giving away confidential company information, and it wasn't talking down the company either (the people who have fired him have done a far better job of doing that). Google's a damned unpleasant organisation anyway.

[newbonic]

1 hour ago, Errol said:

He posted the study on an employee forum that had been specifically set up by google to allow employees to discuss controversial ideas and ideas that people felt were not being addressed by Google.

Google basically proved his point by firing him.

Regressive leftism has acquired most of the characteristics of a cult. And this guy committed heresy.

 

Edit to add that I've also switched to duckduckgo as my search engine. Goolag have rendered themselves too unreliable by deliberately rigging search results.

[Habeas Domus]

The first thing he did wrong was completely misunderstand/misrepresent the data, if you look at the sources he quotes they make it quite clear there is a huge overlap between the sexes. If you look at a bell curve, the top performing* women are way ahead of the bell curve representing most men, and similarly the worst performing* men were way below the bell curve representing most women.

* when looking at the specific traits in question, logical/spatial skills etc correlating with programming skill.

So instead of realising that you really do want to give equal opportunity to everyone with the ability whatever their sex/race etc, he just focussed on the average score, because that supports his argument. Which is stupid, nobody imagines that Google or any other company are going to promote people who don't have the required skills/training/ability just to make up the diversity numbers.

The second thing he did wrong was bring this up in a semi-public company forum instead of just talking to his manager or an HR rep. What did he think was going to happen? that the company would turn around and say "Oh yeah you are right, we should just cancel our diversity programme and hire more white males like you, why didnt we think of that before" - thats never going to happen in a million years.

There are also reports that he falsified some of his qualifications, claiming to have a phd when he didnt actually finish the course, if true that would sink him even without the other stuff.

My suspicion is that this guy is somewhere on the spectrum and has no ability to empathise with how his comments would be viewed by all the women working at Google.

 

[Errol]

Here's an interview with the man himself, putting his own case in his own words:

 

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

The first thing he did wrong was completely misunderstand/misrepresent the data, if you look at the sources he quotes they make it quite clear there is a huge overlap between the sexes. If you look at a bell curve, the top performing* women are way ahead of the bell curve representing most men, and similarly the worst performing* men were way below the bell curve representing most women.

* when looking at the specific traits in question, logical/spatial skills etc correlating with programming skill.

...

Not that that really contradicts what he said AFAICT. Without having read it in any detail does it imply that there isn't a big overlap? Or that the top performing women outperform average men? Concentrating on that sort of inaccurate comparison is very definitely misrepresenting the data.

And even so none of that changes it from being a valid subject to be discussed in the open, the reaction to even daring think about it, to have the guts to suggest that everyone might not be 100% equal in every way (other than when it suits, or the physical differences that even the most rabid SJW can't deny exist) is crazy and just gives rise to people living in fear of the thought police.

Quote

So instead of realising that you really do want to give equal opportunity to everyone with the ability whatever their sex/race etc, he just focussed on the average score, because that supports his argument. Which is stupid, nobody imagines that Google or any other company are going to promote people who don't have the required skills/training/ability just to make up the diversity numbers.

Of course you want to give equal opportunity. That's not the same as expecting equality of outcome. And looking at the averages is only a mistake if the shape of the curve is different, otherwise the differences will also be there at all levels.

Anyone looking at equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity is very much expecting Google or any other company to be recruiting to make up the diversity numbers.

[oracle]

7 hours ago, newbonic said:

Regressive leftism has acquired most of the characteristics of a cult. And this guy committed heresy.

 

 

BINGO!!!!!!!

You truly recognise it for what it is, a cult like religeon every bit as dangerous as the inquisition was about 600 years ago.

[Millaise]

6 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

The first thing he did wrong was completely misunderstand/misrepresent the data,

Like you do? 

Of the sexes, it is men who have the longer tails in the intelligence/talent distribution, top and bottom, so there are men who are unbelievably dim, and men who are outrageously able.

Here's the response to what Damore wrote from experts. They don't seem to disagree with the thrust of his memo.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

[Riedquat]

14 hours ago, Millaise said:

Like you do? 

Of the sexes, it is men who have the longer tails in the intelligence/talent distribution, top and bottom, so there are men who are unbelievably dim, and men who are outrageously able.

Here's the response to what Damore wrote from experts. They don't seem to disagree with the thrust of his memo.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

Shhh, you're not allowed to even think about, let alone investigate, anything that could possibly contradict the article of dogma that says that other in the completely unavoidable physical differences, which don't actually mean anything, everyone is 100% identical in every way.

[Byron]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Shhh, you're not allowed to even think about, let alone investigate, anything that could possibly contradict the article of dogma that says that other in the completely unavoidable physical differences, which don't actually mean anything, everyone is 100% identical in every way.

You mean we are all 100% Homo Sapiens?

[AdamoMucci]

17 hours ago, Millaise said:

Like you do? 

Of the sexes, it is men who have the longer tails in the intelligence/talent distribution, top and bottom, so there are men who are unbelievably dim, and men who are outrageously able.

Here's the response to what Damore wrote from experts. They don't seem to disagree with the thrust of his memo.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013732/http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

 

Wow, thank you for that link. On balance, they seem to support him. Not totally, not each as much as each other, but on balance they very clearly support him. I have not checked into their qualifications yet to make sure they are not alt-right pseudo-scientists, but the bios given make it unlikely.

This will not hurt Google at all though. The most "politically" active and vocal are angrily against even discussing this and they seek to economically and socially murder anybody who dares to question. Ironically, they would burn this guy at the stake if they could get away with it.

[Errol]

2 hours ago, Byron said:

You mean we are all 100% Homo Sapiens?

You have deeply offended me. I identify as a lizard and totally reject any association with Homo Sapiens.

[Byron]

5 hours ago, Errol said:

You have deeply offended me. I identify as a lizard and totally reject any association with Homo Sapiens.

Offended

I wonder if there is a word like Onended, or gusted.

And just why is disappointed not the opposite of appointed?

Which catches fire  Flammable or Inflammable?

Can you become disemployed?

Anyway, are lizards sapient?

[Errol]

Fired 'sexist' memo Google engineer attracts thousands with new Twitter account in which he wears a 'Goolag' shirt - as tech giant cancels staff diversity meeting after alt-right attack on employees

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4780472/Fired-memo-Google-engineer-new-Twitter-profile.html#comments
 

[Errol]

[Errol]

A bench in California:

 

[Errol]

I've now moved to using DuckDuckGo exclusively now as well. Good riddance to Google.

[Big Orange]

Although a BBC show I found it off putting I was subjected to a mini-tantrum by a young student when I mentioned Sherlock for supposedly being racist with its 2nd episode of its first season, "The Blind Banker" (for its depiction of Chinese circus troupe and some certain Chinese cultural trappings, and how it was demonising ALL Chinese like it was The Eternal Jew propaganda film, and elsewhere on line a blog threw a paddy when the Triad gang cell used yellow graffiti for passing codes). If some modern audiences could not cope with mild depictions of fictional Triad crooks and Chinese theatrics in a modern setting in Sherlock, they wouldn't last thirty seconds with One Of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing!

[Errol]

On 12/08/2017 at 9:13 PM, Errol said:

Post in error - ignore

 

[John51]

17 hours ago, Big Orange said:

Although a BBC show I found it off putting I was subjected to a mini-tantrum by a young student when I mentioned Sherlock for supposedly being racist with its 2nd episode of its first season, "The Blind Banker" (for its depiction of Chinese circus troupe and some certain Chinese cultural trappings, and how it was demonising ALL Chinese like it was The Eternal Jew propaganda film, and elsewhere on line a blog threw a paddy when the Triad gang cell used yellow graffiti for passing codes). If some modern audiences could not cope with mild depictions of fictional Triad crooks and Chinese theatrics in a modern setting in Sherlock, they wouldn't last thirty seconds with One Of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing!

 

We could have a law that makes 'Stolen Outrage' illegal. Then, only Chinese people could claim racism over that episode of Sherlock.  

[Errol]