The infamous Google Diversity Memo - Author Fired

[dannno]

Danno, you and I think as reasonable, logical liberty people, realizing liberty extends to all, not just to us. I know in the last two places I've worked, there were clearly defined policy about sharing internal information and publications. If I published such a memo with my own responses, I would be fired, and properly so.

Libertarians need to think less responsively and more proactively. The writer's responses were very sane and logical, but they would have been stronger as a stand alone post rather than setting up Google to be the bad guy, as if they are they only ones. Liberty principles are broad and apply to everyone, not just Google.

I think he had enough of their shit, he knew he would most likely be fired and knew this was the best way to get the most public attention.

 

[dannno]

Fake news publishes fake memo, no surprises, here is the real one:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Google-Diversity-Memo-(Gizmodo-is-FAKE-NEWS)

 

[dannno]

Fake news publishes fake memo, no surprises, here is the real one:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Google-Diversity-Memo-(Gizmodo-is-FAKE-NEWS)

 

[jllundqu]

I think he had enough of their shit, he knew he would most likely be fired and knew this was the best way to get the most public attention.

Agreed. Smart move on his part. He made his point in a major way, and ensured his future job prospects.

 

[timosman]

In before alt-right feels are more important than a company's ability to hire and fire as it pleases.

The company is doing business with the government hence some additional rules are in place. Like having a diversity program. The idea came from ..... the government.

 

[timosman]

Danno, you and I think as reasonable, logical liberty people, realizing liberty extends to all, not just to us. I know in the last two places I've worked, there were clearly defined policy about sharing internal information and publications. If I published such a memo with my own responses, I would be fired, and properly so.

Libertarians need to think less responsively and more proactively. The writer's responses were very sane and logical, but they would have been stronger as a stand alone post rather than setting up Google to be the bad guy, as if they are they only ones. Liberty principles are broad and apply to everyone, not just Google.

Another low value post. A pacifier aka. concern trolling.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

conflates using first amendment to complain about company's policies and bringing up important issues with telling a company who they can hire and fire

The 1st Amendment prohibits the state from prosecuting people for speech.

It places no burden of any kind on any private person, such as an employer, nor should it.

I dislike Google's leftist policies, but they have every right to enforce them.

 

[dannno]

Another low value, disinformation post:

The 1st Amendment prohibits the state from prosecuting people for speech.

It places no burden of any kind on any private person, such as an employer, nor should it.

I dislike Google's leftist policies, but they have every right to enforce them.

Could you respond to the post I made rather than just spewing bullshit that has nothing to do with what I said?

Stop acting like fake fucking news. Dammit, I'm sick of this fake bullshit everywhere. I know what the first amendment is, and I never said Google shouldn't be allowed to fire them. All I said is we (me, you, the author, everybody) have the first amendment right to complain about their policies. Good God.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Could you respond to the post I made rather than just spewing bullshit that has nothing to do with what I said?

You said:

[the fired guy was] using first amendment to complain about company's policies and bringing up important issues

I'm informing you that the 1st amendment has nothing to do with it.

 

[dannno]

You said:



I'm informing you that the 1st amendment has nothing to do with it.

Yes it does, everybody has the right to free speech. I never said google didn't have the right to fire him for using free speech. We have the right to complain about Google's policies, and say that they are bad policies. I announce they have bad policies. OK?? TheCount was insinuating that there is nothing we can do, we can't complain at all because google can do what they want, we just have to sit back and accept it. That's bullshit. We can use our free speech to explain why they have bad policies and try to change people's minds.

You are fake news.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes it does, everybody has the right to free speech. I never said google didn't have the right to fire him for using free speech. I have the right to complain about Google's policies.

Ah, so then your comment was just pointless and had no bearing on the Google story or what The Count said?

 

[dannno]

Ah, so then your comment was just pointless and had no bearing on the Google story or what The Count said?

Yes it does, everybody has the right to free speech. I never said google didn't have the right to fire him for using free speech. We have the right to complain about Google's policies, and say that they are bad policies. I announce they have bad policies. OK?? TheCount was insinuating that there is nothing we can do, we can't complain at all because google can do what they want, we just have to sit back and accept it. That's bullshit. We can use our free speech to explain why they have bad policies and try to change people's minds.

You are fake news.

..

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@dannno,

In before alt-right feels are more important than a company's ability to hire and fire as it pleases.

How does this "conflate using first amendment to complain about company's policies...with telling a company who they can hire and fire"?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/LibertarianBlue/status/894954242682875904

 

[dannno]

@dannno,



How does this "conflate using first amendment to complain about company's policies...with telling a company who they can hire and fire"?

The Count used the phrase "ability to hire and fire as it pleases", in other words, he said that supportive folks of this guy would soon be along to say that google should not be allowed to hire and fire as they please - whereas the discussion that is occurring in this particular community is voicing our concerns (using the first amendment) about whether they are good policies or not - it has nothing to do with forcing google to hire and fire who they want, in fact that is the entire point.. Google has been forced to hire all these diversity SJWs into their organization because of government policies and government indoctrination in schools.. it has completely changed the nature of their organization. The whole point is that google should be hiring and rewarding employees based on merit, and not some arbitrary standard set by the failures in life known as SJWs. But again, should the government force them? No, of course not, that is the ENTIRE POINT.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Fake news publishes fake memo, no surprises, here is the real one:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Google-Diversity-Memo-(Gizmodo-is-FAKE-NEWS)

OP updated with link to full version with live hyperlinks.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The Count used the phrase "ability to hire and fire as it pleases", in other words, he said that supportive folks of this guy would soon be along to say that google should not be allowed to hire and fire as they please - whereas the discussion that is occurring in this particular community is voicing our concerns (using the first amendment) about whether they are good policies or not

Ah, so your objection to the The Count's post was simply that he characterized altrighters as the anti-property people they are. Now I understand. See, your "conflation" language made it seem that you were saying that the 1st Amendment was the real issue in the Google case, when of course it has nothing to do with it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

New Google Technology Autocorrects Users’ Thoughts
August 8, 2017

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—At a special press conference held at the technology giant’s sprawling campus Tuesday, Google engineers revealed exciting new technology that autocorrects any errant thoughts its users are having, replacing them with positions approved by the company.

Utilizing advanced retinal scan and proprietary telepathic scanning technology, the new automatic thought correction algorithm is now live for users of Google’s search engine, Android operating system, Chrome OS, and the hundreds of other apps and services the company provides.

“Let’s say you start thinking there may be some kind of inherent biological difference between men and women,” Google employee Ryan Vo said in a live demo of the new tech. “Immediately, the thought suggestion program in any nearby Google device, app, or service will scrub the idea of inherent gender differences and replace them with the sure knowledge that there are at least three hundred different genders in existence, and always has been.”

“Google will begin rebuilding your mind, piece by piece,” he added to the cheers and applause of the tech bloggers and industry professionals gathered.

According to the spokesperson, Google is also utilizing crack teams of ex-military personnel to round up anyone who resists the new technology, taking them to a new portion of Google’s campus known as the “Department of Love” for questioning, reconditioning, and re-introduction into civilized society.

At publishing time, a jealous Mark Zuckerberg had put his best programmers on the job of attempting to reverse-engineer Google’s new thought correction algorithm for use on his own social network, sources confirmed.
...
http://babylonbee.com/news/new-google-technology-autocorrects-users-thoughts/

 

[Brian4Liberty]

CNN Badly Misrepresents Arguments Made by Fired Author of Google Memo
BY: Alex Griswold - August 8, 2017

Both online and on air, CNN misrepresented the content of a widely shared internal memo that led Google to fire one of its software engineers.

In a tweet, CNN claimed the author of the Google memo wrote that women "aren't suited for tech jobs."

CNN.com's write-up likewise claimed that the author of the "anti-diversity manifesto" argued "women aren't suited for tech jobs for ‘biological' reasons."

The same narrative emerged in CNN's on-air reporting. Host Poppy Harlow complained that the "anti-diversity" memo said "women are less suited for tech jobs than men. Why? Because they're women! Biologically, they can't do it."

But the actual memo simply does not say what CNN claims it does. To begin with, the author of the Google memo is not opposed to "diversity" in the abstract, but is opposed to Google's methods for advancing it.
...
CNN's assertion that the author forwards the idea that women are biologically incapable of carrying out tech jobs likewise misunderstands his argument. The author actually argues it is possible that biological differences might impact women's job preferences, leading to the persistent gender gap in tech jobs.
...
The author never comes anywhere close to saying women "can't do" tech jobs. He stresses that he is talking about men and women on average, and there are many women who are equal (or better) than the average man.

"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," he writes.

"I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles," he concludes. "I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."
...
More: http://freebeacon.com/culture/cnn-misrepresents-arguments-fired-author-google-memo/

 

[dannno]

Ah, so your objection to the The Count's post was simply that he characterized altrighters as the anti-property people they are.

Uh, no, he said that alt-right people would be IN HERE claiming that google can't hire and fire who they want.

That was low value, disinformation, demonstrably untrue HORSESHIT.

Stop defending horseshit, it's not getting you any respect from anybody here. I don't know if you noticed, but you are The Count are the only ones acting like little bitches in these google memo threads, everybody else is on the side of the guy who wrote the memo. What the fuck are you even trying to do here? Seriously?

Now I understand. See, your "conflation" language made it seem that you were saying that the 1st Amendment was the real issue in the Google case, when of course it has nothing to do with it.

You believe that a store owner should be allowed to put up a sign that says "No blacks allowed", correct? Do you believe that I should be able to use my first amendment protections to complain and protest a store if they did that? It doesn't mean I want it outlawed, it means I want to voice my displeasure and hopefully others would not purchase anything at the store voluntarily, or maybe the store will change their policy voluntarily.

I didn't know this was such a difficult concept.