CultureGoogle Fires Ph.D Biologist/Engineer For Claiming -- "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. " (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by M_Justice

As reported in Bloomberg, Google has fired a senior software engineer, James Damore, for authoring a 10-page memo (pasted below) condemning the company’s diversity efforts and claiming men are biologically more predisposed to working in the tech industry than women. According to his LinkedIn profile, Mr. Damore has a masters degree in systems biology from Harvard. (correction: the original posted stated he had a Ph.D, this has since been corrected after Damore updated his LinkedIn profile)

A full reading of the memo shows that Mr. Damore was making a fair and well-reasoned argument for why pay gap and hiring gap issues could not be solely attributable to gender bias against women, and that to understand the full picture, Google (governments and institutions included) need to also consider biological, psychological, social and cultural factors which explain the differences between the genders. Men and Women are actually different, right?

Apparently, this speech violated Google's "code of conduct". The CEO fired Mr. Damore for sexist stereotypes. However, I would ague that Mr. Damore's memo was not "sexist" but rather very logical and scientific. It simply did not sit well with the prevailing cultural elites at the company who believe there is no room for debating authoritarian policies which seek to use artificial quotas and policies to correct for alleged discrimination. However, there is no data to support the fact that the discrepancies between representation of women in science and tech industries has anything to do with other than chosen educations and vocational preferences.

Nice work Google. Before you retaliate against your employees for exercising political speech, perhaps you should give room for other points of view which are actually supported by scientific data.

The memo:

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 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.

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.


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 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.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (34 children)

Tons of solutions here if you're fed up with Google. I stopped using them for searches and went with Bing ever since they fucked with search results favoring Clinton during the election cycle last fall.

h/t /u/genius0o7

For all the pedes trying to avoid google, their main source of income is you. Yes you, pede. You are the data they sell to third party agencies. Your gmail accounts are scrubbed for targeted keywords. Your search history is attached to your ip. Your entire internet presence through (chrome) the internet is being monitored 1984 style to "package" to a bidder.

Words of wisdom to live by - "If a service is free, you are the product"

Avoidance comes in three stages - Desktop, Mobile, and Network Security. I'll tackle each in their respective fields. I am recommending duckduckgo as the search engine but you can substitute any you deem noncucked. Hope this helps everyone out there.

Desktop Browsers:

For most internet activities, you should really secure your browser from Google. I suggest:

Opera -Benefits include built-in ad blocker, battery saver and free VPN. http://www.opera.com/

Sync from Chrome to Opera https://blogs.opera.com/news/2016/04/how-to-sync-bookmarks-faq-opera/

Set duckduckgo to autosearch http://ccm.net/faq/33932-opera-how-to-change-the-default-search-engine

Firefox - Benefits in recent updates includes using less resources (than previous) and privacy with app installation. Also has addons and a vibrant community. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/desktop/

Sync from Chrome to Firefox https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/import-bookmarks-google-chrome

Set duckduckgo to autosearch https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/change-your-default-search-settings-firefox

Firefox add-ons http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/firefox-security-plugins/

Vivaldi - Benefits include super lightweight, highly customizable, and quick commands. https://vivaldi.com/?lang=en_US

Sync from Chrome to Vivaldi and Autosearch - Not yet.

Brave - Privacy focused browser https://brave.com/

Sync from Chrome to Brave - Not yet.

Set Duckduckgo to autosearch - requires some file mctrickery, specifically "change the defaultOpenSearchPath in js/constants/config.js from Google to './content/search/duckduckgo.xml', it'll search duckduckgo by default"


Opera and Firefox sync to mobile once logged in. I have a slight gripe with opera mobile - it tends to hang for 2-3 seconds after opening not to mention a million other mobile browsers.

Secure yo' shiiiiiit - Network Security

First - Get a VPN. What is a VPN? Click Here https://www.whatismyip.com/what-is-a-vpn/ There are in-browser apps that do it as well as standalone programs. Most of the good ones that don't keep logs are paid services. The ones that are free tend to sell your data to third parties, much like the Goog'. Here are a few I would recommend:

CyberghostVPN http://www.cyberghostvpn.com/en_us

VyprVPN https://www.goldenfrog.com/vyprvpn

IpVanish https://www.ipvanish.com/

ExpressVPN https://www.expressvpn.com/

Also, these allow you to connect outside the US servers and Torrent http://www.tixati.com/download data through websites such as Thepiratebay. http://www.thepiratebay.se/ Make sure you don't download any copyright material though, like the new game of thrones episode, as that is illegal copyright infringement.

Pro-pede-tip - Credit to /u/FanOfGusts Create host file https://www.reddit.com/u/FanOfGusts


While I don't have any specific ones i've tried (hotmail user since 1995), there are a few alternatives around the net. Here is a list to get yall started migrating away from Gmail http://thetechreader.com/tech/top-4-free-email-alternatives-to-gmail-that-protect-your-privacy-best-gmail-alternatives-2016/


This POS Zuck the Cuck. I know you pedes stay connected to the plebs through FB. No doubt about it it's a necessary evil we'd like to eradicate from our lives. One way of securing it is to go here. https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences/?entry_product=ad_settings_screen Click the top right corner of all the boxes in each phantom dropdown column for an in-depth look at the datamine FB and Goog' have been collecting on you pedes. Last one. I'm really going to bed this time.

[–]u-r-silly 588 points589 points  (24 children)

They didn't wait long to completely prove his point.

[–]En-Zu 247 points248 points  (10 children)

lmao this is what's so fundamentally funny about the whole thing. Guy says that feminists are obsessed with taboo and orthodoxy. Feminists condemn piece by calling it taboo. kek.

I hope it blows up because it's actually an incredibly rational and well-reasoned piece and anyone who actually reads it will be blown away at the disparity between descriptions of it and the actual thing.

[–]sickofallofyou 121 points122 points  (2 children)

Assange offered him a job. I'd say it's blowing up nicely.

[–]FacingHardships 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Where did you see that?

[–]anon35201 77 points78 points  (5 children)

The fact that the guy was fired for the mentally deranged pc reasons he put so eloquently into his essay is the most delicious irony.

Its like Islam's strategy where muslims use terrorist violence against anyone who says that muslims are intolerant or that islam is violent.

The over reaction is pretty much a solid proof that everything in his essay is absolutely right, at least in this organization, and soceity as a whole is harming itself to maintain these wrong, unstable and inconsistent delusions. This guy is falling on his sword in style like socretes.

[–]systemshock869 1 points1 points [recovered]

Since I'm so late with this I'll post it here. A new reply would be buried. I decided to send some search queries about this to see what Google itself fed me and no surprise one of the top results was from the cucks at NPR.


Google has fired a software engineer who wrote a controversial internal memo that leaked over the weekend. James Damore's memo, called "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," criticized the company's effort to diversify its workforce. And in doing so, the memo relied on gender stereotypes about women in tech. And let's talk more about this with NPR's Laura Sydell. Hi, Laura.

Let's see what the wymynz have to say about this.


GREENE: So tell us exactly what this memo said.

SYDELL: Well, among the things that the memo said was that Google was an echo chamber of opinion. And if you criticize the company's efforts at diversity, then you were a bad person. And most specifically, though, the memo questioned whether or not women were biologically suited to be engineers. And I think that's what really set off the firestorm within Google.

Off to a good start, this interview is.

[–]Leviathan97 31 points32 points  (7 children)

You've got to figure this dude was thinking a few moves ahead. Google management's completely predictable reaction brought his piece far more attention than had they simply poo-pooed it internally and moved on like he was just some whack job and it was no big deal. By firing him (and I agree that he probably anticipated that, and was already prepared for it), they've lent far more legitimacy to his arguments than he ever could've achieved on his own. (Which I guess also proves another one of his points—all the old white guys in senior management really are more competent regarding systems than people.)

[–]eclectro 31 points32 points  (5 children)

You've got to figure this dude was thinking a few moves ahead.

Google hires incredibly smart people. He's playing 4D chess with google, and google has already lost.

[–]rp_nc 877 points878 points  (86 children)

The 48 laws of power, law 38: "Think as you like, but behave like others".

[–]wanderer779 289 points290 points  (48 children)

Politics are so divisive especially these days that there is really no room to discuss it. It's like the whole world is a college classroom. If you disagree with the professor he's going to get emotional and flunk you. If you want to get a smiley face on your paper so you can get your magic paper that permits you to get the golden shekels, you wait to hear their opinion and then repeat it back to them come test time.

[–]natural_ac 168 points169 points  (37 children)

As a former Political Science instructor....I made it a point to play devil's advocate with every possible political opinion. The more people agreed with each other, the harder I pressed a different view.

Your college experience was atypical and bad.

[–]RidlyX 157 points158 points  (7 children)

Sadly it's pretty typical for non-political science classrooms

[–]natural_ac 24 points25 points  (5 children)

Perhaps it was a social science thing. Psychology and political science made it a point to challenge every ideal you held....right or left. No free thoughts.

[–]RidlyX 19 points20 points  (4 children)

My psychology classes were great. Tons of good discussion. My compsci classes... Well, those topics were discouraged in all interactions with classmates, especially if it wasn't completely politically correct. I mean, just look at the Google document incident - the document is very accurate. It's not that men are "built to dominate women," it's a variety of factors that are biological and cultural and ingrained from a young age. And that culture isn't changed by hiring 50% of each sex - it's changed by telling men to worry about work life balance more and telling women to chase after status more.

[–]fuckyouripod 22 points23 points  (2 children)

As a former college student:. Your class sounds like no class I ever took. The "regurgitate and receive A" was precisely what my college experience was.

[–]wiseprogressivethink 46 points47 points  (0 children)

I'd say it was pretty typical and bad.

[–]Bolt_Ironstag 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sounds like my former philosophy prof. He was not well liked by the slackers looking for an easy A. Thanks for challenging people. I won't name him here, but he's one of two intructors I remember 8 years later.

[–]lrish_Chick 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Agree I've been teaching literary theory to first year uni students, including concepts that encompass gender and political theory. I encourage people to have their own point of view - I hate being bored by the same old same old leftist arguments - so the more individual or different your perspective (as long as you argue it well) the better you'll do - in my class anyway.

[–]natural_ac 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Now I'm in risk analytics for one of the top 4 banks. Much more politically correct here than on a college campus.

[–]tekhnomancer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The problem is that it's actually good.

Professors are inadvertently teaching you to pander to your employers. Failure to do so could result in being out of a job. Is it right? No. But I'm in an at-will state. I can be fired based on nothing more than capricious vindication.

[–]SirByron 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The way for evil to spread is for good men to keep quiet.

[–]Pope_Lucious 280 points281 points  (12 children)

Ironically, firing him spread his message far further than he could've ever hoped for. And bolstered the credibility of his argument.

[–]foot_odor 60 points61 points  (6 children)

Exactly, for many he will become a "martyr" of this cause.

[–]shineoneme 42 points43 points  (5 children)

Guy has a Phd from Harvard. He can easily find another job.

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

Not in Silicon Valley

[–]mutageno 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Employers would be careful with someone with so much media exposure. Do you think a company like Facebook will hire him? I hope he manages to get something reasonable out of this.

[–]Imalostman_ 1 points1 points [recovered]

Brother is with 650 million. He'll be fine.

[–]Bloody_Whombat 30 points31 points  (2 children)

Talk about calling your shots:

"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."

[–]eclectro 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Did google execs even bother to read the memo?!?!?!?

My thoughts are it's the same thing that happened up at Evergreen College. Where you had a bunch of nuts running the college because the administration didn't want to offend them. Google had to bow to their (probably few) noisy offended employees. It's either that or they have fallen victim to their "monoculture."

There must be some psychological pathology behind this.

[–]YiffMeAssange 163 points164 points  (10 children)

Here is a copy of the “manifesto” with his sources and graphs.

[–]perplexedm 102 points103 points  (5 children)

^ The original doc is important as gizmodo, vice, motherboard, etc. removed citations and graphics from it.

[–][deleted] 74 points75 points  (3 children)

Lying by omission, pretty much expected.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 19 points20 points  (0 children)

"I removed your proof therefor you're a butthurt loser."

[–]Royalwanker 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Is there a way of downloading this. Very interesting. Edit: found one in comments. Thanks.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 105 points106 points  (8 children)

Lesson learned: hire enough feminists/SJWs and they will hold your company hostage. Look at the saga at Github for an example.

Market principle: companies that deny reality will always lose to companies that embrace it.

For an example of a company that embraces reality, look at Protein World's response when they were attacked by fat-acceptance feminists: http://notyourgoodfatty.com/the-10-best-tweets-from-protein-world/

They refused to back down to the feminist attacks and they ended up with increased business and an enthusiastic fanbase.

Edit for archive link: https://archive.fo/Dvb6X

[–]drallcom3 1 points1 points [recovered]

It only happens if you let it happen. I don't think Amazon has such issues (it's highly competitive from what I've heard). Also, if those issues arise in your company you're bloody rich by then anyway and don't have to give two fucks about it. Larry Page doesn't give a shit about who's earning him billions and rather faps over old Marissa Mayer photos.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I don't think Amazon has such issues (it's highly competitive from what I've heard).

Amazon is probably the last major Internet business that's not under the control of SJWs. But they're working on it.

[–]hot_rats_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Never heard of them but I am definitely buying some protein from them now.

[–][deleted] 579 points580 points  (77 children)

remember this, and act (and vote) accordingly: be silent when this topic is discussed in the open, and be honest when anonymity is guaranteed.

[–]leew360 229 points230 points  (19 children)

And more importantly, support whatever enhances anonymity if you can. Tor, bitcoin, etc. Use less Google services and social media as possible.

[–]Maltahlgaming 1 points1 points [recovered]

Help Tor by running a relay or donate to organisations which hosts a number of relays. Remember that Tor is not for bad people only.

[–][deleted] 79 points80 points  (3 children)

You should be careful with this one. Don't run a relay unless you know how to do it properly. Many houses were raided due to exit nodes.

Also be super careful who are you donating money to, don't just throw it at the first organization you see.

[–]nocroc 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You can also donate bitcoins directly to the Tor foundation! Best of both worlds!

[–]El_Reconquista 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Bitcoin isn't very anonymous, Monero would better suit that purpose.

[–]J-Mosc 105 points106 points  (16 children)

I feel like being silent is exactly what got us to this point and will only let it get worse. Why don't reasonable thinking folks shout this PC bullshit down? Why do we let businesses get away with this shit? I think it's sad that we will just roll over and lay down and let SJW be the norm of the new world. In the past we've always fought for our freedom. It cant be too late.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

of course we should fight back. but please, do so smartly.

[–]Modredpillschool 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think there's a place to fight this, and I'm on board with that fight. But for personal safety, the individual has better chances not speaking up. If you want to join the fight, you need to be smart about it.

[–]thebluepool 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Because these sjws are supported by brainwashed beta men. On their own they are nothing, but with male support they've grown into the monolithic feminazi culture we see today.

[–]Andramoiennepe 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yes, being silent is horrifically terrible advice. Be in power. It's that simple. That power does not even have to be traditional in nature. Lead. Be a coach, a teacher, a volunteer, a member of a school board, a father, a writer. Find a way to influence people with action and ideas. Do not be silent. That is capitulation. That is weakness. That is surrender.

[–]Didiathon 57 points58 points  (4 children)

Be strategic, but don't be silent. Win people over to the truth subtley. Make people pushing absurd notions like "women and men are exactly the same" look like prudes. Don't be afraid to get kicked out of clubs or small organizations that don't matter; try to gain a high position and get other people to like you before doing so. If and when you're kicked out, if you're important and well liked, there will either be discussions and arguments that lead to a change in culture, or people who liked you and followed your leadership will get sad/less productive and cause the organization to collapse. Form your own organizations where you can speak freely. Hire lawyers and get good at rhetoric/PR if you establish an organization of a certain size and don't intend on being PC. Make being honest instead of being PC your image.

Don't be 100% silent. Reasonable arguments and non-pc admissions of reality need to re-enter meatspace if we want anything to change.

[–]Andramoiennepe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Correct. And to effect change only requires a brain. "Men and women are exactly the same" Amused mastery can defeat this one easily enough: [as a guy] "I can't wait to be pregnant! It is going to feel so special to grow a human being in my womb ... wait, what!? I thought you said men and women are the same! Ok. Well, I can't wait for the day that there is just a World Cup team. Men and women are equal. We should have one unified team, both genders ... one team made up of the best players. Any woman can make it on her own merits."

Easy .. and done playfully so as not to be offensive. Engaging anger/emotion is what counts as a lose here. Your role is Socratic irony: you already know the answer. You lead your interlocutor to it by playfully feigning ignorance and advancing through questioning rather than lecturing. Your interlocutor discovers the truth on her own and is therefore convinced.

[–]Arnoux 67 points68 points  (20 children)

I can be vocal as much I want where I live in eastern eu. Sure we earn less money than western people, but at least not ruled by cucks and women

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (15 children)

are there engineering jobs where you live? not being surrounded by "diversity" might be worth the downgrade in money for me.

[–]Surf_Or_Die 37 points38 points  (6 children)

If you already live in the EU you won't even make less money. I met software engineers who lived in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria who made the same amount of money that they did in Germany and Holland except they got away from diversity, feminism and got a WAY higher standard of living since their pay checks were identical but they lived in a country where the average person made much less money. If you're in Europe and you haven't looked for opportunities out east yet - you're wasting your time.

[–]Arnoux 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Of course there are. There are every kind of jobs. I am working in finance.

[–]Hyrkan 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Downgrade would be huge. For example a senior software engineer earns around 2,5-4 k USD/month, so 30-48k USD/yr. Sure, you'll live like a king but your purchasing power for imported goods and investing scope will be more than halved. In terms of building wealth it's not a good idea.

Edit: engineers earn around 40k USD / yr afaik.

[–]Mildly_Sociopathic 353 points354 points  (92 children)

4 actual scientists responded to this. Incidentally they support the memo.

Who would've thought.


[–]Starter91 176 points177 points  (75 children)

It does not matter if its right or wrong, if it does not fit the current narrative then it is disposable .

[–]belisaurius 127 points128 points  (66 children)

It's not about narrative. It's about a professional working environment. You don't throw shit at work, it's that simple.

[–]ColinFeely 83 points84 points  (23 children)

Yeah everyone is frothing at the mouth in this thread and OP wrote a fucking novel. Guess what? No employer is going to stand for an employee to put out some memo they didn't ask for. Especially when it is controversial. True or not. Googles firing of this guy doesn't even prove they disagree just that they aren't idiots who will let an employee do whatever they want.

[–]NSFWIssue 81 points82 points  (19 children)

Except he published it for the eyes of a few coworkers on an internal business forum devoted specifically to controversial discussion and ideas, and it was only later shared by someone else (not him) to a larger audience and to fake news media.

[–]Modredpillschool 30 points31 points  (11 children)

Indeed, if Google fired him because it was inappropriate to air dirty laundry, this would invalidate that. Somebody else leaked it.

In the mean time, California law might actually prohibit terminating him when he put into question whether the practice was legal. Essentially, this might be a protected question for employees.

[–]cbnyc0 19 points20 points  (20 children)

But he threw a shovel. I guess in a world of shit, a shovel is terrifying.

[–]belisaurius 40 points41 points  (19 children)

It doesn't matter what you feel like it was. What matters is you don't throw things at work. You show up, you do your job, you get paid. You do not editorialize. You do not do things that make your colleague uncomfortable.

[–]cbnyc0 22 points23 points  (8 children)

"Just keep your head down" is not a very RP way of thinking though, is it? Editorializing is already going on, this person has been made uncomfortable, and he's pushed back. Hopefully it will lead to stronger resistance.

[–]seius 4 points5 points  (3 children)

uhm, he was using the appropriate channels that are designed to get input, the fact that this backfiring on google is hilarious, i bet you all the males are talking about how right this guy was, and it opened dialogue.

[–]seius 3 points4 points  (9 children)

You don't throw shit at work, it's that simple.

tell that to the lunatic SJWs.

[–]Modredpillschool 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Do you have a mirror? I can't access this.

[–]SiulaGrande 3 points4 points  (0 children)


i guess it was taken down... hmmm what a surprise! (whyyyy would anyone feel pressured to take down an opinion that goes against the leftist mainstream?? I just have no idea...)

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (1 child)

That was a good read. Dr Debra Soh is a great find, she is like a female Jordan Peterson. I hereby award her an honorary red pill award for being a cool female. She is right up there with Esther Vilar. People like her are our greatest allies in this fight against logic and science.

[–]Modredpillschool[M] 189 points190 points  (22 children)

I've never seen this many reports on a single post. I'm astounded. Our fake-report rate is actually pretty low, I had assumed trolls gave up on us because our crackerjack mod team is so quick, but it looks like somebody has an agenda today:

user reports:

4: <no reason>

2: Spam

1: inaccurate and misleading title

1: redpill

1: You all really need to get laid. Shame you are all so socially inept.

1: no they didn't you fucking retards

1: no, he was fired for being sexist

1: You guys are insane

1: No moralizing

1: Lol that's not why he was fired you mouthbreathing neanderthals

1: It's targeted harassment at someone else

1: It's rude, vulgar or offensive

1: Threatens, harrasses, or bullies

1: Threatens, harasses, or bullies

[–]Son0fSun 91 points92 points  (7 children)

This is what happens when truth is spread, targeted attempts at silencing it.

[–]Modredpillschool 37 points38 points  (6 children)

This is what happens when truth is spread, targeted attempts at silencing it.

That's got to be what's happening here. Because, who spends time on TRP trying to discredit us? These people are following the story itself trying to discredit it wherever they find it.

Good news is that reports won't make this disappear. I expect to see a lot of FUD in the discussions here and elsewhere.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 28 points29 points  (0 children)

who spends time on TRP trying to discredit us?

Losers have a lot of free time

[–]systemshock869 1 points1 points [recovered]

Is TRP allowed to hit the front page of reddit? /u/redpillschool

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It seems like this particular truth has seriously triggered some folks out there to the point of mounting a campaign to suppress it.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Haha .....the quiet majority slowly wakes and the pro equality homos can swallow a truthload

[–]newName543456 7 points8 points  (0 children)

you fucking retards

you mouthbreathing neanderthals

I thought TBP sub stands against hate speech :3 Oh, right. It's only hate speech if said by someone they disagree with, otherwise it's "PuTtInG DeRpS iN ThEiR PlAcE"

[–]Leumas_J 20 points21 points  (4 children)

Lololol I love that this is at the top, the "you guys need to get laid one" one is definitely gonna hit a few tender spots

[–]WhorehouseVet 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Hmm, that's what TRP is for, getting laid. Neckbeards and manginas are probably crying to their waifus now.

[–]Fedor_Gavnyukov 4 points5 points  (1 child)

mouth breathing neanderthal checking in

[–]JackGetsIt 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I think this debacle demonstrates once and for all that this has nothing to do with misunderstandings of facts. This has everything to do with ideology and power. I read everyword of that paper and it was fact based, respectful. It was the farthest thing from sexism or misogyny and he was still fired.

Remember when talking to strangers, co-workers, friends and family even if you present a redpill argument eloquently and grounded in fact you will be accused of sexism and misogyny and your career and social life will suffer. Unless you have serious star power and fuck you money like Joe Rogan DO NOT TALK ABOUT REDPILL or redpill related ideas.

[–][deleted] 81 points82 points  (14 children)

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy.

But when you're inside, what do you see?

Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters.

The very minds of the people we are trying to save.

But until we do, these people are a part of that system...

...and that makes them our enemy.

You have to understand...

...most of these people are not ready to be unplugged.

And many of them are so inert...

...so hopelessly dependent on the system...

...that they will fight to protect it.

[–]BlairResignationJam_ 1 points1 points [recovered]

Reminder that this movie was written by two transgender women

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (7 children)

Back then they weren't transgender though. They were called the Wachowski brothers.

[–]Xetios 13 points14 points  (3 children)

They changed their genders? Seriously?

edit: just looked it up. Didn’t know that. Surprising.

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

Yeah, some people who can vote weren't even born when the 1st Matrix movie came out - makes me feel old.

[–]Patriarchysaurus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Now I'm imagining this guy looking up from his laptop and seeing all of his coworkers at Google HQ morphing into Agent Smiths.

They do battle, but there are simply too many Smiths to fight!

Somewhere a telephone rings out, the operator is trying to pull him out, back to the objective laws of the "real" machine world!

Instead, he is predictably surrounded (his "free redpill" manifesto seemed to get their attention) and pummelled into raspberry jam by a wave of agents before reaching the link. In his dying breath he sputters--"Guess I'm not the One after all", just before a prompt deletion from the system.

[–]2Sepean 160 points161 points  (11 children)

There are no economists who take the "gender pay gap" seriously. There are well-documented statistical reasons for most of the difference, and there is no reason to assume that the remaining unexplained difference (3% iirc) has anything to do with sexism - it just means that economists don't have the data to say what that the reason for that difference is.

It's also just common sense that there isn't a gender pay gap. If women really did the same work as men for only 77% of the pay, we'd see companies hiring only women and easily outcompeting the companies that hired men.

[–]StillNotaWizardYet 62 points63 points  (7 children)

This article has NOTHING to do with a gender pay gap... It has everything to do with women being put in positions that they inherently should not be in just to try and balance out the "there are no women in tech" scheme.

[–]Ahahaha__10 14 points15 points  (2 children)

It does actually, women in higher positions is very related to gender pay gap because higher positions = more money = less pay gap. Also, more women in higher positions = equality = less pay gap.

[–]123Volvos 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's absolutely bananas to me that someone will quote this statistic because they they feel is 100% supporting their conviction and use it to justify downright cartoonish policies.

I just ask them "if a woman can get the same work done for 23% less cost, why would you not hire only women in your workforce?" with a response of "Because they are discriminating against women"

Purely ideological.

[–]SirByron 35 points36 points  (4 children)

Damore can and should sue GOOGLE big time as it is possibly an illegal firing.

First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. The purpose of the memo was to persuade Google to abandon certain diversity-related practices the engineer found objectionable and to convince co-workers to join his cause, or at least discuss the points he raised.

In a reply to the initial outcry over his memo, the engineer added to his memo: "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." The law protects that kind of "concerted activity."

Second, the engineer's memo largely is a statement of his political views as they apply to workplace policies. The memo is styled as a lament to "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.

Danielle Brown, Google's newly installed vice president of Diversity, Integrity, & Governance, made it clear that the engineer's memo does not reflect "a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages."

An employee does not have free reign to engage in political speech that disrupts the workplace, but punishing an employee for deviating from company orthodoxy on a political issue is not allowed either. Brown acknowledged that when she wrote that "an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions."

Third, the engineer complained in parts of his memo about company policies that he believes violate employment discrimination laws. Those policies include support programs limited by race or gender and promotional and hiring scoring policies that consider race and gender. It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws. In other words, the engineer doesn't have to be right that some of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are.

[–]sehns 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yep. I hope he sues the fuck out of them and wins.

[–]disposable_pants 36 points37 points  (5 children)

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

[–]Sotokun3000 74 points75 points  (69 children)

Both articles on wired and Bloomberg are interesting reads, especially the interpretations by several parties.

Interesting to see that there is an acknowledgement of "free speech" awkwardness and what is allowed and what not.

The battle of free speech and "culture" within tech companies.

Hamster overdrive

[–]IdRatherBeTweeting 83 points84 points  (32 children)

There has never been a promise of free speech within a company. There is no First Amendment right to protect you from retribution by and employer. It has always been that way.

[–]Sotokun3000 37 points38 points  (17 children)

But there is a culture of wanting all voices to be heard and not condemning minority views.

I agree maybe he can't win a case In a lawsuit but->

That's why this case is interesting because it shows selection bias on what is considered an acceptable view.

It shows that in reality a company's culture of openness and inclusion can fall into paradoxical behaviour.

It is one thing to say that a company does not allow different views, and another to say that it values all views as equal but some are more equal than others

[–]IdRatherBeTweeting 37 points38 points  (15 children)

But there is a culture of wanting all voices to be heard and not condemning minority views.

No there is not. Corporate culture is absolutely not a place to share controversial political views. It never has been. You are simply wrong about that.

[–]Rogankenzie1395 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Google did realease a statement saying they want to hear all voices, thus making them liars.

[–]Sotokun3000 18 points19 points  (11 children)

Man it's a statements game. I agree that reality is different but it's the companies themselves that advertise how they value diversity and openness in expression.

Just pick up any company marketing booklet.

[–]IdRatherBeTweeting 44 points45 points  (17 children)

Corporate culture has always been about the work. You show up, you work, you go home. It is common knowledge that if you bring up religion, politics, or sex you are playing with fire and risk termination. It has never been a place for free speech. There is no "battle for free speech" in the corporate workspace.

If you go to work and send out an email about controversial political / societal issues, you can expect to hear from HR and may lose your job. That's the way it has always been. Corporate email is not a platform you are entitled to use for spreading your personal views on non-work related topics.

[–]jm51 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The guy must have already known that.

My guess is that he was becoming increasingly unhappy with the way things were going and had a Jerry Maguire moment.

Either that or he did it as a career boosting move.

Either way, I think he'll come out of this ok.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (14 children)

The replies you’ve received shows how cucked western men are. “Companies are free to do what they want”... statements like these are exactly why feminism has such an entrenched foothold in society and culture. It’s cucks like them that allow the left to win the culture wars for 40 years while they go on and on about muh principles and other bullshit. It’s not even that you shouldn’t be principled, it’s these myopic lazy libertarian statements like “companies should be allowed to do what they want” that they miss the big picture... you can disagree with and combat what these companies are doing while still agreeing they should be free to dictate their own corporate culture to their employees.

Google prides itself on openness and equality, it’s ridiculous that they can say that and then fire someone for wrongthink. There is something very wrong about what they’re doing and they need to be called out. I normally wouldn’t care but Google has enormous influence over how the masses think.

Nobody is saying that you have to put your name out there, but you can support the ones fighting against this pervasive post modernist, cultural marxist bullshit that has invaded Silicon Valley. Even something as simple as following Jordan B Peterson on twitter or YouTube helps. Let’s say you don’t even want to do that. Then speak about issues like this anonymously whenever you can, especially in forums like TRP. Put a stop to this myopic cuckservative “muh principles” crap where you continue to cede territory to blue haired genderfuck feminists who are the reason why TRP needs to exist.

[–]Sotokun3000 15 points16 points  (8 children)

My argument is simple.

It's a paradox to promote LGBT and racial openness and on the other hand condemn criticism of those. Openness should allow criticism.

It's a paradox to say "people should be allowed to have whatever sex orientation they want and be allowed to talk openly about it and have the right to be offended and vocal about it if criticised

But there is no right to be offended if the source of offence is discrimination in favour of minorities

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I agree and it kills me inside that these hypocrisies exists yet these presumably smart people on the left doesn’t see it. They always have excuses, eg straight white males are historically and institutionally privileged so it’s okay to marginalize their opinions. No it’s not okay. That’s racism, something they purport to be against.

[–]TunedtoPerfection 5 points6 points  (0 children)

SJW have long proven you can't be racist against the source all that is evil, "a white male."

[–]Newreddawn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's similar "logic" to why it's impossible to be racist against white people. You can break the logical rules if it's for the purpose of tearing down a power structure. What is really going on is standard hypocrisy. People never wanted justice, they just want to shift the balance of power. Openness and diversity are key words signaling a desire to shift power to people who aren't straight white men. So there was never any real expectation of diversity of opinion. Those announcements were a tongue in cheek way of saying there's a new sheriff in town and xir is looking to go after people with traditional values.

[–]OneInAZillion 30 points31 points  (3 children)

Here's The Guardian's title and lead heading on the article:


Google’s sexist memo has provided the alt-right with a new martyr


James Damore’s diatribe against women in tech offers an insight into the male backlash that was an important factor in the rise of Trump.

Just LOL. What an absolute liberal shit-hole the UK is.

[–]Fedor_Gavnyukov 5 points6 points  (1 child)

the UK is a shithole so who cares what they write

[–]Starter91 143 points144 points  (4 children)

Silicon valley is mentally ill, what else is new?

[–][deleted] 85 points86 points  (13 children)

Use the brave browser. Not chrome.

[–]domesticHorse 1 points1 points [recovered]

Use Duck Duck Go, not Google Search.

[–][deleted] 266 points267 points  (75 children)

A doctorate in STEM from Harvard, and still he's fucking stupid enough to think "yes, circulating this highly provocative memo will be a great professional move".

Wrap up your dick AND your thoughts, lads.

[–]Dr_D1amond 87 points88 points  (4 children)

Im not sure he did intend for it to be circulated. But clearly someone in the circle he shared it with thought it wise to distribute

[–]wristcontrol 26 points27 points  (1 child)

He broke the cardinal rule of professional communication: do not write anything in an email that you wouldn't want to see printed on the front page of the national newspaper.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

True, no evidence of intent.

On further reflection, be like Yonatan Zungar - he was smart enough to align himself with the righteous faction and earn enormous woke-points by writing a Medium post condemning James. If he doesn't believe what he wrote, so much the better for him.

[–]mercuryg 1 points1 points [recovered]

From the looks of it, he thought as long as he acts as respectful, diplomatic, and reasonable as possible then people would do the same in return, despite him opposing the established dogmas, this is just naive and bullshit (always has been, not just in todays SJW times). The silver lining though is that this is an important lesson for anyone not yet brainwashed and who takes the time to read the 10 pages, any reasonable person will realize this has got to be the tamest controversy text ever, and anyone genuinely offended by it are hypersensitive lunatics. I really expected much worse, but this is the least offensive "offensive" manifesto ever.

[–][deleted] 66 points67 points  (6 children)

He hedged each sentance in virtue signalling. Half the memo is him saying women are great, diversity is great, and he's a good person.

Didnt matter.

You can see why people stop attempting to be diplomatic. He should have kept his mouth shut thpugh

[–]redbeaux 19 points20 points  (0 children)

He should have kept his mouth shut

Maybe, depending on what his end goals were. I'm glad people like him do shit like this. Guys that "take one for the team" as it were. I've read some of the liberal media on this and they make statements like:

"Anti Diversity memo" and "Manifesto that states women aren't welcome at google"

Many people aren't going to read what he actually wrote, but there are those that will, and when the do they will tilt their heads sideways and think "Wait a minute..." They will see the blatant lies and manipulation. Some will chose to "wake up" as a result. This guy ruined his career at google, but he'll be fine.

[–]belisaurius 32 points33 points  (2 children)

You can staple as many roses to a log of shit as you want, and people will still smell your shit. The point of diplomacy isn't to 'hide' your ideas, it's to present them in a way that your audience can hear them without being turned off. Finding the right words to express yourself to an audience is just as important as the idea itself.

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (1 child)

That's the point. There was no right way. Emperor wants you to say he looks stylish, period.

He doesnt want you to see 4 lights

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 11 points12 points  (0 children)

He may have also decided to retire. They probably gave him a spectacular package as long as he signed an NDA. Not doing so would cause them great trouble in court, since this was not published to the public.

[–]RedPillFusion 23 points24 points  (3 children)

It might have been done out of stupidity, but it might have also been done out of courage. When you have his level of credentials, perhaps you give less of a fuck about what your employer might do in response. You don't think the author of this "manifesto" was completely lucid and aware of the possible consequences? Nigga please. Man's a fucking hero.

[–]Schlagv 1 points1 points [recovered]

He probably wanted to leave anyway. I'm sure with the publicity he will easily find a new job in an anti-SJW corporation.

[–]MaleToothFairy 74 points75 points  (16 children)

Or maybe some people are dumb enough to really believe in idealistic values like rational discourse of ideas and changing the world to something better by speaking up.

[–]AttackOnKvothe 27 points28 points  (8 children)

Thats how Donald Trump got elected, thought.

Many people got tired of the shit which was happening, and voted against the mental illness in their country.

[–]MaleToothFairy 38 points39 points  (3 children)

If you analyze it closely, Trump did the exact opposite.

He hired hiw own pollsters to find out what people really wanted and what troubles they really had. Then he kept his thoughts to himself and pandered to what the people were already thinking.

And then he just voiced their thoughts, because you can only teach somebody something that he already knows.

if you remember, he had different talking points in the beginning of the primaries, compared to the end of the race in the general election. He is a true mastermind.

[–]Steelmade58 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Not only that. He also kept on repeating phrases written for him. Every time he got out of the script he fucked up. That's how we know he's not into what he was speaking of.

[–]beginner_ 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Yeah. this naivety more common in highly educated (high IQ?) people than one would assume. You could count be to that group, before TRP.

[–]SkyGrl377 31 points32 points  (5 children)

Or maybe he knew he'd get fired and thus receiving a ton more attention for it. In the end he redpilled a ton more people. Could've all been planned, just saying.

[–]Punchpplay 19 points20 points  (7 children)

Yea instead of being a hamster in a cuck filled corporation, he will be a voice for change and sanity and can easily make money off of this publicity ... what a fucking tool, amirite guys?

[–]1OneRedYear 117 points118 points  (21 children)

Your version of the truth doesn't matter at work. The company line does. Think as you like, behave as others.

[–]M_Justice[S] 54 points55 points  (13 children)

A true "brave new world" and dystopic future (or present) where trying to insist there are biological difference between men and women is a crime. A future where all gender differences are genetically modified so we have transgender humans who can only procreate in a controlled laboratory setting to make sure the hormonal output and brain development progresses in a gender neutral fashion

[–]read_if_gay_ 27 points28 points  (0 children)

That legitimately sounds worse than Huxley's Brave New World

[–]JoseJimeniz 28 points29 points  (4 children)

This. He was fired because his valid, well-reasoned, sourced, essay that he only shared privately with select colleagues, got out - and it was embarrassing to the company.

  • the headlines weren't "a guy wrote this"
  • they were "a Google employee wrote this"

It's not what he intended. He didn't do anything wrong. And Google would like to do the right thing all the time but they can't. They would be tied up with for months when there are more important things they can be doing.

[–]king_james_bible[🍰] 287 points288 points  (48 children)

Consider this a reminder: Do NOT talk about the red pill outside this forum.

The world is too cucked to give this ideology a fair hearing right now, because it doesn't play well with the pro-equality media narrative.

[–]Framefame 38 points39 points  (0 children)

I talk about TRP to lots of people, I just phrase it differently and don't use the same terms we do. You'd be surprised how much of TRP the average person agrees with if you just make them think about how relationships work (which most people never do)

[–][deleted] 253 points254 points  (13 children)

because it doesn't play well with the pro-equality media narrative

Also because TRP is a place where pseudo-intellectuals and misogynists come to try and justify why they aren't getting any pussy. TRP was originally formed as a response to the dangerous and unhealthy echo chamber that is the blue-pilled world but it has gradually devolved into the blue-pilled world's equal, except it's on the opposite end of the bullshit spectrum. Most people here are eager to judge and figure out everyone around them but they never bother to take a look in the mirror. Let's continue oversimplifying the world like real "alphas" do; we don't sound ridiculous at all.

[–]ThirdLegGuy 115 points116 points  (6 children)

Words of truth here. TRP easily became an outlet for incels and all that teen rage, but originally it was a beatiful philosophy of becoming a man you would want see in the mirror tomorrow, free from outdated societal norms, enjoying his inner happiness and simply viewing women as mere humans, with their life goals, biological imperatives, strengths and weaknesses.

[–]Modredpillschool 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Everything looks rosy in retrospect.

The forum was full of genetic losers since the beginning. That's why the question was asked "why aren't I getting laid?"

The content here is more or less similar to years ago. There's more filler, but the quality stuff is easy to get to.

[–]ruok4a69 1 points1 points [recovered]

This happens with every movement that brings a positive message and gathers any sort of following; it's immediately assimilated by knuckleheads.

My favorite recent example is the Tea Party. I won't get political here, but TP was an amazing grassroots movement, and then it wasn't.

[–]nocroc 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Hey, would you mind giving me some info on what happend to the Tea Party? I'm not an american but want to read into it - the tea party sounds really interesting!

[–]colovick 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Essentially a large group of republican voters tried to leave the party and form their own party because they weren't being represented by the party they supported. They started holding town hall meetings and tried to get it off the ground, but had no political expertise, do a few good hearted senators from the republican party "defected" to join the movement and help them formulate ideas and setup a working national party. Only instead of doing that, they slowly changed the narrative to be a more extreme form of conservatism and had them rejoin the republican voting base while retaining the notion that the tea party is definitely still a thing

[–]nocroc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ok get it I imagined something like this would have happend. Thanks for the heads up.

[–]hot_rats_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Tea Party started as a libertarian movement whose popularity was quickly realized by authoritarian politicians, who then used the term to market themselves in the process killing any meaning it once had.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Also because TRP is a place where pseudo-intellectuals and misogynists come to try and justify why they aren't getting any pussy. TRP was originally formed as a response to the dangerous and unhealthy echo chamber that is the blue-pilled world but it has gradually devolved into the blue-pilled world's equal, except it's on the opposite end of the bullshit spectrum. Most people here are eager to judge and figure out everyone around them but they never bother to take a look in the mirror. Let's continue oversimplifying the world like real "alphas" do; we don't sound ridiculous at all.

That is a problem with this place, I cant lie, but dont think it isnt having a major positive effect for men like me. The last 2-3 months since taking the red pill have been some of the best in memory for me.

We just need to organize the sidebar better with the actually useful stuff that TRP has produced for newbies to read (and there is actually a lot of it, you just have to dig to find it)

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (4 children)

It's important to note:

Most posts on Reddit at the moment are condemning Google for silencing the voice of dissent which is surprising and also encouraging.

I for one was expecting a lot of pitchfork talk.

[–]Luce_Bree 1 points1 points [recovered]

Something tells me this event may have a bigger and more positive impact down the line than we can really perceive right now.

This man's essay and highly public firing occurs at a time when cultural and political lines are being actively discussed and redrawn. Due to Google's sheer size, reach, and influence, along with the highly controversial subject matter, a LOT of people are going to wind up seeing that essay, and I think that many are going to see how reasonable it actually is. And I think that even those who (initially) disagree with Dr. Damore's assessments will look at Google's response and, at least on some level, perceive that he was right.

Furthermore, Google inexplicably doesn't seem to understand how the Streisand Effect works. They have only made a martyr out of Dr. Damore, and his action will be seen as courageous by many (it's already been reported that there are those within Google that agree with Damore; how will THEY react to this?).

I think many people, particularly MEN, are silently watching one of the world's most successful companies prioritise ideological and political "purity" (and really, intellectual cowardice and dishonesty) above potentially growing as a business. These people are witnessing that Google has no issues with sacrificing reasonable, intelligent and forthright men for the sake of hurt feelings.

For me, at least, I can see clearly now that, somewhere down the line, Google will eventually fail because they are more concerned with political correctness than growing their company. Because it's Google, for me that means we will potentially miss out on exciting technology that can benefit humanity down the line. I'm sure I'm not the only person viewing Google negatively due to that realization.

Finally, given the crackdowns on social media and the omnipresent YouTube drama, this was the perfect time for something like this to happen (though the worst time for Google). Issues of free speech and an invigorated hunger for the truth--ironically spurred on by Google's search engine--are hot issues right now, and Google has just very publicly placed themselves on the WRONG side of those issues.

This will turn out to be a very good thing.

[–]SirByron 12 points13 points  (1 child)

You should also mention this is an illegal firing and he can sue big time and win.

[–]En-Zu 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's so well written that I, for one, have been spreading it around whenever I can.

[–]snoozeflu 3 points4 points  (0 children)

(it's already been reported that there are those within Google that agree with Damore; how will THEY react to this?).

I'm afraid they wont be allowed to react for fear of losing their jobs if they speak up.

[–]10xdada 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There is something people overlook when they read the memo.

What he talks about is averages, and the skew in those averages between men and women.

The Google and SJW position is that the distribution of talent in the sample sets across all women and all men in engineering must have the same kurtosis and skew, for men and for women.

The guy's point is that this is extremely improbable given that if there are ANY differences between men and women (the two sample set groups), making policy based on the assumption that the distribution curves are the same is a bad bet.

If you want to guarantee that you will treat everyone unfairly, just treat them all the same. This diversity bullshit is necessarily about treating everyone unfairly, which is why this guy wrote the memo.

[–]herbw 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Quoting Mark Twain immortal words: "If you want to stay out of trouble in your lifetime, NEVER speak the whole truth in public."

Still true for the last 3 centuries.

[–]KarmaKill23 18 points19 points  (2 children)

You forgot the best part. His argument is validated by the very people looking to shut him down.

The following is the response email sent by the VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown:


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.



Straight from the horse's mouth. Ms. Brown acknowledges that a core point of the manifesto is concern over whether or not people can speak their minds at Google and confirms that NO, views different from the prevailing culture will result in termination.

[–]rp_newdawn 24 points25 points  (4 children)

Can we sidebar this post? I want the knowledge of this memo saved for future members to read

[–]systemshock869 1 points1 points [recovered]

Tag a mod bro. Nobody gonna see your comment


[–]darthxaim 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Sounds like something Jordan Peterson might say.

[–]MP-The-Law 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I thought the same thing, I'd bet money he listens to Jordan Peterson/Dave Rubin

[–]G_Petronius 1 points1 points [recovered]

Thereby proving his point.

As for people criticizing his strategic decision in airing his ideas, we don't know what his strategy was. He might have wanted to provoke this fight. He might have ranked the freedom of telling like it is higher than keeping this particular job (which, as prestigious as it is, is certainly not the only career path for a senior office engineer with a pedigree like his).

Shutting up and going along is not necessarily the best move for all possible strategies. Sometimes being disruptive goes to your advantage, and sometimes even if it costs it's still the right move.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I saw this this morning when I got up at 2:30 am.

There is nothing objectionable about the memo. It's well reasoned and rational and does a good job of avoiding biases.

The video that accompanied the article called this memo "insidious" and bigoted and a lot of other nasty stuff.

I had always thought Google was a pretty okay company, but if this man who wrote this memo, as well thought out and reasoned as it is, is fired because of it then I really don't think this country has any hope left.

We shouldn't be asking our politicians about email servers and their connections with Russia. We should be questioning them on when they plan to start the next civil war. How many Americans they hope to butcher and whether they will have Guantanamo style torture camps or just the run of the mill death camps.

Because when two sides are so implacably at odds with each other and can't see eye to eye on anything and also heavily armed then it's just a matter of time.

And it's not like we haven't already done this once before.

Twice if you count the American Revolution.

Politicians are capitalizing on the division for their own ends and leading us farther apart. We should be pointing out that this is the direction they are taking us. Maybe if they are forced to admit it before the fighting starts we might just avoid it.

[–]10xdada 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Cue the orgy of virtue signalling from the press.

They are falling over themselves to cowtow. To have a living breathing straw man is so rare. I think some of them may faint.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

To add to his memo, a exerp from a Dr. Jordan Peterson lecture: Basically, he explains that fewer women in powerful positions (or eve ln stem in general) aren't absent because of some unseen cultural bias, but because those positions require a massive amount of investment of time and energy to achieve and maintain. The real question, he says, is how are there a select handful of men so insane, they're willing to work 80 hour work weeks? And when we say 80 hour work weeks, we don't mean working for 2 hours a day, followed by coffee breaks, then a meeting or two, lunch, Facebook break then another hour of work, we mean 15.5 hours a day of hard, focused, massively productive work.

Men have created this level of work ethic due to competition. Competition created and driven essentially by high testosterone levels and ambition. Women, by and large aren't interested in this competition due to obvious biological differences; namely lower testosterone levels.

[–]clonegreen 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have to go on Facebook due to work and I found this smart programmer(female) who was offended and glad Google "did the right thing".

She admitted in her post that she never read the memo yet was bashing the guy for being sexist and racist. After supposedly skimming through it she said well he's not racist, but still sexist.

I can't understand how people can form a completely emotional argument over a headline. These people get riled up without even knowing their claimed enemy it's really pathetic to see this from supposedly smart people.

[–]Magnum256 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I thought it was accepted fact that there was biological difference I mean obviously there's a physical difference in muscle mass, average body fat, height, genitals, etc. There's difference in brain weight, difference in IQ spread/variance (men reach the extremes, lowest IQ and highest IQ where women tend to have a tighter range that doesn't extend as far into the very low or very high). This isn't even controversial this is known by doctors, psychologists, etc.

[–]Loki0230 12 points13 points  (0 children)

SJW types don't believe in science and facts, those are tools of the patriarchy

[–]DoesNotMatterAnymore 17 points18 points  (1 child)

[–]Dr_D1amond 34 points35 points  (4 children)

Regardless of any truth in his manifesto, if it gives the company a bad image and reduces their profits, youre going to get fired.

[–]MoltenSlag 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In a world where men and women occupy identical jobs with identical success, they in turn have to be identical. I, for one, prefer a world where men and women are allowed to be different...

[–]harsha_hs 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Wow, what an article. This is gem of a work and Google should be ashamed to not have such an employee

[–]gattaca_ 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Google is being accused of extreme gender discrimination by the U.S. Labor department.

Not firing the employee could provide support for this discrimination case and may be expensive (e.g. half their highly paid work force suing and/or getting a raise).


Termination is the safer bet.

The downsides (massive lawsuit, alienating employees) far outweigh any benefits of letting him stay.


They're just covering their ass and spinning it as a gender equality decision.



U.S Labor Department: Google is discriminating against women, let's sue
Employee: Women are not biologically suited to work in tech
Google: We need to fire this moron

[–]M_Justice[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Very true. That's where I came out on this as well. He sues, get's a couple million, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the PR nightmare and other litigation exposure they already have.

[–]BlindWoodWander 18 points19 points  (1 child)

As a fellow biologist, I am offended by his lack of peer-reviewed references. :P

[–]afkb39sdfb 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Proton Mail

Free, based in Switzerland and protected by Swiss privacy laws.


Also, GOOGLE TRACKS AND SAVES EVERYTHING YOU DO on your google account. Maps location history, device info, web & app activity, voice & audio activity, YouTube activity. Delete it and turn it off. https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols



[–]lala_xyyz 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Google is a company with a political agenda. Julian Assange wrote an interesting piece on it. In short, Google, Facebook and Twitter are in cahoots with the State Department, intelligence agencies and the feminist/globalist/open borders crowd. Never trust them, and never expose yourself to them. But it's pointless to ignore them since they are so pervasive, and provide services not replicable elsewhere - just make sure you minimize your exposure.

[–]TheOriginalWasBetter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I can see the headlines now. "Google Developer accuses women of being less able to handle stress and more likely to take vacation days, stresses out female coworkers causing them to take a vacation day".

[–]NaturalSelect1on 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I really expected this to happen. These things unfortunately are a taboo in IT industry.

[–]blackedoutfast 10 points11 points  (0 children)

good lesson for everyone who takes everything literally and doesn't understand powertalk. the same people constantly talking about acceptance of different viewpoints and the importance of a diversity of ideas are the same people who will want to crucify you if you actually have a different viewpoint. and it doesn't matter how logically sound it is or how many footnotes and citations you use to support your argument. you are not allowed to disagree with SJW dogma.

but there's also a good side. there are guys out the who are realizing they aren't completely alone in thinking these thoughts. guys who have tried to be liberal and accepting who read this "racist screed" and realized the author actually had some good points. and then they saw the reaction to it. some of those guys might start to wake up. now everyone knows that no matter what they say, you can't fix the system by playing by the official rules. if they want a world ruled by tribalism and identity politics, so be it.

when you're at work, walking through through hallways filled with "diversity" and underqualified quota fillers, make sure to give a silent head nod to your fellow brothers. the guys who are there because they are actually good at their job, not because of whats between their legs or the color of their skin. make sure to support those guys whenever you can. give them good reviews. watch their 6. find the guys who get it and put them in positions of actual power. push the quota hires and token women toward roles with fancy titles but no influence.

[–]peebles345 1 points1 points [recovered]

I know this man intended nothing Ill but it still discourages me. I have so many coworkers telling me women should be homemakers and not in tech every day.(I'm a woman physicist) It's disheartening...

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Don't listen to them no matter who you are you should do what you love, at the end of the day that's all that matters.

[–]RedPillWizard 8 points9 points  (0 children)

[–]Endersgrain 1 points1 points [recovered]

Going to link the sourced/ links included version of the document just because the text only version misses some important context and research.

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

[–]ConsumingImpulse 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Nobody should have to lose their livelihood for having the "wrong" opinion, but then this is the ultra-cucked Silicon Valley we're talking about. What does the Google hydra even contribute to society aside from endless new ways of sucking up everyone's autonomy online? Think the guys who engineered the Lunar landings gave a shit if they hurt anyone's feelings along the way? They were too busy being badass and making history. Sad fucking world. "You can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say"...

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Saw it coming from miles away. Ever try and get "justice" of any kind in corporate America? Ha. The experience is about as black-pill as you can get. I am sure this engineer guy must be 25 or something.

Maybe at some point Google will fade away like Yahoo. But it'll be a while.

[–]wickedogg 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Dr. Damore: We should make decisions based on facts and evidence instead of condemning opinions based on our own preconceived ideas, especially in regard to refusing to listen to alternate views on gender bias.

Google: You're fired.

[–]Liver_Aloan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's also important to note (honestly I don't know if this post said anything about it because I don't have time right now to read the whole thing) that Gizmodo took all the sources out of his memo to make it look like it was just his opinion. This guy sourced all his claims and still was fired for it. Shame on Google.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (19 children)

I'm in the tech industry for years and I have yet to meet a female developer who's something more than average.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Youre sure? Im really not much more than a script kiddie myself, but I find it hard to believe. Youre sure youre not just deceiving yourself?

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

I will be completely objective here. But he is not fooling. I am a mathematician and a techie working primarily in what is about half development and half deployment.

I wont say I do not find any good female programmers, but they are definitely a dime a dozen. I am making no commentary about the biological imperative therein but industry wide you just do not see a lot of good female devs.

Ive consulted at some of the top workplaces for women, millenials, etc and you still do not see this large female developer contingency. Again, mine is an observational statement of fact, colored in no way.

[–]APSTNDPhy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I just read his entire memo, the irony is too much.

load more comments (230 replies)