Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google's discrimination against conservatives ...the beginning for corporate America

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Google's discrimination against conservatives ...the beginning for corporate America

    This article is from The Dallas News, which is not a conservative paper.

    Google's discrimination against conservatives is just the beginning for corporate America

    https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...porate-america

    Let's ponder a disturbing question: What if the crisis of free speech on college campuses, with their often extreme intolerance for conservative points of view, represents the high point for free expression in a student's life? What if the "real world" is more repressive, more ignorant and more punitive toward dissenting speech? What if entire corporations adopt the ideologies and norms of the most ruthless campus social-justice warriors, ruining careers and depriving employees of their livelihoods when those employees dissent from the dominant ideology?

    What if the rest of corporate America starts acting like Google?

    Former Google employee James Damore filed a class-action lawsuit against Google alleging systematic race, gender and political bias against white, male and conservative employees. Damore, you may recall, was summarily terminated after writing a lengthy memorandum noting that disproportionate male representation in tech fields may be more the result of individual choice and innate differences between men and women than of invidious discrimination. He also suggested some non-discriminatory methods for increasing diversity at Google. Scientists argued about his conclusions — some agreed with Damore, others vigorously disagreed — but rather than engage with Damore, Google proved one of his points (that Google is hostile to dissenting views) by terminating his employment.

  • #2
    Great article. Even when I do a google search on a political topic the first page is always left wing liberal sources. CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc,etc. i hope this guy wins, funny how the Google monoculture can’t see how repressive and bigoted they are.

    Comment


    • #3
      Instead of just go for another search engine, you want new regulation?
      Google and most other Valley based companies are left oriented. Live with it. There are alternatives.

      The NY Post, Washington Post, WSJ, TheTelegraph, Guardian, etc have excellent technology and probably better linguistics, linking, frequencies, etc.
      Google analytics tend to ranks them higher.
      Tinfoil hat pages are ranged lower, cause they are rarely linked.

      BTW:
      James Damore was an autist, claiming that women are not qualified for leading positions.
      What would a conservative business with women in leading positions do? Right - fire him.
      That the right wing folks praise an freak for sue a 80% male company is just pure irony.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mackie View Post
        Instead of just go for another search engine, you want new regulation?
        Google and most other Valley based companies are left oriented. Live with it. There are alternatives.

        The NY Post, Washington Post, WSJ, TheTelegraph, Guardian, etc have excellent technology and probably better linguistics, linking, frequencies, etc.
        Google analytics tend to ranks them higher.
        Tinfoil hat pages are ranged lower, cause they are rarely linked.

        BTW:
        James Damore was an autist, claiming that women are not qualified for leading positions.
        What would a conservative business with women in leading positions do? Right - fire him.
        That the right wing folks praise an freak for sue a 80% male company is just pure irony.
        Nope, that's not what his memo said. At all.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mackie View Post
          Instead of just go for another search engine, you want new regulation?
          Google and most other Valley based companies are left oriented. Live with it. There are alternatives.

          The NY Post, Washington Post, WSJ, TheTelegraph, Guardian, etc have excellent technology and probably better linguistics, linking, frequencies, etc.
          Google analytics tend to ranks them higher.
          Tinfoil hat pages are ranged lower, cause they are rarely linked.

          BTW:
          James Damore was an autist, claiming that women are not qualified for leading positions.
          What would a conservative business with women in leading positions do? Right - fire him.
          That the right wing folks praise an freak for sue a 80% male company is just pure irony.
          Say what? I said absolutely nothing about new regulation. Some of the "tinfoil" sites you dismiss out of hand are perhaps just that to the left, but I really don't count The National Review as a tinfoil site for example. I suggest you read the article again, excusing rampant bigotry and an overtly hostile and bullying workplace environment might be just fine with you and all the other "loving and tolerant" liberal "progressives" -God how I absolutely hate that incredible bullshit name they've given themselves-but not so much with a lot of other people. In ny event, the Courts look like they'll have their say.

          Comment


          • #6
            I have personally sat through a speech where the president of a major corporation said that when he looked into the crowd he saw too many white males and that the hiring and promotion processes from that point forward were going to emphasize hiring and promoting more women and minorities. The problem is, of course, when a company does that, they are, by definition, discriminating against white males. One of our division presidents then doubled down on the same policy, resulting in some of the worst hires that I have ever seen. In one case, we did get to hire the white guy over the black lady, but it had to be justified to that same division president and we almost got stuck with the black lady. Now, am I talking about the white guy having a 3.4 and the black lady having a 3.3? Nooooo. The white guy had a 3.8 GPA with all As in his engineering, math, and science courses from the best engineering school in the state. The black lady had a 2.0 GPA overall with a 1.0 in her engineering classes from the worst school in the state. She shouldn't have even gotten an interview, much less serious consideration and yet we almost got stuck with her.
            The sole matter of hiring and firing should be based on performance and personal behavior in the office. Anything else is unacceptable. And before anyone asks, I have hired blacks, females, and people of alternative gender because they were the best available and I knew that their work was high quality and their performance would make my life much easier.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JimHPTN View Post
              I have personally sat through a speech where the president of a major corporation said that when he looked into the crowd he saw too many white males and that the hiring and promotion processes from that point forward were going to emphasize hiring and promoting more women and minorities. The problem is, of course, when a company does that, they are, by definition, discriminating against white males. One of our division presidents then doubled down on the same policy, resulting in some of the worst hires that I have ever seen. In one case, we did get to hire the white guy over the black lady, but it had to be justified to that same division president and we almost got stuck with the black lady. Now, am I talking about the white guy having a 3.4 and the black lady having a 3.3? Nooooo. The white guy had a 3.8 GPA with all As in his engineering, math, and science courses from the best engineering school in the state. The black lady had a 2.0 GPA overall with a 1.0 in her engineering classes from the worst school in the state. She shouldn't have even gotten an interview, much less serious consideration and yet we almost got stuck with her.
              The sole matter of hiring and firing should be based on performance and personal behavior in the office. Anything else is unacceptable. And before anyone asks, I have hired blacks, females, and people of alternative gender because they were the best available and I knew that their work was high quality and their performance would make my life much easier.
              The problem of hiring lesser qualified candidates based on skin color and genitalia is that it enshrines them as just that, a race, a gender, a whatever as inferior intellectually. It's the worst form of racism that does permanent damage to those given such preferences. Who wants an affirmative action Physician. Sure, he might be just as qualified but knowing he received a place in medical school because of skin color and not GPA, test scores and interview performance is one of the worst stigmata I can imagine. It's a feel good, but wholly condescending and patronizing form of racism that says simply, "Oh, the poor black man just can't make it with out the help of whitey". All bullshit. Reverse discrimination is just as bad because it punishes hard work and performance. Letting the social justice warriors determine who is qualified to run the Nuclear Reactor based on sexual preference or orientation seems like a very bad idea to me.

              Comment

              Working...
              X