3 ms·

If Google treated all poiltical discourse within it's walls like it did Damore, there probably wouldn't be an issue. The whole problem is with favoring one type

If Google treated all poiltical discourse within it's walls like it did Damore, there probably wouldn't be an issue. The whole problem is with favoring one type of speech/thought in a militant fashion that violates federal law. And regardless of the law, it's UNETHICAL to discriminate in the name of diversity. In 2018, companies are expected to do the right thing. This article paints a very damaging picture of Google discriminating against white males (Disclaimer: I'm NOT a white male)

rhcom2 9y ago
> In 2018, companies are expected to do the right thing. What? They're only expected to make money.
nezzle 9y ago
> it's UNETHICAL to discriminate in the name of diversity. I think Amazon disagrees with you. They include this in their job postings: >Amazon is an Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer – Minority / Female / Disability / Veteran / Gender Identity / Sexual Orientation. I don't think you can be both equal opportunity and affirmative action at the same time.
- mankash666 9y ago
  You've completely misunderstood & mis-represented my viewpoint. Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action IS the law of the land, and that's the same law that forbids setting artificial quotas for ANY group that discriminates against others. For instance, some Google execs called for a 25% minority quota - THAT is discrimination against other groups, especially if the overall statistics in the talent pool/job market make it impossible for the said quota to be fulfilled in a manner compliant with "Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action" For instance, you might want to setup a workforce of coders with a 50-50 Men-Women breakdown. But since STEM graduation rates indicate a Men:Women ratio of 85:15, it is unlikely, if not impossible to construct a 50:50 workforce without willfully discriminating against men. If you now force the entire industry to adopt the 50:50 rule with a 85:15 talent pool to choose from, you're both discriminating AND defying logic/math!! In summary - no corporation can possibly disagree with me for I'm calling for the law to be followed as intended.

rhcom2 9y ago

> In 2018, companies are expected to do the right thing. What? They're only expected to make money.

nezzle 9y ago

> it's UNETHICAL to discriminate in the name of diversity. I think Amazon disagrees with you. They include this in their job postings: >Amazon is an Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer – Minority / Female / Disability / Veteran / Gender Identity / Sexual Orientation. I don't think you can be both equal opportunity and affirmative action at the same time.

mankash666 9y ago
You've completely misunderstood & mis-represented my viewpoint. Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action IS the law of the land, and that's the same law that forbids setting artificial quotas for ANY group that discriminates against others. For instance, some Google execs called for a 25% minority quota - THAT is discrimination against other groups, especially if the overall statistics in the talent pool/job market make it impossible for the said quota to be fulfilled in a manner compliant with "Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action" For instance, you might want to setup a workforce of coders with a 50-50 Men-Women breakdown. But since STEM graduation rates indicate a Men:Women ratio of 85:15, it is unlikely, if not impossible to construct a 50:50 workforce without willfully discriminating against men. If you now force the entire industry to adopt the 50:50 rule with a 85:15 talent pool to choose from, you're both discriminating AND defying logic/math!! In summary - no corporation can possibly disagree with me for I'm calling for the law to be followed as intended.