Your point still doesn't make sense. If a women is complaining about her personal situation, you don't respond by evoking a stereotype. That is plainly wrong, because every individual is different and stereotypes say little to nothing about any individual -- and he very explicitly made this point. He wasn't making a point about any individual who may or may not be successful in his company, but rather about the causes of larger statistical trends. In that context, differences in the averages can play a role, even if they have very little explanatory power for addressing any individual's situation.
having a tech background is a great idea and females flourish in education so there is no reason to advise against a stem education.
Employee writes thoughtful private, internal memo about the need for reason and open discussion on tough issues like diversity, inclusiveness, and tolerance. Employee fired. Way to prove his point there, geniuses.
the guy wasn't talking about differences in aptitude, he was talking about differences in interests and preferences that those differences do exist and largely explain the gender disparity in the workforce (vs say, sexism) And to whatever extent disparities in ability do exist, there is enough overlap that you wouldn't write off any individual based on the average of an overall group
Of course, that's not what he did. Random completely replaceable employee writes incoherent, rambling memo containing a bunch of controversial statements and blasts it out to entire company, pissing off many fellow employees and resulting in a PR nightmare for company already under investigation for the same issues. Employee's cost to Google now is far more than his value, thus he is fired. It was a purely rational economic decision for a company that should have been completely foreseeable by someone with an analytical mind.
Google claims to encourage an open discussion of varying perspectives among its employees, even minority opinions that may be unpopular. The CEO said as much in his response. I guess that's all BS and shouldn't be taken seriously henceforth. As to his controversial statements, they are assertions of facts which may be disputed as scientific claims. That is the proper way to respond -- not "you making these assertions offends me, therefore you should be fired."
Duh, every company have bottom line, if you want to cross that line, you better be prepared for the consequences. Are you that important to the company? If you do not even know where the line is, that is too bad for you.
I'm perfectly fine with the guy losing his job over this ordeal, while people have the right to free speech, they don't have the right to no consequences for their speech if it offends part of society (even if it probably shouldn't).....but I wonder how many people who are happy the guy got canned for speaking his mind about something he thought was important are out there crying about Colin Kaepernick not having a job in the NFL right now. Given that by all accounts this random guy was good at his job, there's less of an argument for him being fired than there was for Kap getting canned....but which one is a big deal?
He did make a claim. He claimed there are differences between men and women in regards to IQ - but there is not according to science. So he is accusing the left of ignoring what science??? Science says there are no differences yet he is saying we should pay attention to science. Do you see the error there? If you are going to say we need to look at the IQ differences between men and women scientifically and what science says - don't you think he should first take a look at the science before talking about this? Maybe he should look at his own blindspots before calling out liberals and diversity programs. I just don't see what his motivation is here for writing this. He is complaining that Google is too PC and liberal? How is he being hurt by this? Or are you saying he is standing up for minorities and women? Sure doesn't sound like it. What's his motivation. That white men are under-represented? Or is he just venting that he can't stand liberals and the fact that there are a lot of liberals at Google? What is this liberal biased? Seems he is equating diversity with liberalism. There aren't the same. The idea that a company wants a diverse group of employees at all levels of an organization isn't a liberal idea, it's a good business practice for morale and productivity. What about the science that shows that diversity leads to innovation and performance of a company? Why doesn't he talk about that?
False "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences)." Sweet Tard is a low IQ person.
LOL. I expected the responses from the resident basement dwellers Commodore and tallanvor, but this is embarrassing for you.
Anyone that isn't r****ded can read these two statements and realize your summary is false. "He claimed there are differences between men and women in regards to IQ " "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences)" You won't be able to because of your IQ. Sad.
I understood this was an elective internal list serv that is used for discussion about "difficult" topics. If it was an inappropriate channel/conduit he used to talk about it, then yeah, that's the equivalent of taking a big dump right in the middle of the office cafeteria. It appears he was sacked for having an opinion which the regressive left disagrees with, and not for having an opinion in the wrong place and time. Especially ironic given that Google is apparently trying to foster more open dialogue.
It's still airing political and social opinions in a workplace environment that can be seen as offensive by some (albeit weak minded) people. To me that's legitimate grounds for termination if it causes a problem within the organization....but that doesn't mean the company shouldn't face some scrutiny over the decision by those who don't agree with it. He was free to speak his mind, but it cost him his job. The company was free to fire him, but they'll catch some flak over it.
There's a core issue with that statement that our current society needs to learn. If I say a racial slur, and you get offended, I am at fault and society would be right to chastise me for being insensitive. If I sneeze, and you get offended, I'm NOT at fault, and society should chastise YOU for being over-sensitive. The former example may seem more common to you, and the latter less-common. But then, think about the headlines from a few months ago when students were "fearful of their safety" because someone had written "Trump" in chalk on the sidewalk. Over-sensitive. And there's the huge gray area in-between. When a person makes a rational argument that offends you, we as a society should not automatically lay blame on the other person (which is what is predominantly happening today). note: I am not inferring that the Google dude's manifesto was a rational argument. I'm just making a point about a problemtatic behavior in our current society.
This is a common fallacy whenever gender/race inequality comes up. This is how I like to break it down: Are there differences in race/gender when it comes to physical or cognitive abilities? Absolutely. To deny this side is to turn the other cheek and imo exhibit the bad side of SJW. There is "good" science to back it up. What shouldn't be construed with the above is any one individual's ability to perform a task. If your genetic code affects up to 1 to 5 points on your ability to become a Google engineer, your education, skills, hardwork, professionalism, etc. account for over 100 points. Equating the effect of these two is the fallacy. Denying someone based on their birth-given talents vs. their actual professional abilities is looking for a scapegoat for one's agendas. It's a slippery slope when humans abuse this equality for their own biases. There's enough bad science and really bad history to back this up. We don't do this anymore because we don't want those mistakes in our history to happen again. No one should be denied certain pursuits/meritocracies based on their genetic makeup. Why? Because above all else, we believe in basic human rights. One is that you don't judge people based upon their birth given circumstances and two that you provide equal opportunity based off of merit. Life may not be fair, but as a society, this is how we try to cherish life.
