Google criticised for talk by worker ‘who sexually identifies as an ornate building
 

Google criticised for talk by worker ‘who sexually identifies as an ornate building’
http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/10/google...lding-7219464/

My friend told me about this... I thought it was freaking hilarious :laugh:

I actually knew someone who identified as a very specific type of elf way before there was this whole self-identification thing, he even wore the ears to school. I could see it being possible with some of the more insane arguments out there on video, but it is so hard to believe Google would push this...

https://i.imgur.com/CUZje9Y.jpg

Source: http://thefederalist.com/201...e-environment/

Oh FGS.

Ah, I see reliable ol' Mr "Google is against me because I'm a white male" is at it again

If most of the talks at Google were named "I need to be sectioned", it would make a lot more sense.

That was a sudden change of tone!

I identify as a traffic cone.

How often are you "coned off"?

I identify as a medium sized Internet forum for the discussion of outdated reality television shows and Brexit. Welcome to TSibb, ****ersss!

Traffic Cone likes this.

Traffic Cone watches outdated reality television shows through people's lounge windows whilst guarding road works.

Self-identification is that crazy!

OMG :laugh2:

As crazy as a bloke identifying as a woman.

All this "identifying as an ornate building" etc.... is surely just diminishing the credibility of those people who identify with the opposite sex, want to change and live a relatively normal, happy life. Everyone should be entitled to that. As usual, the loony few take it too far.

i identify as a Livia

LOL... keep away from my wardrobe, hear me?

I don't believe this for a second.

The person this story comes from is a bitter ex employee who got sacked for being sexist and is trying to sue Google because he thinks that, as a white straight man, he was somehow discriminated against because he got caught out being a dick.

The whole 'I identify as an ornate building' thing is typical spiel from people like him too. It's an argument you hear a lot from his kind. 'Oh, you want to identify as the opposite sex, well I identify as a bedside lamp, HOW ABOUT THAT?!'

How is pointing out that the two sexes have different biological and neurological aspects, making each (generally) suited to different jobs "being a dick"?

That only really comes into play with jobs that require a lot of strength, men are obviously better suited to that kind of work.

Trying to make out that women aren't suited to leadership roles or the tech business based on their gender is silly, Leadership qualities are based around personality primarily and women tend to be more academic then men so making out that they aren't suited for roles that require expert knowledge is just plain nonsensical. He was being a dick and coming up with false reasons to try and cover his obvious sexism. The tech business is a boys club for the most part and there aren't as many women as men in leadership positions and neither of those facts are because women aren't suited for either.

The fact that his allegations in the article linked are fairly obvious lies to paint him as a victim and demean people from issues he'll never understand by creating silly comparisons and painting them as truth when he has no one else but himself to blame for his own stupidity that got him sacked in the first place. He's just another straight white male that desperately wants to be a victim and blame the world for their own dip**** decisions.

Have you read his manifesto? It is actually quite well written and he openly admits there's blindspots from both left/right viewpoints on sex. It is not sexism, because he's not saying all women are not suited, he is simply saying that there are differences between our genders that make us more inclined for different roles hence that is at least a significant part of the reason for the gap in employment between the sexes... sexism to me would be arguing for it becoming an exclusive space. His disagreement is Google's handling of this internally as far as excluding certain types of discussion on the matter to actually dealing with the gender gap.

This isn't a knock against women and it's not meant to exclude them from tech. We evolved differently from men to cater to our specific strengths, just like men have evolved differently to cater to their specific strengths.

Now if you believe that pointing out these differences cause sexism and shouldn't be discussed, then we can disagree, but I think look over his actual manifesto and see if you or other's opinion evolves at all.

Text link: https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-...eed-1797564320

https://i.imgur.com/z2P1Lyd.jpg

Click to read the rest:

He wasn't sacked for no reason and if he was, his argument against Google in his lawsuit wouldn't have descended into parody by making statements like 'one person identifies as a ornate building' and he wouldn't go down the 'poor white hetero male route' either.

If he was just sacked for the memo itself then he'd have grounds for unlawful dismissal so why go for the joke lawsuit he went for?

The memo was stupid and it was exclusivity dressed up as inclusive suggestions. The reason why there aren't that many women in the tech industry is not because they aren't suited for it based on gender differences, those gender differences don't matter in the tech industry and he got a lot of the science behind his claims wrong in the first place.

James Damore is nothing but a wannabe victim.

But there are people that disagree. Are they not allowed to take part in the discussion? That's pretty much the reasoning behind his lawsuit/manifesto... I don't agree with everything he believes or even how he uses his logic at some points, but I think that biology absolutely plays a role in how each gender performs in an intellectual space.

I'm a female in tech who writes code and even I know there are things that make me different from my male counterparts, but those are things are also what makes up my strengths as well. (over my male counterparts)

I welcome those discussions because we're able to see better where each side is coming from in an argument, rather than simply committing character assassinations simply because we perceive it to be a value difference in opinion.. when it's more likely it's an intellectual difference in opinion.

(Anyway that's my general disagreement.)

Thank you Maru for providing that link, it made for an interesting read.

I agree that such discussions are crucial for any fair and reasoned debate on this. Both sides of the argument need to be heard. The author, like many, is clearly frustrated by the PC shut-down of such debate with the usual character assassinations and it seems obvious to me that we have turned full circle with one form of control being replaced by another. You don’t right a wrong with the use of another. Opinions that differ from our own are not automatically prejudice and the constant use of the word is shut-down tactics at their worst and will never achieve anything productive.

It seems to me that you as a female tech are in a very strong position to give a valid opinion on this and I think you do so in a fair and reasonable way without attempting to force others to share your views. I am a feminist and believe women are every bit as capable as men but do agree with you that they can bring a different set of skills to the table.

I don’t see the author as some bitter and twisted white male who resents anyone upsetting the status quo (just more shut-down tactics in my opinion) - I just see him as someone totally fed-up with the usual shut-down of discussion by nefarious means of a growing group on individuals, who has decided to make a stand. He has a lot of support.