4 ms·

I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. If you stand back and think to yourself "if we had a perfectly meritocratic world

I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. If you stand back and think to yourself "if we had a perfectly meritocratic world, what percentage of business leaders would be white men?", I don't think the answer is 100% (as was the case at the turn of the century). Today the answer is about 70%. So yeah, we are trending away from 100%. And within certain groups of white men, this has created a lot of anxiety about losing their privileged position in society. Some other evidence that the shift away from 100% white men is not some concerted agenda, but rather people who deserve it being put into positions of power. Companies with female leadership tend to outperform the market. https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/2362/companies-with-women-in-the-boardroom-perform-better https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/2362/companies-with-wome... You're claiming that Sundar was chosen for his skin color with no evidence other than speculation. Chrome is one of the most important products for Google. Who else was passed up for his job? How are you so sure?

throwaway29303 5y ago
I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. Then you haven't been paying attention to the whole picture. I suggest you read more about this issue and these players' business moves. Today the answer is about 70%. So yeah, we are trending away from 100%. You don't see a concerted agenda here yet you proved my point. And I've yet another gut feeling that it was never 100%. 100% sounds way too radical, maybe around 99%; hence _minority_. Companies with female leadership tend to outperform the market. I never claimed otherwise. I can read prejudice in your words. But I'm probably imagining things. You're claiming that Sundar was chosen for his skin color with no evidence other than speculation. No, I'm claiming Sundar was chosen because of his success with Chrome, his background (as in his professional and educational experience) _and_ his ethnicity. In fact, this latter one not only for one reason but for _two_ reasons: because he belongs to a minority group (which from a PR perspective would look like "see? no more white men! Larry and Sergey are gone!") _and_ because, from a business perspective, it makes sense to pick him to help Google break into and establish itself in the indian market. It's actually a genius move. Chrome is one of the most important products for Google. I've never said otherwise. Have you read about Sundar's involvement with it from the start? Yet again, I suggest you read about it. It's just one search engine query away. Who else was passed up for his job? I have no clue. But I'm sure there were other people, but they weren't as fit for Google's business strategy. How are you so sure? All models are wrong but some are less wrong than others. Ah, yes, and, finally, the constant barrage of negative news about this issue will most likely help Jeff leave.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mycologos 5y ago
  > I suggest you read more ... I've yet another gut feeling ... I can read prejudice in your words ... I suggest you read about it ... I have no clue. But I'm sure there were other people ... The repeated assertion that something is obvious, combined with the repeated choice to not provide any evidence of it, makes it hard for me to take this argument seriously.
  - throwaway29303 5y ago
    Which claims I made that you want me to provide evidence for?

throwaway29303 5y ago

I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. Then you haven't been paying attention to the whole picture. I suggest you read more about this issue and these players' business moves. Today the answer is about 70%. So yeah, we are trending away from 100%. You don't see a concerted agenda here yet you proved my point. And I've yet another gut feeling that it was never 100%. 100% sounds way too radical, maybe around 99%; hence _minority_. Companies with female leadership tend to outperform the market. I never claimed otherwise. I can read prejudice in your words. But I'm probably imagining things. You're claiming that Sundar was chosen for his skin color with no evidence other than speculation. No, I'm claiming Sundar was chosen because of his success with Chrome, his background (as in his professional and educational experience) _and_ his ethnicity. In fact, this latter one not only for one reason but for _two_ reasons: because he belongs to a minority group (which from a PR perspective would look like "see? no more white men! Larry and Sergey are gone!") _and_ because, from a business perspective, it makes sense to pick him to help Google break into and establish itself in the indian market. It's actually a genius move. Chrome is one of the most important products for Google. I've never said otherwise. Have you read about Sundar's involvement with it from the start? Yet again, I suggest you read about it. It's just one search engine query away. Who else was passed up for his job? I have no clue. But I'm sure there were other people, but they weren't as fit for Google's business strategy. How are you so sure? All models are wrong but some are less wrong than others. Ah, yes, and, finally, the constant barrage of negative news about this issue will most likely help Jeff leave.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mycologos 5y ago
> I suggest you read more ... I've yet another gut feeling ... I can read prejudice in your words ... I suggest you read about it ... I have no clue. But I'm sure there were other people ... The repeated assertion that something is obvious, combined with the repeated choice to not provide any evidence of it, makes it hard for me to take this argument seriously.
- throwaway29303 5y ago
  Which claims I made that you want me to provide evidence for?