By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Many Google employees disagree with the firing of the memo writer

DonFerrari on 11 August 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
the-pi-guy said:

The reality is, that it's much more complicated than that.  For the most part, neither side is pro-racism/sexism.  

For the most part, I`d agree. But in the extremes both sides are very much against "different" people, which means racism/sexism etc. And unfortunately it seems the extreme views are among the most prevalent these days.

Except that it's quite common for us to see female, black and gay people be attacked very harshly by the minorities if they have an opinion that disagrees with that same minority they would pertain.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 11 August 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
DonFerrari said:

Except that it's quite common for us to see female, black and gay people be attacked very harshly by the minorities if they have an opinion that disagrees with that same minority they would pertain.

That`s what I meant. People being different isn`t just skin colour or sex, merely having a different opinion is enough for some people to hate others.

That is quite true. But my point is more on the people that say that we need to respect and open more space for women, gay or black are the first to discriminate them.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

TheWPCTraveler on 11 August 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
DonFerrari said:

Except that it's quite common for us to see female, black and gay people be attacked very harshly by the minorities if they have an opinion that disagrees with that same minority they would pertain.

That`s what I meant. People being different isn`t just skin colour or sex, merely having a different opinion is enough for some people to hate others.

You reminded me of that succinct summary Egor Kholmogorov had for this event.

– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don’t. You’re fired.

This is enough to illustrate the point of perpetuating the point made in the first place, of systemic bias.



 
I WON A BET AGAINST AZUREN! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:3

m0ney on 11 August 2017

Employer can fire anyone whenever however whichever the way they want, just like you can throw a guest out of your house, because it's YOUR house. Half the world getting buttmad for someone getting fired is stoopid



My Etsy store

My Ebay store

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

DonFerrari on 11 August 2017
m0ney said:
Employer can fire anyone whenever however whichever the way they want, just like you can throw a guest out of your house, because it's YOUR house. Half the world getting buttmad for someone getting fired is stoopid

Errr, sorry but due to all the governement involvment on economy you are wrong. There are several types of unlawfull termination.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 11 August 2017
DonFerrari said:

The left is indeed pro racism and sexism as long as it is against white and straight males. Same information talking negative about a black, woman or gay will be shot down, if it's against a white, strainght men it will be endorsed as reality and they will also say there is no reverse prejudice (yes there isn't, it is always prejudice, but they think someone white cis and male can't be a victm of this because there isn't intistucionalized prejudice against them and also historically they are favored).

That's a very general and untrue statement. Percieved prejudice by a certain political affiliation doesn't mean it's generally true.



irstupid on 11 August 2017
AlfredoTurkey said:
the-pi-guy said:

So if Google is hiring a slightly less qualified employee to increase diversity, that might end up being the better hire, because it'll also improve everyone else's performance. 

The most qualified person should always get the job... period. If that means all women, all whites, all blacks or all gays working within a company, so be it. 

While I agree that the most qualified shoudl get the job. I mean it doesn't seem fair if you have more experience, more education, interview better, ect and someone else gets the job?

But diversity can be a benefit. People of difference cutlures, races, sexes, ect all have different upbringings, experiences, points of views, ect. A woman may look at a probelm different than a man, so having all men in a group may not ever see a certain solution or problem. She may not be as "qualified" as another man that applied, but her being a woman and having a different way of looking at things may be more important than his GPA being higher.

So the most qualified person may not always be the most right person for the job. So I'm all for diversity for those reason. I'm against diversity for what seems to be the reason in todays world though. Fitting a quota for good publicity, being PC, ect. Companies and their diversity agendas feel more like them donating to charity than them actually believing that it will help their business. (You know they do it for the good publicity, and possibly some tax incentive even)



sundin13 on 11 August 2017
irstupid said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

The most qualified person should always get the job... period. If that means all women, all whites, all blacks or all gays working within a company, so be it. 

While I agree that the most qualified shoudl get the job. I mean it doesn't seem fair if you have more experience, more education, interview better, ect and someone else gets the job?

But diversity can be a benefit. People of difference cutlures, races, sexes, ect all have different upbringings, experiences, points of views, ect. A woman may look at a probelm different than a man, so having all men in a group may not ever see a certain solution or problem. She may not be as "qualified" as another man that applied, but her being a woman and having a different way of looking at things may be more important than his GPA being higher.

So the most qualified person may not always be the most right person for the job. So I'm all for diversity for those reason. I'm against diversity for what seems to be the reason in todays world though. Fitting a quota for good publicity, being PC, ect. Companies and their diversity agendas feel more like them donating to charity than them actually believing that it will help their business. (You know they do it for the good publicity, and possibly some tax incentive even)

While I agree with this, the means to go about this change is to change your hiring to look for people who exemplify attributes that are on demand, not by utilizing affirmative action to try to brute force your way through a problem. The goal should be to hire those who have a different way of thinking, not to assume that because they are a different gender, they have a different way of thinking. No attribute is race or sex specific, and few individuals embody all of the traits of the race or sex they belong to. 

Basically, diversity of sex or race is basically meaningless in a vacuum, while diversity of thought is important. While the two are correlated, you cannot hire assuming the two are one in the same. 



DonFerrari on 11 August 2017
WolfpackN64 said:
DonFerrari said:

The left is indeed pro racism and sexism as long as it is against white and straight males. Same information talking negative about a black, woman or gay will be shot down, if it's against a white, strainght men it will be endorsed as reality and they will also say there is no reverse prejudice (yes there isn't, it is always prejudice, but they think someone white cis and male can't be a victm of this because there isn't intistucionalized prejudice against them and also historically they are favored).

That's a very general and untrue statement. Percieved prejudice by a certain political affiliation doesn't mean it's generally true.

I'm sorry to have seem to many cases of feminist shumming and shaming women and desiring they get raped to show how much they need feminism, and equivalents on black movements.

irstupid said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

The most qualified person should always get the job... period. If that means all women, all whites, all blacks or all gays working within a company, so be it. 

While I agree that the most qualified shoudl get the job. I mean it doesn't seem fair if you have more experience, more education, interview better, ect and someone else gets the job?

But diversity can be a benefit. People of difference cutlures, races, sexes, ect all have different upbringings, experiences, points of views, ect. A woman may look at a probelm different than a man, so having all men in a group may not ever see a certain solution or problem. She may not be as "qualified" as another man that applied, but her being a woman and having a different way of looking at things may be more important than his GPA being higher.

So the most qualified person may not always be the most right person for the job. So I'm all for diversity for those reason. I'm against diversity for what seems to be the reason in todays world though. Fitting a quota for good publicity, being PC, ect. Companies and their diversity agendas feel more like them donating to charity than them actually believing that it will help their business. (You know they do it for the good publicity, and possibly some tax incentive even)

Each person is different, so considering diversity only by looking at gender and race is very bad and can get you no benefits.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

irstupid on 11 August 2017
sundin13 said:
irstupid said:

While I agree that the most qualified shoudl get the job. I mean it doesn't seem fair if you have more experience, more education, interview better, ect and someone else gets the job?

But diversity can be a benefit. People of difference cutlures, races, sexes, ect all have different upbringings, experiences, points of views, ect. A woman may look at a probelm different than a man, so having all men in a group may not ever see a certain solution or problem. She may not be as "qualified" as another man that applied, but her being a woman and having a different way of looking at things may be more important than his GPA being higher.

So the most qualified person may not always be the most right person for the job. So I'm all for diversity for those reason. I'm against diversity for what seems to be the reason in todays world though. Fitting a quota for good publicity, being PC, ect. Companies and their diversity agendas feel more like them donating to charity than them actually believing that it will help their business. (You know they do it for the good publicity, and possibly some tax incentive even)

While I agree with this, the means to go about this change is to change your hiring to look for people who exemplify attributes that are on demand, not by utilizing affirmative action to try to brute force your way through a problem. The goal should be to hire those who have a different way of thinking, not to assume that because they are a different gender, they have a different way of thinking. No attribute is race or sex specific, and few individuals embody all of the traits of the race or sex they belong to. 

Basically, diversity of sex or race is basically meaningless in a vacuum, while diversity of thought is important. While the two are correlated, you cannot hire assuming the two are one in the same. 

Not going to go into how one can find the best person, was just saying the best qualified may not be the best person. And also that I never buy it when a company comes out with some initiative to be more diverse as them being a good company. They are doing it for PR reasons or for monetary reason.

An interviewer can try whatever they can to find the best person. If you have been in any sort of hiring position you would know that some of the best interviewers can be the worst employees. They can seemingly fit every criteria, have amazign experience and accomplishments. Great resume, great references, ect. Then they start and you find out they are lazy, they don't mesh well with others and cause conflict reducing everyones productivity, ect. They end up being one of yoru worst employees. Think of it like Terrel Owens or something. Amazing athlete and pulls great stats, but a cancer to the team.