554

Full text of the anti-SJW memo circulated by a senior software engineer at Google. Redpills galore. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by G_Petronius

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR

·Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

·This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

·The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

·Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

·Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

·Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

·Compassion for the weak

·Disparities are due to injustices

·Humans are inherently cooperative

·Change is good (unstable)

·Open

·Idealist

Right Biases

·Respect for the strong/authority

·Disparities are natural and just

·Humans are inherently competitive

·Change is dangerous (stable)

·Closed

·Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

·They’re universal across human cultures

·They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

·Biolgoical males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

·The underlying traits are highly heritable

·They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

·Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).

·These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

·Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.

·This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.

·Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

·Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

·We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

·Women on average are more cooperative

·Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.

·Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average

·Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.

·The male gender role is currently inflexible

·Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

·Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]

·A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

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

·Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)

·Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness{11}, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

·As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

·Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. ·In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

·Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservative tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

·I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

·I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

·These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

·Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

·There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.

·These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.

·I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

·We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

·We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity

·Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

·I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain‚causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

·Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.

·Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

·Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

·We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.

·Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.

·Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. ADVERTISEMENT

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.


[–]therealpkg 187 points188 points  (90 children)

The new VP of Diversity already provided a laughable response. In almost the same breath, they assert "I’m not going to link to it (the manifesto) here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages" before concluding with "I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company."

The solipsism and hypocrisy is unmitigated. Shocker, this VP is named "Danielle".

[–]brainhack3r 127 points128 points  (11 children)

Partly because she's paid to NOT understand this...

She would basically not have a job if she agreed with this memo

[–]Pope_Lucious 58 points59 points  (1 child)

Precisely. Acknowledging the truth of this reasonable argument would threaten her position.

[–]ThePantsThief 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I don't really blame her in that regard. We'd all do the same if we were in her position.

[–]FatStig 1 points1 points [recovered]

The only reason the position exists is to have a reason to pay an unqualified woman enough to balance the 'pay gap'.

[–]DiceX2Found 11 points12 points  (7 children)

One difference between PC behavior and reasoned behavior is the willingness to call BS regardless of your basic underlying appreciation of the person dealing said BS. And in that spirit, the comment above is BS.

[–]Pomandres 25 points26 points  (6 children)

I think you misunderstand his point, as did I initially. The position of Diversity VP doesn't exist so google can hire that one woman to fill that one position thereby balancing the alleged pay gap. It exists to establish diversity as more important than merit within the workforce. The purpose of the position is to provide a racial or sexual justification for hiring less qualified applicants over those more qualified.

[–]DiceX2Found 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. I agree that I don't see that in the original; apologies to u/FatStig if I didn't give him enough cred.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 34 points35 points  (10 children)

Is there a link to the person's response? Also...

VP of Diversity

How on earth can companies afford to fill such busybody make-work jobs that produce zero value. If anything they are a GIANT waste of money and embolden the worst aspects of the left in American business.

[–]therealpkg 18 points19 points  (5 children)

I don't necessarily want to give them the click, but here's the entire thing:

"Googlers,

I’m Danielle, Google’s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we’ve seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.

Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said. “

Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it’s often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that’s why I took this job.

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

I’ve been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I’ve never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves—TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn’t end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.

Thanks,

Danielle"

[–]ThePantsThief 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I have a feeling the engineer in question won't be working there much longer

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorFieldLine 2 points3 points  (2 children)

That's why it was such a dumb thing to do. It's common sense not to discuss anything controversial in a professional setting, much less put it in writing. FYI controversial = RAPE: Religion, Abortion, Politics and Economics.

Especially never put anything in writing. If you have a problem, pick up the phone or schedule a meeting in person. If it later comes back to bite you in the ass, deny it. You don't have that option if you fired off an email like a jackass.

[–]neck-yourself 6 points7 points  (1 child)

he isn't a spineless cuck raised by a single mother like you and was probably ready to leave google anyways. lmao there are so many pathetic simps on reddit...even here.

[–]DarkSouls_Prexus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank god a decent response. And hilarious, have an upboat

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (3 children)

How on earth can companies afford to fill such busybody make-work jobs that produce zero value.

She's useful by settling lawsuits faster and making it harder for smaller tech compagnies to get ahead since they can't afford the diversity "requirement".

[–]BigBrotherZiggy 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Exactly. What Google excels the most at is PR. Everybody thinks working there is utopia, but they don't give a shit. What they care about is buying competitors and having political influence(btw, if you haven't already, I suggest having a look at Asange's book on Google)

[–]FieldLine 1 points1 points [recovered]

Assange is the same garbage with a different agenda. Don't take everything he writes at face value.

[–]BigBrotherZiggy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not taking it at face value, but if the the people he points his finger at do all in their power to ruin the man's life I guess he has something important to say. Btw, I'd appreciate if you point out why is it he's supposedly "the same garbage".

[–][deleted] 54 points55 points  (63 children)

Any company that would hire a 'VP of Diversity' is already fucked.

[–]candyman420 6 points7 points  (62 children)

due to their size, they have to.

[–]charlieshammer 5 points6 points  (61 children)

Is that actual labor law? Really?

[–]candyman420 5 points6 points  (59 children)

I mean have to in the sense that they are a gigantic company in the public eye, and technology companies are supposed to be "leading the world" in every aspect, including cultural.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Or Google could actually 'lead the world' by saying no to this SJW crap.

[–]candyman420 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The culture is too extreme.. But it's good that papers like this are making waves, and a lot of people think the guy has reasonable points.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 2 points3 points  (54 children)

No one gives a fuck. Make a good product and people will use it. Keep your fucking mouth shut about politics. This is another case of Bay Area executives jerking themselves off for points in their circle of associates. It's also how they completely destroy their business, as so many do in valley, even if it is a slow burn.

[–]candyman420 1 point2 points  (53 children)

those rules don't apply to google, you're nuts if you think they're on any slow decline over this. The predominant social opinion is that women are poor disenfranchised victims, Obama said it himself, and they are perfectly safe in pushing that agenda.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 0 points1 point  (52 children)

Slow decline? They are effectively dead. They haven't had a successful indigenous product since their first. They buy everything. They have a massive pile of money so they will do the CA thing and spend the next three decades just buying new revenue. So don't quit. don't sell your stock. They will be around for a long time. But they have cancer.

[–]candyman420 -1 points0 points  (51 children)

Google is dead? You're out of your fucking mind. Their revenue was 89 billion last year, mostly from ads.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 1 point2 points  (50 children)

Did you ever read what I said?

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Dude, billionaires don't have to do a damn thing to appease SJW retards. Ain't nobody in the mainstream gonna refuse to use Google search engines, or youtube, or android, gmail, or a million other products and services they have out. They don't even have to be 'anti-SJW', they could just ignore it completely like they don't exist.

[–]candyman420 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, billionaires WANT to appease SJWs because they AGREE with them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Simple politics. Its a PR shield for uncompetitive practices they do.

[–]nninja -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

He has a lot of biases too. Like his comment about liberal soft science professors. He makes an error in assuming that because most of those professors are liberal, that their results will be liberal biased. He has no way of knowing that, and it's also possible those professors are liberal because of their studies. (like if you studied biology and stopped believing in creationism)

And IQ is a poor metric to use for comparing people. IQ is not independent of upbringing and education.

[–]El_Reconquista 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Considering how open to interpretation the soft "sciences" are, that's not a valid causal relationship. People don't turn liberal because of the scientific methods in those studies, but because of the liberal bias that is inherent in many of them. I've had to suffer through gender studies..

And IQ is pretty much the most reliable metric in psychology for comparing people.

[–]nninja 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Soft sciences BA yes...a PhD in soft sciences is not a walk in the cake.

[–]DecurionBifrost 119 points120 points  (5 children)

I think it's scary that the only argument used by several news outlets against such a well written and carefully composed article is "it's sexist." Apparently facts don't matter in this debate.

[–]Guungames 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Welcome to America where the facts haven't mattered since at least 2001!

[–]redpillchill 15 points16 points  (1 child)

You hit the point that has bothered me the most about this whole fiasco. This memo was clearly well written, well researched, and very diplomatic in its approach to the problem.

"SEXIST GARBAGE"

sigh

[–]andervast 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's a religious mindset.

When Martin Luther posted his note on the door of the chuch the response was "HERETICAL GARBAGE"

All the logic and reason in the world doesn't matter to a religious fanatic.

[–]newName543456 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They don't.

There's not even a debate. For leftists, it's just being triggered, virtue signalling and progressive dogmas, so business as usual.

[–]beta_no_mo 94 points95 points  (6 children)

This is the Google version of the Jerry Maguire manifesto. The author has likely already been fired.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

If the author has been fired and sees this, please tell us.

[–]lukmeg 10 points11 points  (4 children)

They won't fire him. It would make google look bad and the recent hired "diversity" VP like a tyrant.

Instead this guy career is over. It will be slow and worse than firing him.

[–]asktrpthrow123 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He got fired by the CEO for violating the code of conduct at Google. What irks me the most is no one tried to make valid counter-arguments, but just dismiss it as sexism. There is no open conversation, if you don't believe in their cult mentality, you're fired.

[–]ThePantsThief 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I dunno, I wouldn't mind sitting around doing nothing all day like that one guy in season 1 of Silicon Valley.

[–]iamtheonewhomknocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unassigned status while stock vests... could be worse. Should give him or her a chance to plot their next move, but yes as far as progressing in large liberal corporations their career is effectively dead.

[–]whenfoom 35 points36 points  (0 children)

"De-moralize diversity" will be the slogan that whispers its way through corporations across the country.

[–]1TheDreadnought1 83 points84 points  (0 children)

The author was really political and diplomatic, which was the correct thing to do after all, since he is walking on eggshells right there. Besides that, he managed to actually say some needed truths right there. I don't know if it will change anything in Google and I don't really care, but I have enough proof that this kind of speech doesn't work in the open world, and not at all at the echo chambers in universities. It may help to prevent people from getting into there, but it won't take them out of their irrational thoughts once they dive in it. Logical argumenting with an irrational person is a waste of time

[–]bama79rolltide 73 points74 points  (19 children)

Any business that wants to be profitable will always hire the best. Not difficult.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (3 children)

People always parrot the slogan "Diversity is our strength." Yet they cannot prove this.

That's because SJWs always lie.

Any business that wants to be profitable will always hire the best. Not difficult.

Google, like so many other 'diverse' businesses, does not actually make products to sell to people in order to make money, so it doesn't have to care whether its employees are competent. The only thing that really matters there is that they keep selling advertising... everything else they do is just an enticement for people to come and read the ads.

[–]ThePantsThief 1 point2 points  (2 children)

For real. Ads are their top priority. The success of anything else they do is largely irrelevant.

[–]BiteAndThrow 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I saw somewhere that 85% of their revenue is from ads, so google is basically an ad company.

[–]seius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so google is basically an ad company.

They arent ads, it's extortion, they threaten to hide your business from searches if you dont pay them a bribe. Google is a shitty company that runs more like a mafia organization than a legitimate business.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Diversity divides phillia. Even religious diversity: look at the otherwise homogeneous Germans and English when Protestantism came

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (11 children)

I'm yet to see a single study which proves that diversity automatically strengthens a company or community. I enjoy ethnic diversity, myself, but for me to think that if, say, a business has 16 blacks, one Hispanic, and one Asian, that the company is weak and lacking as a result of having too many black employees is laughable.

It's also laughable to think that shooing out some of the said black employees to usher in employees of more varied backgrounds will make the business more profitable and successful.

At least initially, diversity often creates problems. Our animal brains don't like people that look, act, and talk differently than ourselves. This is why diversity training courses are needed to "teach us" that diversity is an automatic strength.

[–]A22H013 1 points1 points [recovered]

I don't care about ethnic diversity... but would I rather see a black doctor, who just squeked into medical school at 1060 SAT and wasn't failed because of quotas... or an asian doctor who had a perfect SAT scores and just managed not to filtered out by the same medical school?

This is why diversity training courses are needed to "teach us" that diversity is an automatic strength.

Why, again? Please, why again?

[–]Pomandres 12 points13 points  (5 children)

His point was that diversity is unnatural, otherwise they wouldn't resort to mandatory diversity training courses. He used 'teach us' in quotes to imply it is some form of indoctrination or propaganda.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (3 children)

'Diversity' is a codeword for 'no white males'.

[–]Pomandres 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I don't necessarily disagree, but it is much bigger than that. This is a war upon the individual, masqueraded as diversity & political correctness. Diversity is code for "you think you're special, you think you're clever? All you are is race and gender. Now get back in the pen with the other breeds of cow and steer!" And if you want to be a cowboy too? They'll promote you to bull if you bow while they brand you.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anti-male, anti-white, anti-straight, and anti-christianity.

[–]Whitemansnightmare -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You stupid fuck, after all the years of suffering and repression we endured from your pale skin grandparents and parents, it would be really idiotic of you to think we are equal with you whites. Fuck Donald Trump for trying to do affirmative action.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Correct, Pomandres. As I stated, I enjoy being in diverse environments. But not everyone does. No one should be force-fed diversity if they don't want it.

[–]tryinreddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you assume excellence and diversity are binary?

[–]maxofreddit 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think the really tricky part here is if all other things are equal, is being diverse an asset? If two candidates are identical in ability and employee output, I may think it may be advantageous to have a person with a different background (not nec race/gender, though that seems to be what many consider "background"). That person may have ideas/solutions or insight into issues that a homogenous mix wouldn't. All else being the same, I could see this as an asset.

I'm not saying I have studies to back it up, I'm saying that all other things being equal, perhaps a certain amount of diversity provides for more creative problem solving due to differing backgrounds, & therefore, different default thought processes.

This is also assuming good leadership.

[–]tryinreddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's what they're saying but people aren't trying to hear that.

[–]Cunari 5 points6 points  (1 child)

People are inherently diverse unless they are clones.

[–]Pomandres 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's why they're herded together; the psychology of a crowd is not as diverse as that of an individual and is therefore more easily controlled. It's a recipe for power if that's what you're after.

[–]charlotteplusplus 28 points29 points  (1 child)

Google is weird. I had the opportunity to give a presentation in Denver recently, where I met a few googlers and facebookers.

The best way to describe the people I met is "special": because many have interesting ideas, but the amount of processes they must follow, the amount of redtape to navigate, just to get to actual results, geez!

I told them I was moving a project of mine to the Bings maps API because Microsoft had some actual decent stuff and required less paperwork. They found it was funny, and a young guy pulled a joke like "oh this means we totally have to be afraid of being unemployed soon". I found it was lame. You just have a system that's turning from bad to worse, and you can't hear outsiders voices, telling you about the missed opportunities. But hey, the sky ain't failing yet so you've got nothing to worry, sure.

[–]lukmeg 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Google is cozy cozy with the government so I'm sure they'll be fine for a long time.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

You know it's fucked up when a large majority of that is disclaimers.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Thanks for posting this - it deserves attention. Google has a massive influence on the Valley and hopefully this viewpoint is taken into consideration within the industry on a deeper level.

[–]2comment 37 points38 points  (9 children)

Yeah, notice how the guy has to trod carefully with all the bullshit disclaimers and pages upon pages of text to dance around the issue and virtue signalling his allegiance to diversity and all that that defines the modern corporate bullshit dance.

I support meritocracy. If you can't hack it, out you go. This used to get taught in schools in form of academics and sports... not hard to grasp.

[–]beachbbqlover 1 points1 points [recovered]

Yes, but you and I are not his audience. You write to the audience, not the author or you or I. This is an appeal to the less audacious middle ground in a software engineering community - and so between his rational appeal and the VP's predictable, simian response, we shall see how the masses of Google really move.

[–]chuckthundercock 7 points8 points  (1 child)

No offense to software engineer alphas on the board, but most of the sodev teams I've dealt with are usually dyed in the wool snowflake betas. This was a bold move by this guy even if it was muted.

[–]ThePantsThief 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah. I really want to work at Apple one day, but every single developer I follow who works there is as far-left as they come. If I did work there and they knew I supported the ideas presented in this memo, I'd be harassed until I quit.

I have my suspicions that this is what happened to Max Howell, who worked at Apple briefly before quitting. He's very conservative/redpill, and makes it known to everyone. I've seen other developers harassing him on Twitter for the very same ideals in this memo, even presented in the same walking-on-eggshells fashion.

In short, I'm afraid I won't quite fit in there.

[–]George_Rockwell 7 points8 points  (5 children)

The problem is that when equal of opportunity instead of outcome is strictly enforced, White/Asian men simply outperform across all metrics.

[–]Aeiexgjhyoun_III -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

That's pretty racist some.of.the smartest people in the world are of non white and non asian origin.

[–]George_Rockwell 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Do you really believe NAXALT is limited to women?

[–]Aeiexgjhyoun_III -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I have no idea what that is

[–]George_Rockwell 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Read the sidebar.

Here it's NAWALT, or, "Not All Women Are Like That". Replace "Women" with "X" and it's NAXALT. If you truly believe there are inherent gender differences (and if you're on TRP you do), then race is a stone's throw.

[–]TravelingShitLord 16 points17 points  (48 children)

Only it gets worse. There is a group, inside Google, that is actively trying to instate hiring quotas for women.

Every line of this leak is true about the culture at Google. So glad someone said something. Sad that they've been canned and probably black listed in the community that is the Bay.

[–]beginner_ 8 points9 points  (41 children)

So glad someone said something. Sad that they've been canned and probably black listed in the community that is the Bay.

Law 38: Think as you like, but behave like others

You are not a hero and need to save the world. Typical "nice guy" problem. While that guy was right, it was still stupid to write that up and release it, at least if he did not do it 100% anonymously and untraceable.

The main misunderstanding is, that these people actually want to start using their brain and change their beliefs. They don't. Feminism / Leftism / liberalism is essentially a religion were the god is all things female. The SJW are the fanatics of said religion. And were you ever able to change the beliefs of religious people with text explaining them that god makes no sense? Of course not.

Religious people only change if their core beliefs get challenges in practice. Like their kids dying, or some other extreme occurrence. And some are hopelessly lost forever and won't even adjust then. Same with SJWs. Only thing that might cure them is their own son getting mob lynched for false rape claims. And yes, we will get there sooner or later, the lynching.

[–]BigBrotherZiggy 2 points3 points  (40 children)

While I'm not saying Law 38 should be ignored, if you use it 24/7 we're fucked. In Google's example, if no one raised their voice there's no chance of improvement. Does writing such memo paint a target on his back? Yes, it does. But if he were to act in strict accordance with Law 38, his career might flourish, but the environment around him would crumble. Don't use the laws as an excuse to ignore shit others throw at you. Perhaps him alone won't make that much of a difference, but one person standing up is better than none. If you're in a party sure, keep your mouth shut. But when you see shit hitting the fan around you something must be done.

[–]nninja 4 points5 points  (36 children)

Why are people here acting like Google is fucked? Google just beat expectations last year, revenue and profit are growing.

[–]BigBrotherZiggy 1 point2 points  (35 children)

That's because we haven't seen the effect of those policies yet. What they're doing is basically hiring less qualified people to make the dominant SJW culture happy. Of course that's not gonna destroy 20 years of work in a week, but if they continue to do so consequences will eventually come. How soon will they come is hard to predict, since as has already been mentioned Google is very well entrenched in government, not to mention culture - PR, that's what they're good at.

[–]nninja -3 points-2 points  (34 children)

Then go ahead and short GOOG.

[–]BigBrotherZiggy 2 points3 points  (33 children)

That wasn't the focus of my initial comment anyway, I think you've misunderstood me. While I do stand for what I said about Google, my initial comment was in regards to society in general. Law 38 was brought up, meaning: leave it be, think as you will but act like them. The problem is if you act like "them" when "they" are wrong, you are perpetuating the mistake. Yeah you can still do it for the sake of PR, but if you care about society going forward at all you wouldn't do that. Of course there's to points to be made: 1) that's really a concept, not really practical(which doesn't mean it's wrong) and 2) stop feeling entitled to complain about the world if you're taking part in the wrongs simply for the sake of PR. Yes for some people it's harder, because it may cost your job. But in the case of that Google memo the dude could write it maintaning anonimity and still stand up for something.

[–]nninja -1 points0 points  (32 children)

My point is that there's no proof that what they're doing is harming the company in any significant way. The guy is making an assumption that the company is worse off now because of it's diversity policies. We have no proof that they are hiring and promoting worse employees. We only know that he feels that. He makes assumptions that he is not qualified to make. E.g differences in IQ? IQ is a faulty metric for measuring an employee's potential. And then he assumes that soft science professors have a liberal bias because they are liberal, whereas they could very well be liberal because of their findings. Like someone might turn from creationism to Darwinism after studying biology.

Just to play devil's advocate here, it's been shown that women apply for jobs only when they meet 100% of the requirements, while men apply when they meet only 60% of requirements. This means hiring more women isn't necessarily affirmative action, or proof of any gender bias. The entire issue is complicated and there are many factors at play. Maybe he's right and they are hiring women instead of men just for diversity policies, maybe there is also actual sexism in the industry. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle with many factors at play. My point is, we shouldn't just take what he says as fact any more than we take what an SJW says as fact (well ok maybe a bit more). He's a programmer, not a sociologist.

[–]BigBrotherZiggy 1 point2 points  (31 children)

The problem it's that he didn't say those policies are currently harming the company. He said those decisions will have negative consequences, as in their effect hasn't been felt yet. What he pointed out is the company should be hiring based on merit alone, which they intend to change due to their quotas. In the same manner what he says isn't a prophecy(although very logical), neither are the measures being adopted by Google. If there is actual research proving that fulfilling diversity quotas actually improves their services I'd like to know. As of now, it seems purely a political, PR decision - which directly impacts those who would otherwise get a job in a standard merit only method. If something other than merit enters the equation it's only logical qualification won't keep up.

About IQ: is it a faulty metric? Yes. Are there better metrics for performance? No. That's the reason IQ measurement is so popular, it's not some random test. Of course I'm talking about appropriate IQ tests, not those on facebook. "he assumes that soft science professors have a liberal bias because they are liberal". Eh? So I guess you can't say I have a manly bias because I'm a man? There's no such thing as zero bias, we all have bias, like it or not. You can't expect to truly see yourself in someone else's shoes if you can't perfectly mimic their experiences. And yes, they could be liberal because of their findings. But simply being aware of the fact that between 80-90% of humanities papers' aren't even read(I don't recall the exact figure, but I'm not being hyperbolic - it is between 80 and 90) is enough to show how discredited the field has been in recent years. That says enough about the quality of the work being done in humanities academia. Plus, the figures that an overwhelming majority of professors(95% if I'm not mistaken) coupled with the previous info only goes to show most social science colleges have turned into disinformation camps. If it weren't so, their papers would be put to use.

Since you're on TRP, I suppose you're aware women often distort reality to fit their worldview(not saying men don't, but that's a feminine trait). Example: those "researches" where men and women are asked if they've cheated. Do you think such survey is reliable? Another factor to consider is men rely on social status, that's why you see more men in positions of power. Women don't need that, all they have to do is look pretty. Am I saying that's all they SHOULD do? No, and I wish they actually surpassed those expectations, but that's reality. Again, since you're on TRP I suppose you know that.

Yes, hiring more women isn't necessarily affirmative action - EXCEPT when it's explicitly so, as in "we need to have a 50/50 gender ratio(or ratios other than gender)" and then proceed to hire the people necessary to fulfill that quota for no other reason than the ratio. If you want more of a certain kind of people do the following: continue with the proven method of meritocracy, if there's a tie between someone who fulfills the ratio and someone who doesn't you can choose the person who does. Other than that, it's affirmative action. If the selective process doesn't occur based on merit it's affirmative action. Maybe they don't like the word because it has a political connotation, doesn't make it any less true though.

About sexism in the industry: women knowingly opt out of studying STEM. Nobody is forcing them to avoid it, and with GURLL POWER at full speed they really have no excuse not to go down that path. Still, 80% of STEM students are men. That's a choice, and choices have consequences. If 80% of graduates are men it's only logical 80% of workers are also men. That's a logical quota.

I agree with you we shouldn't just take what he says as fact, but when he is the only dot in the map who dares to speak against the current and is promptly described as the devil on earth I say there's a big problem in there. Which makes it much more likely he is right, because his argument is precisely that people who think differently are shut down. How does Google and the media answer? By shutting him down

[–]nninja -1 points0 points  (30 children)

The problem with IQ is that it's dependent on one's education. When women weren't educated they scored well below men on IQ tests, now they score about the same. IQ only really separates between genders at the extremes, on average the difference between men and women and different races is negligible. Your upbringing, discipline, etc will make a far bigger impact than those 3 IQ pts average difference.

I really can't say whether research in the humanities is faulty, again saying that 80-90% are never read does not prove them wrong. And it does not say anything about why there is a liberal bias in the soft sciences.

100% agree on the social status part. I just think that there is less difference between the average individual female programmer and the male. As in, a female and male programmer will be more similar than a male programmer and a male chef for example.

I do think diversity policies can be harmful, and I don't like affirmative action, but...I understand where they are coming from. They are basically saying there needs to be some "catch up" so that young girls see women in certain positions and society doesn't guide them away. I don't often get into these discussions...it's frankly a waste my of time since I work for myself and don't care about office politics and shit. I don't see another way to correct historical discrimination. Take african americans for example, African immigrants outperform them significantly and have higher social mobility. Yet ethnically they are the same, and many African immigrants live in the same neighborhoods. The difference is black americans don't actually believe in the American dream, they're 5th generation deep in the ghetto. Our surroundings have a big effect on us, from a evo psyche perspective ghetto blacks act exactly as they should - they reproduce early because they have lower life expectancy, they are aggressive because they live in violent areas, etc. So how do you change that? I don't know, affirmative action is not perfect at all, but it might be the least crappy solution.

As a STEM grad I did notice women got preferential treatment in the market...if you're a female grad you're pretty much assured a job upon graduation. If the theory goes that this will encourage more women to get into STEM younger, then maybe in 20yrs there won't be a need for affirmative action, and the difference in performance between the average male and female STEM grad will be negligible. I guess that's the rational answer to it. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, I haven't looked at the data (and frankly don't intend to), and haven't really researched it. I'm just saying there's no need to get super riled up about it. Women will continue to get riled up about anything, and high value men will continue to crush it. All these issues should be talked about in a rational way by people qualified to do it, and this Google bro, no matter how smart and smug he tries to sound while complaining, is not qualified or have the data to back himself up.

[–]beginner_ -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Why should he care one bit about Google, it's success and it's culture? Either accept it and deal with it or leave. No one cares about his opinion. (In fact non one cares anything about you). It's a waste of time and only confirms to SJWs that stupid roles as a diversity manager is absolutely needed because of racist misogynist like him.

[–]BigBrotherZiggy 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes, a private company is entitled to its own policies, absolutely. But its employees have the right to express their opinion as well(even more so in a company like Google that promotes the notion working there is heaven). Unless, of course, their contract explicitly says they don't have a right to opinion in company policies. But I doubt that is the case. Still, that can be seen more as a case for freedom of speech than company policy, since as you mentioned yourself they can ignore his opinion. In that sense the Constitution allows him free speech. But I guess it's stupid of me to expect SJWs to understand logic.

"only confirms to SJWs that stupid roles as a diversity manager is absolutely needed because of racist misogynist like him". Oh yes, because different opinions are horrible! I'm pretty sure these people who think differently kill babies!(Jezebel and Cosmo told me so).

Btw, I'd like for you to point out what is misogynist about his memo. He pointed out facts backed by biology. If you ask me what's a misogynist I'd say the muslims who tear girls' clitoris with a knife are pretty good candidates, but I guess I shouldn't point that out since they're muslims, that's so insensible of me. And, most of all, point, and I ask you to point exactly, where was he racist.

I'm waiting for your answer, Mr. "beginner_"

[–]beginner_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Btw, I'd like for you to point out what is misogynist about his memo

It doesn't matter what i think or if it's true. I matters what the SJWs think and I bet you will agree with me what they think about such a letter.

Apparently he has been fired and his name is all over the news. So he is now unemployable. Don't be a hero confirmed. however I think it's a stupid move to fire him, only gets attention and people will start getting suspicious of all this crap. better to mob him and let him rot till he leaves by free will.

[–]schizoBrother 1 points1 points [recovered]

He tiptoed diplomatically imagining that the company groupthink would care instead of dropping a full truth bomb. He'll lose his job or resign within a month. It won't make much difference in the short term, but in the long run, if they fire all the wrong people, maybe we'll get lucky and a replacement company will arise.

[–]ThePantsThief -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Google is too big to fail. It will be around for the next 30 years at least.

[–]Hugh_Munghous 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I have a female friend who got a job at google and was told by one of the hiring reps point blank that being a woman counted as a plus in terms of being considered for employment.

[–]tryinreddit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm calling bullshit on this hearsay

[–]The-Peter-Principle 33 points34 points  (1 child)

The guy who wrote this has been watching JBPs lecture series!

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Day 1: Cleaning his room.

Day 7: Cleaning up his desk at Google and going to find a bigger dragon.

Father Jordan would be proud.

[–]llmercll 14 points15 points  (1 child)

One of the problems is SJW's will automatically dismiss this as bigotry or even a hate speech, and automatically start shaming the author. This seems to be exactly what the VP of diversity a did.

"women and men aren't different, that's so sexist!"

"IQ differences are because the wealthy have access to better schooling it's a social construct"

"how can you generalize an entire gender by personality traits!?"

[–]redpillchill 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"women and men aren't different, that's so sexist!"

I feel like some good satire is needed to break through the absurdity of this widely-held belief in the bay area.

Maybe a piece on how sexist it is to insinuate that men can't have babies?

[–]_whatcanbe 23 points24 points  (5 children)

Well-written... A rational and logical writing. Acknowledging the fundamental biological differences between males and females, and showing how feminism has allowed more fluidity in the roles of females whereas males are still facing role rigidity... Sadly, I fear for him, for the truth that he writes will be vehemently opposed by the SJW brigade. Hopefully, he does not lose his job.

[–]beachbbqlover 1 points1 points [recovered]

It's virtually a given he will. My question is more how his manifesto is received by the software engineers themselves.

[–]BigBrotherZiggy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just the fact that he must do all that tiptoing diplomatic excuses is already a huge red flag. This serves as prime example that technical knowledge might not translate into overall knowledge. Since Google's culture is SJW, it's reasonable to say it's not only HR folks who are SJWs, but people who work with software and the like too. These technical folks obviously have some skill, yet fall to the SJW crap. They're at the biggest company in the world, yet fail to see that these airheads think it's possible, in 50 years(70s-today), to change the whole of human nature, such as in claims tribalism doesn't work. Wtf is on their minds

[–]tryinreddit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Actually, I don't think they'd fire him now that the memo is out. Too much negative attention. Plus, I think he made his point and people are considering what he said.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (3 children)

Goddamn. This memo was written in such a diplomatic way as to not incite anger and yet conveyed all points the author had on his mind. This may be how I shall communicate in the fifth Red Pill stage (acceptance).

[–]schizoBrother 1 points1 points [recovered]

No. No no no. It didn't work for him or anyone else that tries this approach. You can NOT reason with inane, spoiled brats. They lack the ability and only respect one thing - POWER.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yes, you are right. But, it will surely make many men think twice, wake them up.

[–]Deadpan9 1 points1 points [recovered]

"Make leadership less stressful" and "part-time"???

That's not any kind of leader I've ever respected.

[–]Pomandres 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Power without responsibility is very dangerous. The lack of respect for such a leader is inherent within us all because we collectively understand this truth even if only at an unconscious level.

[–]ThePantsThief 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think he's just telling them something they want to hear to make the list longer; a peace offering. He definitely knows it's bullshit.

[–]Wissenschaft85 12 points13 points  (0 children)

In short a nerd throws a red pill soaked truth bomb. Hilarious and accurate.

[–]indecencies 36 points37 points  (1 child)

Just saying, the individual who wrote this has a deep and intrinsic understanding of the system that rivals many of the top contributors even here, dare I say. It's kind of startling... I'd like to read more of his work. He is obviously very, very intelligent.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Ehh .. it's common manosphere stuff that's been circulating on forums like this for 3-5 years now.

The only thing that's really gonna stand out for SJWs is role rigidity for men and no mentoring/support courses for men (these actually go a long way in engineering and make actual male programmers very pissed off if they are passed up for vagina reasons).

But "Danielle" is probably not gonna give a shit about that.

Which is why I believe his "manifesto" is actually gonna cause both googlers and potential new hires to secretly start to consider avoiding Google

That's bad because an "Atlas Shrugged" scenario might start to play out.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Removed??

Aww come on. Just as I finished reading it.

[–]ThePantsThief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has been removed? How did I find it?

[–]chambertlo 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I Fucking love this so fucking hard right now. I am so glad someone wrote this.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Someone was audacious enough to step up, man.

[–]2Overkillengine 14 points15 points  (6 children)

This person will shortly find out (if they haven't already) that they are not allowed to commit thought crime/heresy against the Holy Approved Narrative unless they are so high up that they cannot be fired.

The lesson from this is one should become so great that people will beg for the chance to forgive your sins.

[–]beginner_ 1 point2 points  (4 children)

He won't get fired because that would make him a martyr. Also usually SJW don't have the balls for direct action. The will just mob him till he leaves. No promotions, no raises, has to do all the dumb work like getting demoted to write documentation. Moved to a worse working space and so forth.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If he's smart, he should have had the next job lined up already.

[–]2Overkillengine 1 point2 points  (2 children)

[–]beginner_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Damn. You were right. Just a question as I'm not from US: don't you need a reason for firing him? And no here such a letter would not suffice. It either needs to be something criminal, very poor performance with multiple warning before so takes months-years to get there or restructuring.

[–]2Overkillengine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It varies by state. We are not as homogeneous as our media would make us seem.

Edit: and also keep in mind Google has been going full Leftist for some time, and a hallmark of Leftism is selective obedience to the rule of law; i.e, "rules for thee but not for me".

[–]candyman420 6 points7 points  (4 children)

They’re universal across human cultures

·They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

·Biolgoical males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

·The underlying traits are highly heritable

·They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

And to add to this, male chimpanzees play with trucks and females with dolls and other gender appropriate toys, as you would expect, in study after study after study. This shuts every SJW up in my brief experience arguing with them.

[–]ThePantsThief 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Wow, really? Could you link me to that study? I'd love to throw that in someone's face.

[–]candyman420 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The bot got mad at me for posting a link. Google search for: Huffington gender toy children preference, it should be the first one. Bonus to twist the knife: It's a huffington article.

[–]tvannaman2000 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I think this is one of the most thought out and reasonable things I've read on the internet in a loooong time.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

loooong time.

2016 wasn't that long ago dude. Lol

[–]zappaism 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Thanks for posting this. Very solid arguments. Brings hope :)

Also, what are the measures of performance of a VP in Diversity??? How do they tie that to business?

[–]grewapair 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I didn't see anyone demanding diversity when the google employees were underpaid and sleeping at their desks.

[–]kellykebab 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Just glancing at this...is the entire OP text the memo?

What is the context here?

There's a summary paragraph and then the entire rest of the post falls under TL;DR?!?

A little clarity would be nice.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's nothing special, very vanilla stuff with tiptoeing disclaimers. The message isn't the value. The value is who he is, where he works and what that represents.

[–]kellykebab 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Context would have really clarified this post, dude. If you had introduced it and explained why the guy wrote it and for whom, that would have made more sense. Obviously, by now, I have an okay understanding of this guy's motivation for writing, but I still don't understand why there is a TL;DR only 8% of the way into the post.

If you're going to share external documents online, it's pretty helpful to present it in the right way. Just saying.

[–]cleverley1986 2 points3 points  (2 children)

anyone got a link to what was said please?!

[–]productive_monkey 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Anyone have the original post?

[–]aptway 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Holy shit which one of you was this?

Feminists BTFO!

[–]Teapot_Dragon 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Is there a link to this memo other than from this subreddit? If I show this to non red pills they may be more likely to discredit these idea on the basis of this coming from TRP. I'd rather have them read it with an open mind.

[–]Supernumiphone 3 points4 points  (1 child)

A quick search didn't find any that don't call it an "Anti-Diversity Screed" or some other negative qualifier, but here's a decent link that includes the VP's reply.

[–]Teapot_Dragon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, what I was looking for. You can really feel the bias from that title though. It's sad how everyone's putting a negative spin on this.

[–]Pomandres 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

 

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

 

TL:DR

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

 

Background

 

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

 

Google’s biases

 

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

 

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

 

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

 

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

 

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

 

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

 

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

 

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

 

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

 

Personality differences

 

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

 

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

 

CONTINUED BELOW

[–]Pomandres 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Men’s higher drive for status

 

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

 

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

 

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

 

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

 

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

 

The Harm of Google’s biases

 

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

 

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

 

Why we’re blind

 

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

 

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

 

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

 

Suggestions

 

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

 

CONTINUED BELOW

[–]Pomandres 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My concrete suggestions are to:

 

De-moralize diversity.

  • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

 

Stop alienating conservatives.

  • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
  • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
  • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

 

Confront Google’s biases.

  • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
  • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

 

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

  • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

 

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

  • Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
  • There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
  • These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
  • I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

 

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

  • We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
  • We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
  • Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

 

De-emphasize empathy.

  • I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

 

Prioritize intention.

  • Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
  • Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

 

Be open about the science of human nature.

  • Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

 

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

  • We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
  • Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
  • Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

 

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

 

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

 

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

 

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

 

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

 

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

 

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

 

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

 

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

 

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

 

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

[–]ThePantsThief 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here you go. I've cleaned it up a bit.

[–]beginner_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is this just Google or any big US company? Anyway things are for sure still a lot greener over the pond. Roughly 10 years behind like with most things "cultural".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Why the fuck do so many threads get deleted on here? Anyone got a link?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's in another comment in this thread

[–]NeoreactionSafe 1 point2 points  (2 children)

 

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.

 

You know things are bad when people think in these terms to begin with.

The true issue is the Globalist Tyranny.

The goal is to reduce all ethnicities to generic universal slaves.

I actually don't want anyone to be forced into uniformity and equality.

Fight the tyranny by "Thinking For Yourself".

"Enjoy the Destruction" of the Blue Pill mythology.

We don't want to compromise with the Blue Pill we want it dead.

"Kill the Beta".

 

Obviously this was an internal document inside Google which is at the heart of this Dark Luciferian Blue Pill brainwashing machine (I know I was formerly a Java programmer) so this is considered "risky" by the standards there.

But here on the Red Pill we can speak "real talk" and say the whole concept of global unification under a globalist tyranny is at root flawed.

It's nice to see some fight within the beast itself. (Google)

 

On a similiar tangent this guy from Russia (Alexander Dugin) has a lot to say:

https://youtu.be/j5hZv78szoU

 

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Dugin is a moron and only used by Kremlin to gauge the opinion of the public.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 

Dugin is a guy who has a new philosophy which fits very closely with the Red Pill ideas.

It's all part of a "World Wide Wakeup" which is against the Globalist Tyranny.

I might not share all his ideas but at least he got the anti-tyranny thing right.

In his vision the world restores the dignity of the historical understanding where mankind is rooted in culture and it's people.

His views are very refreshing in this dark globalist time.

 

  • Like a bright light in the darkness.

 

[–]alphabachelor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I agree with the majority of this letter, this guy broke too many laws. Off the top of my head, I count law 3, law 4, law 5, law 9 and law 38.

No doubt posting this was therapeutic for the author, he can no longer work from the shadows and be an agent of change.

One must choose battles wisely.

[–]Cunari 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Here's a business case for diversity: If an individual is undervalued. For example, someone in a wheelchair may be discriminated for his appearance but may be a damn fine computer programmer.

The "diamonds in the rough." The bad news bears. Moneyball.

How about some diversity in the search results rather than just promoting the same top authority sites while you're at it?

Why is google promoting diversity in hiring if not diversity in search results?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a business case for diversity: If an individual is undervalued.

That's not a business case for diversity. That's a business case for hiring and promoting on merit.

[–]Darkwoodz 0 points1 point  (1 child)

He kind of contradicts his thinking. In one part he mentions that civilizational advances allowing humans more freedom in their lives have actually caused a larger gap in how men and women behave.

Then he says we can fix the gender gap by allowing males more freedom to take on traditionally feminine roles

[–]adelie42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But he also said that this freedom has grown for women at a greater rate than men. This aligns with my understanding of Warren Farrell's work; relatively, men are still doing "men's work" while the concept of "women's work" has been broken. As such, the growth he describes is uneven and this unevenness could be corrected by reducing the shame / increasing the acceptance of men entering fields traditionally dominated by women.

Does that make sense? It is like drawing a relation between divisions of labor and unemployment and saying more options (for many) have created fewer options (for a few).

But I'm not 100% certain I understood your point, so I would appreciate clarification of I missed something in what you were saying.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He should already have a move to Palantir in the bag, otherwise he is a moron.

[–]1PantsonFire1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm to busy to read this post but I have read the report. And it's not surprising to know that people from the left have an adverse stance towards discussing their points of view. Because they know they are incorrect fairy tale shit. The reason why they hold these beliefs is not because they are true but because they want them to be true.

Lefties have a feminine mindset where the mind conforms to beliefs that enable their behavior and make them feel better about themselves. It's the ultimate female hamstering. They'd rather believe bullshit than pick up the slack and correct themselves or god forbid, have other people find some happiness in this life in sacrifice to some of their own. Typical female behavior, even liberal men are like that.

Consequently the right is only interested in whats true and measurable.

[–]mr_wiffles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After much searching, I found the original PDF with his own formatting (that Gizmodo stripped out...):

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

[–]Toolman890 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The whole article is incorrect, he is trying too hard to be compromising. Trying too hard to adjust what was previously successful simply to be inclusive to women. Just completely remove women from the equation and all of that crap disappears.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Left Biases ·Open

Heh. Shit the bed right out of the gate.

[–]10xdada 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That section was cribbed directly from "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. As others have pointed out, he has also been keeping up with his Jordan Peterson.

The guy has read stuff.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, a lot of it makes sense. I was just noting that the last thing I'd call the left is open.