patrick.net

rando says

See how these lines diverge at just about the time SJW issues came to the fore?

That wasn't due to SJW, as bad as SJW are. It was due to women entering the workforce, decreasing the bargaining power of labor. As we all know, bargaining power alone determines income in a capitalist economy. With labor doubling, the bargaining power plummeted despite great increases in productivity.

This is exactly why capitalism is bad. Productivity, not bargaining power, should be the sole determiner of income.

rando says

Aaaand he's fired:

A Google employee who wrote a controversial memo about workplace diversity has been fired, the BBC can confirm.

He should sue Google for wrongful dismissal and creating a hostile work environment where he was harassed because of his gender.

It's really too bad they fired him. He was just preparing his next Google treatise on 'Global Cooling'.

ThreeBays says

Christ Patrick, you're endorsing illegal workplace behavior. The dude got himself fired the second he started blabbing about women being "neurotic" and other direct discriminatory remarks against women.

bleeding out once per month and getting all sorts of bitchy about it hardly qualifies as "protected" under the law. same deal with menopause. same deal with pregnancy and the anxiety over one's career when faced with taking leave.

calling a spade a spade is not illegal. it is not even harassment.

Dan8267 says

rando says

Aaaand he's fired:

A Google employee who wrote a controversial memo about workplace diversity has been fired, the BBC can confirm.

He should sue Google for wrongful dismissal and creating a hostile work environment where he was harassed because of his gender.

That would be amazing

Something tells me this guy has a plan for this very contingency. I mean, unless he's incredibly naive, he wanted and expected it to go down just like this.

ThreeBays says

Christ Patrick, you're endorsing illegal workplace behavior. The dude got himself fired the second he started blabbing about women being "neurotic" and other direct discriminatory remarks against women.

Truth is the perfect defense against slander. It is arguably true that women are indeed more neurotic than men, taken as a group.

Is it illegal to say that men are more aggressive than women, taken as a group? Why not?

The hero's name is James Damore! And he is indeed suing, according to the NY Times tech reporter!

Here is James' most important statement:

We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

The reality is this: Women are biologically less inclined to prefer engineering as a profession. The bell curve of "interest in engineering" is distinctly different for men and women, even if there is substantial overlap. Why should stating that fact get one fired? It is universal across all cultures at all times.

This document is so historically important in the fight for freedom of speech against leftist elite corporate repression that I'm including a copy here in case it gets disappeared:

http://patrick.net/uploads/2017/08/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

Damore told the New York Times’ Daisuke Wakabayashi he will likely take legal action against Google. He said he believes the company acted illegally by firing him.

“I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does,” Damore told the New York Times. He said he wrote the memo to start an “honest discussion” about what he believes to be Google’s intolerance for ideas that don’t fit into its left-leaning biases, according to the Times.

Damore told the Times he submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board before he was fired, claiming Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He said it is “illegal to retaliate” against a complaint made to the NLRB.

The way I see it, is liberals want to kick women out of being house wives and send them into work force. They are well aware that many women still don't want to work, they want to live a life that has been ok for generations... aka take care of babies. It's why left posture so much constantly, pretending there is discrimination, etc... They are so arrogant they don't even care what women want, but just want women to go and work.

At no point in liberal message they asked "is this what women actually want?", no they don't even allow those words to appear in the media. Because it'll ruin their bullshit train.

Slavery 2.0, shortage of housing, shortage of water, shortage of energy, everyone forced to double income, and standards of living down. Thanks fucking left!

"Google employee James Damore has been reportedly fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes"...In an internal memo to Google employees, CEO Sundar Pichai says he has cut his family vacation short to return to work and tackle the issues raised in the manifesto."

The linked Verge article excerpted above contains what it reports as "Sundar Pichai’s full memo."

Patrick says

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.

Patrick, that is more accurately and precisely phrased than some of your other comments, which have sometimes asserted false binary absolutes about this topic. I would add that differences in distributions of opportunities may explain many statistical disparities also.

Different people want different things. As a group, males are on average more likely to want and do XYZ, but you can certainly find many exceptions. The same applies to females. And, around 1% of the population are non-binary, for various reasons having to do with genetics, hormonal development, and other unknown factors. When you deny the existence of people who know that they exist, you sacrifice credibility and gain nothing other than venting and false virtue signaling.

Whatever your theory, it must fit the observable facts. Peter Thiel and Caitlin Jenner exist, have plenty of opportunities to do whatever they want to do, and are doing what they want to do. Jenner's first wife remembered conversations during their marriage about the issue of gender re-assignment; it's been a lifelong issue, as is typical for non-binary persons.

A software engineer should know that possibly the first person who could today be called a "computer programmer" was Ada, Countess of Lovelace, who wrote code for free as an intellectual exercise. A century later, Alan Turing designed and built the first modern computers; if he had wanted female "T&A" (which you have commented theoretically he MUST have been wired to want being male), then he would probably have had a very different life. These people existed, and Turing's work changed the world especially for computer programmers, so you should know he existed.

Lastly, I would add that a very attractive female has a range of opportunities and might choose a particular path through life because it is the easiest. Even if she is equally good at programming, she might prefer being married to a programmer and letting him do the long hours of work so she can enjoy more leisure. If the distribution of opportunity were reversed, i.e. if attractive males could count on a super-abundance of diligent females to go to work long hours every day, you would likely see a different distribution of outcomes. People's choices may reflect their opportunities more than their abilities.

And of course the left immediately implies threats of violence because shaming was not enough to silence all dissent from their agenda:

Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them.

CBOEtrader says

The left is anti-liberal. So is the right for that matter.

Finally, someone else acknowledges this.

CBOEtrader says

There's very few liberals left, Rand Paul is one of the few. I don't think you could name a real liberal from the left.

Or from the right as Ron and Rand Paul aren't from the right. They both
1. Are secular.
2. Are anti-torture
3. Are not Kenyans
4. Are anti-police state
5. Are anti-drug-war

Not exactly rightwing positions.

There are a few politicians, mostly independents, who are neither on the left nor the right, nor the center.

Do you think that political correctness may be the downfall of Google because of hiring and promoting incompetent people? Will Google become another IBM in its dinosaur phase?

curious2 says

A software engineer should know that possibly the first person who could today be called a "computer programmer" was Ada, Countess of Lovelace

The exception proves the rule. She is notable exactly because of her rarity.

curious2 says

Whatever your theory, it must fit the observable facts. Peter Thiel and Caitlin Jenner exist

My theory is that they are both biological men, and their choice of an ancient and well-known vice (and even modern surgery to further it) does not prove anything about the existence of a "nonbinary" gender. There are exceptionally rare cases of XXY chromosomes, and genital malformation, but again they are notable for their rarity, far less than the gay population.

Gays should honestly assert their right to choose their vice, instead of excusing it as somehow biologically determined.

The idea that gay behavior is biological while women's work preference is not biological is not even self-consistent.

Aaaand he's Gone....

In a memo to employees, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said the employee who penned a controversial memo that claimed that women had biological issues that prevented them from being as successful as men in tech had violated its Code of Conduct, and that the post had crossed “the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

He added: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

Pichai’s wording appears to indicate that the employee is likely be fired, which some inside and outside the company have been calling for. A Google spokesperson said the company would not confirm any firing of an individual employee, but in the past others have been let go for violating its Code of Conduct.

(Update: Sources told Recode that the employee has been fired, but Google said it would not comment on individual employees. The memo’s author also confirmed his firing from the company to Bloomberg.)

Once it does happen — and it should not be long — the move is sure to attract a firestorm of criticism on both sides, putting the search giant in the crosshairs of a wider debate about gender issues taking place in Silicon Valley and across the country.

The employee memo — which was up for days without action by Google — went viral within the search giant’s internal discussion boards this weekend, with some decrying it and others defending it. Sources said the company’s top execs have been struggling with how to deal with it and the fallout, trying to decide if its troubling content crossed a line.

I wonder how Trump got elected? The people who fired him and enforce the Orthodoxy at Corporates are, to put it mildly, not Trump Voters.

I guess it's time for me to read Patrick's Less Google thread more carefully.

Here it is: https://patrick.net/1308539/2017-07-31-living-a-google-free-life

Dan8267 says

Do you think that political correctness may be the downfall of Google because of hiring and promoting incompetent people? Will Google become another IBM in its dinosaur phase?

Maybe. Clearly Google does not tolerate any dissent from the anti-male narrative, and most engineers are and always will be male.

I'm not sure whether it is currently possible to run a company which can escape the repressive leftist domination of public discourse, so maybe they have nowhere else to go.

Yet.

rando says

Can I get fired for criticizing Trump? Nope, you can get fired only for supporting Trump. Completely one-sided.

@patrick if you actually believe that then you really need to get out of the bay area bubble more often. Like anywhere between the 2 coasts. I know it's hard for the denizens to believe but the bay area is only a very very small part of America. A very very small and very very unrepresentative part of America. It's true.

So the news this morning, google let that person go. Wrong action, I'm disappointed in their unwillingness to listen.

Dan8267 says

rando says

See how these lines diverge at just about the time SJW issues came to the fore?

That wasn't due to SJW, as bad as SJW are. It was due to women entering the workforce, decreasing the bargaining power of labor.

That's a good point. Also fits with the elite agenda to take more of the profits for themselves and give less to labor.

rando says

The exception proves the rule. She is notable exactly because of her rarity.

and these were also exceptions that prove the rule because of their rarity? https://www.computerhope.com/cgi-bin/pioneer.cgi?female

or the women at JPL and NASA were all exceptions that prove the rule? The space program wouldn't have happened with out women mathematicians most of whom became programmers.

"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics.[3] The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signalling.[5]

The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.[1] During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be politically correct.[1][2]

http://www.nationalreview.com/morning-jolt/450246/Firing-Google-Memo-May-Result-in-Lawsuit

My guess is that a lawsuit at Google is going to explore that question under theharsh glare of public scrutiny.Google on Monday fired the employee who wrote an internal memo suggesting men are better suited for tech jobs than women, escalating a debate over free speech at the company.Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai said in an email to his staff that the employees memo violated company policy. Google, part of Alphabet Inc., didnt publicly name the memos author.Software engineer James Damore, who said in an email that he wrote the memo and was fired for it, said he was considering...

Google Fired a guy that was in process of talking to the Labor department about Hostile work environment.

Lawyer up Google!

bob2356 says

or the women at JPL and NASA were all exceptions that prove the rule? The space program wouldn't have happened with out women mathematicians most of whom became programmers.

Yet the fact remains that in all cultures and at all times women are much less likely to show a preference for engineering than men.

Note that that book and movie is as much propaganda as history, with fiction deliberately created to fill in where reality did not conform well enough to the narrative:

Is Jim Parsons' character, NASA engineer Paul Stafford, based on a real person?
No. In fact-checking the Hidden Figures movie, we learned that white collar statistician Paul Stafford, portrayed by Jim Parsons, is a fictional character. He was created to represent certain racist and sexist attitudes that existed during the 1950s.

It also exaggerates racism for propaganda purposes:

Did Katherine Johnson feel the segregation of the outside world while working at NASA?
No. "I didn't feel the segregation at NASA, because everybody there was doing research," says the real Katherine G. Johnson. "You had a mission and you worked on it, and it was important to you to do your job...and play bridge at lunch. I didn't feel any segregation. I knew it was there, but I didn't feel it." Even though much of the racism coming from Katherine's coworkers in the movie seems to be largely made up (in real life she claimed to be treated as a peer), the movie's depiction of state laws regarding the use of separate bathrooms, buses, etc. was very real.

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/hidden-figures/

rando says

Lol, bet you $100 the author is male.

Such honey badgers do not exist, at least I have not run across one like that yet.

Patrick, when I was in graduate school, you'd run into two camps of women.

The incompetent ones that relied on the culture that exists today to even graduate. They would get kicked out of labs for being incompetent until some hack professor only interested in funding picks them up to get some diversity money into their lab.

Then there were the competent ones. These types abhored the feminsts...could not stand the female SJW professors...and held their own. It wasn't a coincidence that all their friends in the department were male. Basically, this is how I met my wife. My wife absolutely cannot stand the shameless promotion of women in the name of diversity and equality.

As it stands right now, any female student with a 3.4 or higher in an undergraduate science program is almost certainly guaranteed into admissions for a PhD at places like Harvard or MIT whereas a male with a 3.8 can easily be ignored. Anyone that claims that women are disadvantaged when it comes to opportunities in science are either ignorant or have their own agenda.

There was one girl that I went to grad school with who absolutely could not stand this type of behavior. However, 3 years ago, she completely switched sides and sounds of the discriminatory alarm non-stop. She did this once she realized that her career will move faster on this side.

My 2-cents:

The workplace is not a forum to unload your personal beliefs or personal problems onto others.

If you bring politics, religions, or personal problems into the workplace, you are playing with fire. Keep it professional and focus on work.

My wife is quite legitimately geeky as well. She was in the physics PhD program at Michigan before I met her. She does not need any assistance in tech. The gender bell curves of interest in tech do indeed overlap even while distinctly different.

Her photo was used in a recruiting poster for the physics department, which I found amusing because it seemed to be targeting geeky men, showing them that there was at least one good looking woman in physics graduate school. Or maybe it was trying to attract other women to apply. In any case, she was the unusual one, so they clearly picked her to be on the poster (the "poster child", lol) for some reason aside from truthful representation of physics department demographics.

BayArea says

If you bring politics, religions, or personal problems into the workplace, you are playing with fire.

It's Google that brought politics into the workplace. This guy was objecting to it.

rando says

BayArea says

If you bring politics, religions, or personal problems into the workplace, you are playing with fire.

It's Google that brought politics into the workplace. This guy was objecting to it.

Patrick, you are saying that Google brought politics into it with their diversity initiates?

Not sure I can object there. But everyone knows there's nearly 100% chance of employment termination by pushing back on a diversity initiative.

BayArea says

The workplace is not a forum to unload your personal beliefs or personal problems onto others.

Tell that to the Google CEO and Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance.

rando says

That's a good point. Also fits with the elite agenda to take more of the profits for themselves and give less to labor.

Well, I wouldn't call the owners "elite". They are just the descendants of the corrupt and lucky who used connections to gain advantages not available to the rest of us. All of their riches comes from exploiting public wealth, the productivity of their workers, and cheating at zero-sum games.

Dan8267 says

BayArea says

The workplace is not a forum to unload your personal beliefs or personal problems onto others.

Tell that to the Google CEO and Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance.

Can't disagree there

bob2356 says

and these were also exceptions that prove the rule because of their rarity? https://www.computerhope.com/cgi-bin/pioneer.cgi?female

or the women at JPL and NASA were all exceptions that prove the rule? The space program wouldn't have happened with out women mathematicians most of whom became programmers.

It's not that women lack the ABILITY to excel in tech or STEM, or mathematics. It's that they lack the MOTIVATION to pursue these subjects with the fervor they require to become proficient!

BayArea says

But everyone knows there's nearly 100% chance of employment termination by pushing back on a diversity initiative.

Thank you. That's really the point.

There is a PC Koran. To question it means beheading.

No discussion allowed.

Patrick says

The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

rando says

XXY chromosomes

XXY does not make a person non-binary. They are simply males, because of the Y chromosome, specifically because of the SR-Y gene. Having an extra X chromosome does not make them feminine. X is not a female chromosome. Y is a male chromosome solely because it contains the SR-Y gene which triggers testosterone production which in turn triggers tons of genes to express male traits.

XXY does not men less susceptible to geneitc disorders in the X chromosome like color blindness because having one bad copy of a gene don't cause those disorder if you also have one good copy of that gene.

XYY does make men ultra-male because two copies of the SR-Y gene causes more expression of this gene, more testosterone, and more aggressive behavior statistically.

rando says

Gays should honestly assert their right to choose their vice, instead of excusing it as somehow biologically determined.

Why do you think being homosexual is not biological? How could it be cultural? And what difference does it make other than understanding nature?

rando says

The idea that gay behavior is biological while women's work preference is not biological is not even self-consistent.

Actually, those are independent questions. It's just that they have the same answer. Both are biological, but there is not reason to think that the answer to one implies the answer to the other.

The difference between the male and female brain is, of course, genetic since the difference occurs because of the SR-Y gene. What other genes are triggered by testosterone is largely unknown at this time, as is the very interesting question of how does the genome specify how to build the brain and how do genes influence this. It's interesting because there is far more information in the human brain at birth than in our genetic code. So the instructions cannot specify where to lay down the neurons or how to connect them. It must be more of a guide to building the structure. So how much of this guide is determine by genes and how much is environmental including essentially random?

Quigley says

It's not that women lack the ABILITY to excel in tech or STEM, or mathematics.

Most men lack the ability to excel in STEM. Only the best men excel in STEM.

Most women also lack the ability to excel in STEM. Only the best women excel in STEM.

More men than women excel in most STEM fields, the exceptions being chemistry, biology, and ecology, and those exceptions are easily explained. See Why men better than women at software development.

Dan8267 says

Why do you think being homosexual is not biological? How could it be cultural? And what difference does it make other than understanding nature?

Identical twins are not identically straight or gay. They have the same genes and same fetal environment and usually the same upbringing.

It could be cultural simply by being normalized, as in ancient Greece.

It makes a big difference in what you are and are not legally allowed to say in this current atmosphere of intolerance for non-PC ideas. It's a restriction on freedom which is made into law to promote and normalize a specific vice, IMHO.

Maybe some people are more inclined to alcoholism for whatever reason. Should they be recognized as a specific protected class based on that, or is drinking a choice? It's clearly a choice. Obesity is another example.

rando says

Identical twins are not identically straight or gay. They have the same genes and same fetal environment and usually the same upbringing.

OK, so the flaw in your thinking is equating biological to genetic. They do not remotely mean the same thing.

Genetics is a small, but crucial, part of biology. There are, however, other important biological aspects including the epigenome and the environment.

Studies have shown that homosexual men are more likely to have older brothers. The more sons a woman has, the more testosterone is remains in her womb, and the more likely that a subsequent son will become gay. This is clearly a non-genetic but biological factor. It has nothing to do with choice.

The fact is that genes get turned on and off due to environmental factors. Alligators become male or female not due to genetic code, but rather due to temperature. Chickens literally become transgendered from temperature as well.

Genes do not in themselves solely determine traits. Genes act in an environment and both are critical in determining traits.

Do you really think being gay is a choice? And if so, do you believe you yourself could choose to be gay even for a short time? Do you honestly think that you could will yourself to enjoy sucking cock? If not, why do you think anyone else can will themselves onto cock?