Google done' goofed - fires employee for "opinions"

[Starbuck1975]

Be less racist/sexist.

So says the racist

 

[agent00f]

Poor flail. Over 400 posts into the thread and yet to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. So triggered and so concerned over a memo you still haven't read.

So says the racist

Typical chucky level blather.

 

[interchange]

Be less racist/sexist.

Not a bad answer, but I wonder if such a thing is actually possible. Certainly it's possible to act differently.

 

[Victorian Gray]

on other news, woman on the google campus have found the LIES in the memo that said women are more emotional to be so distressing they had to take some days off.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19462...en-are-different-women-amanda-prestigiacomo#\

Maybe some did, and maybe they didn't. The original source is an ex employee who hasn't worked there for 3 years.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...laim-some-female-google-employees-stayed-home

 

[agent00f]

Not a bad answer, but I wonder if such a thing is actually possible. Certainly it's possible to act differently.

That's why the goal of political correctness to protect bigots while minimizing their influence on future generations.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Typical chucky level blather.

Typical flail

 

[agent00f]

Typical flail

It's just a fact and not a coincidence your comments are often indistinguishable from the reside klansman.

 

[Starbuck1975]

As far as I know, fairness and justice are perceptions that even monkeys can make so I don't know what you mean by relative to where you enter. I think we entered as primates that can actually put word to feelings although they are never the same thing. I don't know what is happening at Google, what emails, what their point is, etc. but I think if we eliminate all bigots there will be only a few people left.

Fair point. We are all bigots and hypocrites relative to the biases learned within the environments from which we come, and I think that is my point. Diversity, true diversity, should elevate the converation beyond those biases by exposing the tribalistic fallacy of them.

At Google, on one end of the spectrum you have an alt-right perspective draped in pseudo-biological arguments, and on the other end of the spectrum, you have the Tumblr snowflake and @agent00f mob losing its f'ing mind.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's perfectly rational for someone to say they don't want minorities/women competing for their job/wages, but they won't because it's socially shameful. Thus those people come up with their usual alternative BS excuses, less effective as they might be. Ergo QED why shame/punishment works, and why they try so hard for the next best thing.

The whole exercise is transparent as shit, with the usual suspects getting a case of the vapors when the utter comedy of it is revealed.

You are so close and you just don't understand. But you have actually come a long way round more toward what I have been telling you all along. And you have to stop calling everything transparent after I've been calling you that for the last couple of weeks. I will try to help you. What does it mean to be transparent?:

It means that one is motivated by feelings one is unaware one has but which, other people can easily see the person is feeling because if they were acting like that are they would expect to be exposed to shame. This is how you come off. You are embarrassingly self assured and fanatically fixated on a notion you completely misconstrue, attacking any and all who tell you there is nothing to be gained by shaming shameless people, that is to say people who refuse to feel any shame, and why, because they are fully programmed to deny they feel anything much less any shame. This is who you are. So unconsciously filled with shame that all you know how to do is try to get even for your pain by shaming others. And this is why your theory is shallow and addresses only half a loaf. It is people who are full of shame who will not experience it, who will try to present themselves in any altered way as if their need to shame others is something other than it is, that it is in fact the nature of reality and the people they wish to feel their pain deserve it. The poor fool at Google doesn't know he is hiding his shame, that he is riddled with it, that he is full of anger and resentment at being shamed, that he wants to get even because to know you are like that would open the door of truth about who you really are, a great big piece of shit in the eyes of the world.

But the world is the same disease, the need to shame those who are shameful because they are exactly the same, desirous that the man at Google be shamed, that he suffer as he has already suffered long ago the pain we suffered long ago.

You are a part of a sick cycle. It is sometimes called the wheel of Karma, and the only way out of the endless chain of cause effect cause effect ad infinitum is to step off the wheel, eat your own pain, suffering it on the cross. There you will find freedom and joy. But you're too smart for that right, too deep in the weeds of revenge, to unevolved to make the leap, to full of hubris, the face shame presents to the world??????

The answer my friend is not more shame but forgiveness for sin because there is nothing to be ashamed of and there is no sin. It exists only in your head, having been put there by being put down as a kid. Why couldn't you just be like Johnny. He was so much better than you are. Your loving guardians compared you and you failed. You have been dreaming of vengeance ever since.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fair point. We are all bigots and hypocrites relative to the biases learned within the environments from which we come, and I think that is my point. Diversity, true diversity, should elevate the converation beyond those biases by exposing the tribalistic fallacy of them.

At Google, on one end of the spectrum you have an alt-right perspective draped in pseudo-biological arguments, and on the other end of the spectrum, you have the Tumblr snowflake and @agent00f mob losing its f'ing mind.

Yes, we become what we fear. Even when we are right about things, our self hate steps in to keep us from fully trusting the truth and that the truth will out. We have to go for the one ring of power and help it thus becoming what we fear.

 

[agent00f]

You are so close and you just don't understand. But you have actually come a long way round more toward what I have been telling you all along. And you have to stop calling everything transparent after I've been calling you that for the last couple of weeks. I will try to help you. What does it mean to be transparent?:

It means that one is motivated by feelings one is unaware one has but which, other people can easily see the person is feeling because if they were acting like that are they would expect to be exposed to shame. This is how you come off. You are embarrassingly self assured and fanatically fixated on a notion you completely misconstrue, attacking any and all who tell you there is nothing to be gained by shaming shameless people, that is to say people who refuse to feel any shame, and why, because they are fully programmed to deny they feel anything much less any shame. This is who you are. So unconsciously filled with shame that all you know how to do is try to get even for your pain by shaming others. And this is why your theory is shallow and addresses only half a loaf. It is people who are full of shame who will not experience it, who will try to present themselves in any altered way as if their need to shame others is something other than it is, that it is in fact the nature of reality and the people they wish to feel their pain deserve it. The poor fool at Google doesn't know he is hiding his shame, that he is riddled with it, that he is full of anger and resentment at being shamed, that he wants to get even because to know you are like that would open the door of truth about who you really are, a great big piece of in the eyes of the world.

But the world is the same disease, the need to shame those who are shameful because they are exactly the same, desirous that the man at Google be shamed, that he suffer as he has already suffered long ago the pain we suffered long ago.

You are a part of a sick cycle. It is sometimes called the wheel of Karma, and the only way out of the endless chain of cause effect cause effect ad infinitum is to step off the wheel, eat your own pain, suffering it on the cross. There you will find freedom and joy. But you're too smart for that right, too deep in the weeds of revenge, to unevolved to make the leap, to full of hubris, the face shame presents to the world??????

The answer my friend is not more shame but forgiveness for sin because there is nothing to be ashamed of and there is no sin. It exists only in your head, having been put there by being put down as a kid. Why couldn't you just be like Johnny. He was so much better than you are. Your loving guardians compared you and you failed. You have been dreaming of vengeance ever since.

No surprise religious preachers can appreciate the same political loyalty as trump saw in the klan party:

Fair point. We are all bigots and hypocrites relative to the biases learned within the environments from which we come, and I think that is my point. Diversity, true diversity, should elevate the converation beyond those biases by exposing the tribalistic fallacy of them.

At Google, on one end of the spectrum you have an alt-right perspective draped in pseudo-biological arguments, and on the other end of the spectrum, you have the Tumblr snowflake and @agent00f mob losing its f'ing mind.

 

[Moonbeam]

No surprise religious preachers can appreciate the same political loyalty as trump saw in the klan party:

We are preaching the same thing. You think you have to cause shame to prevent knuckle dragging and I am saying it is shame that causes that. You essentially will make yourself into a knuckle dragger to prevent it and I am saying, enlighten people on why they act as they do so they can maybe get beyond it. You will never forgive yourself if what you are trying to forgive is what you believe you should hate. You have that unconscious unexamined bias and will not see it. You are too ashamed to see it. It's not that hard for a nobody, but you are so very elite and special or so you say. I think you are rather transparent.

 

[Jaskalas]

David Brooks from the NYT's take on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Interesting topic.

HOLY !@#$ that was to the point.

I need to learn more about David Brooks.

 

[fskimospy]

HOLY !@#$ that was to the point.

I need to learn more about David Brooks.

David Brooks is literally the worst. He's the voice of the uninformed thanksgiving dad. As NYT conservatives go Douhat is much better.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No surprise religious preachers can appreciate the same political loyalty as trump saw in the klan party:

You are no less dogmatic, you just lack a church, or a congregation for that matter.

 

[bigboxes]

Exactly. It's not that he has an opinion, it's that he shares a 10 page opinion internally.

Share on your own time, outside the workplace.

Yup. He's a dumbass.

 

[snarfbot]

David Brooks is literally the worst. He's the voice of the uninformed thanksgiving dad. As NYT conservatives go Douhat is much better.

dont lump yourself in with the angry mob he was talking about in his article. what makes him the worst, or uninformed?

 

[fskimospy]

dont lump yourself in with the angry mob he was talking about in his article. what makes him the worst, or uninformed?

Literally the entirety of his writing over the last 20-30 years. He's your dad opining about shit he doesn't understand out of his own perception of authority.

 

[UglyCasanova]

HOLY !@#$ that was to the point.

I need to learn more about David Brooks.

He's on NPR and PBS (contributed to the News Hour) all the time, you've probably heard him.

I don't necessarily agree with everything in his article but despite what eskimospy says he's generally reasonable. Definitely not a "the worlds on fire everything is going to hell" over dramatized kind of writer.

 

[interchange]

That's why the goal of political correctness to protect bigots while minimizing their influence on future generations.

Fascinating. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that you agree with this choice, but you might not so tell me if I'm wrong.

In the same line of arguments you state the following:
1. Using political correctness to cover for bigotry protects people from learning and repeating bigoted thinking
2. People who are covering up their bigotry are pathetically transparent in doing so

If #2 is true, how is #1 going to work? Won't making it shameful to reveal your bigoted thinking simply ensure that you protect it out of fear of shame rather than expose it to external critique with relative safety where you might learn to appreciate just how bigoted you are and enact your proposed solution to this problem: be less bigoted in the first place?

 

[xthetenth]

Poor flail. Over 400 posts into the thread and yet to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation. So triggered and so concerned over a memo you still haven't read.

I assume you've read the memo? Have you also read my criticism of it? If so, do you have any answer to it, or do you agree that the content of the memo is based on a premise of female inferiority that is unfair and prejudiced? In that case, is it not acceptable to get angry at something which is outright bad?

on other news, woman on the google campus have found the LIES in the memo that said women are more emotional to be so distressing they had to take some days off.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19462/google-memo-says-men-and-women-are-different-women-amanda-prestigiacomo#\

God this crap is tiring. Think for a second. Even if you accept this without criticism, it's saying nothing about women in comparison to men. Men don't have to deal with people trying to go looking through biology papers looking for any differences as a reason to tell themselves that they're unsuited for their jobs. So people not wanting to go back to their work until it's clear it doesn't support that sort of thing doesn't mean a damn thing. Different reactions only mean something if the stimuli are the same. Hell, one of the few things that could get me to not show up work is knowing the token prejudiced jerk would have things to go on a rant about. Screw handling that when I'm trying to work. But I'm not female, so nobody thinks it's about my gender.

HOLY !@#$ that was to the point.

I need to learn more about David Brooks.

Did you read my earlier post about the article and how it's overlooking the entire bloody point of the criticism of the memo and in so doing tacitly supporting an incredibly prejudiced premise? I mean I assume you did, and you clearly have a good answer to my criticism or you wouldn't be posting positive reviews of it since there's holes in it that you haven't addressed.

Right?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I assume you've read the memo? Have you also read my criticism of it? If so, do you have any answer to it, or do you agree that the content of the memo is based on a premise of female inferiority that is unfair and prejudiced? In that case, is it not acceptable to get angry at something which is outright bad?
Right?

Just because something makes you angry doesn't mean it is unfair or prejudiced, not is it outright bad. I didn't address your criticisms because I respectfully disagree with them, and nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

The better converation is to understand what motivated the author to write the memo in the first place. That conversation is now playing out in the court of public opinion, and Google has lost control of the narrative.

 

[Jaskalas]

Literally the entirety of his writing over the last 20-30 years. He's your dad opining about shit he doesn't understand out of his own perception of authority.

Ah, well... at least he appears to be disgusted by Trump. As far as adversaries go... that's a nice start.
Not going to hear such poignancy for conservative ideas in P&N. Or Fox News for that matter.
Quality political discourse is in short supply these days.

 

[Jaskalas]

Did you read my earlier post about the article and how it's overlooking the entire bloody point of the criticism of the memo and in so doing tacitly supporting an incredibly prejudiced premise? I mean I assume you did, and you clearly have a good answer to my criticism or you wouldn't be posting positive reviews of it since there's holes in it that you haven't addressed.

Right?

That requires dialing this back, past the pages of Agent's mess, and addressing Paratus's substantial dissecting of it. How he effectively shows that, by selectively picking out parts of the Memo, either side can read into it however they'd like. That's going to take some time to properly review and address.

 

[agent00f]

We are preaching the same thing. You think you have to cause shame to prevent knuckle dragging and I am saying it is shame that causes that. You essentially will make yourself into a knuckle dragger to prevent it and I am saying, enlighten people on why they act as they do so they can maybe get beyond it. You will never forgive yourself if what you are trying to forgive is what you believe you should hate. You have that unconscious unexamined bias and will not see it. You are too ashamed to see it. It's not that hard for a nobody, but you are so very elite and special or so you say. I think you are rather transparent.

Damn if only we didn't make the confederacy so ashamed of blacks, or the germans so ashamed of the jews or whatever. Liberals only have themselves to blame for what they did to your new friends, the Real victims in all this.

You are no less dogmatic, you just lack a church, or a congregation for that matter.

Degen parrots apparently get more mileage out of the rubber-glue retort than even the slowest schoolkids.

That requires dialing this back, past the pages of Agent's mess, and addressing Paratus's substantial dissecting of it. How he effectively shows that, by selectively picking out parts of the Memo, either side can read into it however they'd like. That's going to take some time to properly review and address.

Just because something makes you angry doesn't mean it is unfair or prejudiced, not is it outright bad. I didn't address your criticisms because I respectfully disagree with them, and nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

The better converation is to understand what motivated the author to write the memo in the first place. That conversation is now playing out in the court of public opinion, and Google has lost control of the narrative.

So easy to see why its in degen self-interest to never understand any basic truth inconvenient to their cause. Evolution, so confusing. AGW, too complicated. Bigotry against women/blacks, not even Einstein could figure that shit out.