Let's look at it this way. My lawn isn't the gatekeeper to a large segment of western and eastern society. Google on the other hand is one of those. Considering that the only reason he's been fired is not complying with orthodoxy, your point doesn't really seem to stand.
Why doesn't it stand? Large American corporations have a thing about complying with orthodoxy. Do you think Google is some sort of anarchist collective? Also do you really think they seriously want to take on the responsibility of being a gatekeeper and be fined every time someone uses their service inappropriately? You are your own gatekeeper, Google is effectively a carrier.
And this is the part where you learn something about employment law
Bringing the companies name into disrepute is accepted as a firing offence everywhere and since that's exactly what has happened here it's not difficult to frame it that way. Also wasn't this in an "at will" State where all it takes is the boss to wish you gone and that's it?
You still haven't listed sources debunking his claims
It's up to the claimant, and others here have followed back to his citations (including one on autism!) and found that they do not support his ridiculous claims.
Deny science because it disagrees with your preconceived notions.
That's not what's happening here. I'm not impressed by his undergraduate fumblings attempting to link a field he doesn't understand to one he does and the google execs saw a bad PR situation and probably fired him before going past the title. I've got no idea while people imagine google is some sort of collective instead of the unforgiving multinational corporation that it is.
Me? You are a bit slow. What do you think your posting of deliberate misinformation in order to play games with readers is called - four letters, starts with T.
You are not too dumb to work it out no matter whether it is convenient to pretend to be dumb or not. Try again.
Let me guess, you didn't read it
Of course I did - hence my bit about high stress that you commented on above. That petty "you didn't read it" distraction isn't even original.
It doesn't take a lot to trigger you snowflakes does it? If no woman is at peak form to do a task then it's got to be something like the men's 100m sprint and you whining losers are not qualified for it either.
Then what's with the playground insult about reading age? It gets used a lot around here by the more pathetic types who want to assert their dominance over children - were you using it for a different reason? Either way it's somewhat a ridiculous insult to use at the level of discussion between any bunch that has even heard of a catalyst.
I have also noticed that the people who argue against what he wrote are actually arguing about something the imagined he wrote
Not noticed - imagined. The title alone as actually written was probably enough to get him fired. Google's management would have seen it as a deliberate insult and it certainly appears to have been intended as such.
The undergraduate groping about in psychology is kind of offputting and hilariously backwards but I left it alone. This "bro" shit is not the sort of thing you expect a professional to write about their workplace unless they run it or have just left it and want to burn all bridges.
Obviously your rebukes of me for asking questions are the critical bit. What's with the thin skin and the rebukes? What an utter waste of time. If it's a wild guess and you haven't even looked at the abstract (or missed the little pic with the bubbles) just say so instead of trying so hard to justify irrelevancy. As for attacking my reading age or whatever - that's kind of pathetic. Do you frequently bully the kiddies that way?
I'm pointing out how hypocritical Google is being on the subject
They are not a collective, they are a multinational company run in an autocratic fashion that is the ideological heirs to Ford, Hearst etc. They are acting true to type and not what fuzzy dreams of puppies and sunshine say they should be doing. Those low in the org chart get no more say than a Serf in Tsarist Russia - that's how these companies are structured. It's not a massive deal because they don't own you outside work hours.
Of course I read it otherwise my bit about his argument based on biology wouldn't be there would it? Don't be so lazy, you were not so lazy before were you Doxx boy?
Also given your past form why are you giving this guy a pass for biology when you appear to have zero respect for engineers and any scientist in a field that studies climate?
So far, I have yet to see any research that debunks his claims but I have seen many more articles support it in some fashion.
If you believe his claims to be completely true then surely it makes sense to have more women doing coding at google instead of a stressful life and death career such as nursing? You are taking a bizarro-world spin on something that is already bullshit.
The "biology" is just a prop for a silly "bro-victim" screed. There are many jobs far more stressful than coding at google, even in the field of software development. His claims are no more than a distraction and run completely counter to his argument instead of supporting it, so it really doesn't matter if they are true in this context does it? If it is true by some act of magic then it weakens his argument.
The man is a biologist are you honestly asserting there are no biological differences between men and women ? That there are no mental differences ?
He's attempting to substitute it for psychology and that hasn't been taken even remotely seriously since the 1930s. Even more hilariously it's about suitability to sit indoors in offices and type - what would grandpa say? It's just a mindless "I'm the victim here bro" screed of someone who has wandered so far off his area of expertise that even I can see he's hopelessly lost. When even an engineer can see someone has lost the plot on the squishy stuff they are spectacularly off beyond the edge of reality.
You wouldn't let just anyone put a sign on your lawn and it's the same with whatever "speech" has Google's name on it. If the guy had framed his outpourings as being about Silicon Valley he would probably still have a job.
Just about every workplace has a "pro-censorship agenda" on topics that make the workplace look bad to the general public. I'm sure you know that.
Free speech? You are free to call the management in your workplace an "echo chamber" so long as you don't mind being free to seek other employment. While that kind of sucks, the alternative of being forced to keep people around that try to humiliate the company in public is a bit too much of a State interfering with private business don't you think?
And that is different from the SJW message of "blame white males and rich people" how?
It's different because it's not imaginary "attacks" that are as unlikely as being nibbled to death by ducks. How about being what you can be instead of wanting to be a victim as well?
Whoops, that was hsthompson69, sorry sessamoid - on an old version of chrome the nested quoting (and pretty well everything else on slashdot apart from the ads) has gone a bit weird in the last week, but that's still no excuse.
This guy didn't send his memo to the press. The person in charge of making sure everybody thinks the same way did.
So now you've learned something today from that guy's mistake. Don't write something for circulation to a large number of people if you can't face the consequences of it ending up on the front page of a newspaper.
Only that is not what he said. He said that there might be reasons why there are gender differences in employment.
So men are far more suited for quiet indoor office work typing away and the women should be outside cutting down trees? Wouldn't grandpa have called such idiots a sissy for suggesting such shit "bro"? WTF is it with this woman hating "bro" stuff? What's wrong with having women in the workplace? They were there before you "bros" turned up and started whining about being picked on. The guy who wrote the whining screed is pretending that his biological skill with cuttlefish or whatever means he should be believed when he says that women should not be employed at Google because they are crazy - what an absolute fuckwit.
It's more than safe to assume when he talks about biology, he has something better than wikipedia to rely on.
True, but it's not actually biology he's writing about is it? How people act is more than a little bit out of that field and he demonstrates very clearly that he hasn't really considered it very deeply. I'm an engineer turned computer wrangler and even I cringe at how poorly he is grasping the topic.
Why does my employer think they are allowed to tell me what my political opinions are?
Because they like to think they own you. It seems the larger the org or company the more some managers think like that. It's kind of funny that they act like they own their employees far more than the military do.
You'll notice that all of those putting these political beliefs forward NEVER debate those who disagree with them (which would be the majority of us). Why is that?
A good way to sum up the essay is that the author set up a social minefield and played hopscotch making sure he hit every one of the mines. He's even had a dig at evangelicals just as an analogy - so much for "stop alienating conservatives".
Of course he was going to get fired as soon as this angry "I'm the victim" bro-screed came to the CEO's attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't it stand? Large American corporations have a thing about complying with orthodoxy. Do you think Google is some sort of anarchist collective? Also do you really think they seriously want to take on the responsibility of being a gatekeeper and be fined every time someone uses their service inappropriately? You are your own gatekeeper, Google is effectively a carrier.
Bringing the companies name into disrepute is accepted as a firing offence everywhere and since that's exactly what has happened here it's not difficult to frame it that way. Also wasn't this in an "at will" State where all it takes is the boss to wish you gone and that's it?
It's up to the claimant, and others here have followed back to his citations (including one on autism!) and found that they do not support his ridiculous claims.
That's not what's happening here.
I'm not impressed by his undergraduate fumblings attempting to link a field he doesn't understand to one he does and the google execs saw a bad PR situation and probably fired him before going past the title. I've got no idea while people imagine google is some sort of collective instead of the unforgiving multinational corporation that it is.
Me? You are a bit slow. What do you think your posting of deliberate misinformation in order to play games with readers is called - four letters, starts with T.
You are not too dumb to work it out no matter whether it is convenient to pretend to be dumb or not. Try again.
Of course I did - hence my bit about high stress that you commented on above. That petty "you didn't read it" distraction isn't even original.
It doesn't take a lot to trigger you snowflakes does it? If no woman is at peak form to do a task then it's got to be something like the men's 100m sprint and you whining losers are not qualified for it either.
Follow the link from the article summary FFS!
Then head from there to the link to the abstract.
Why did you even bother posting if you are this lost?
Then what's with the playground insult about reading age? It gets used a lot around here by the more pathetic types who want to assert their dominance over children - were you using it for a different reason? Either way it's somewhat a ridiculous insult to use at the level of discussion between any bunch that has even heard of a catalyst.
Not noticed - imagined.
The title alone as actually written was probably enough to get him fired. Google's management would have seen it as a deliberate insult and it certainly appears to have been intended as such.
The undergraduate groping about in psychology is kind of offputting and hilariously backwards but I left it alone. This "bro" shit is not the sort of thing you expect a professional to write about their workplace unless they run it or have just left it and want to burn all bridges.
Obviously your rebukes of me for asking questions are the critical bit. What's with the thin skin and the rebukes?
What an utter waste of time. If it's a wild guess and you haven't even looked at the abstract (or missed the little pic with the bubbles) just say so instead of trying so hard to justify irrelevancy.
As for attacking my reading age or whatever - that's kind of pathetic. Do you frequently bully the kiddies that way?
They are not a collective, they are a multinational company run in an autocratic fashion that is the ideological heirs to Ford, Hearst etc. They are acting true to type and not what fuzzy dreams of puppies and sunshine say they should be doing. Those low in the org chart get no more say than a Serf in Tsarist Russia - that's how these companies are structured. It's not a massive deal because they don't own you outside work hours.
And it's the legal right of the employer, especially in California, to fire critics.
Of course I read it otherwise my bit about his argument based on biology wouldn't be there would it? Don't be so lazy, you were not so lazy before were you Doxx boy?
Also given your past form why are you giving this guy a pass for biology when you appear to have zero respect for engineers and any scientist in a field that studies climate?
If you believe his claims to be completely true then surely it makes sense to have more women doing coding at google instead of a stressful life and death career such as nursing?
You are taking a bizarro-world spin on something that is already bullshit.
The "biology" is just a prop for a silly "bro-victim" screed. There are many jobs far more stressful than coding at google, even in the field of software development.
His claims are no more than a distraction and run completely counter to his argument instead of supporting it, so it really doesn't matter if they are true in this context does it? If it is true by some act of magic then it weakens his argument.
File it with "my door is always open" as a thing to learn not to take at face value.
Given that those things in the second link are not similar to the material being discussed either are you really in a position to be so critical?
He's attempting to substitute it for psychology and that hasn't been taken even remotely seriously since the 1930s.
Even more hilariously it's about suitability to sit indoors in offices and type - what would grandpa say?
It's just a mindless "I'm the victim here bro" screed of someone who has wandered so far off his area of expertise that even I can see he's hopelessly lost. When even an engineer can see someone has lost the plot on the squishy stuff they are spectacularly off beyond the edge of reality.
So THAT'S why those standing desks are becoming popular!
You wouldn't let just anyone put a sign on your lawn and it's the same with whatever "speech" has Google's name on it.
If the guy had framed his outpourings as being about Silicon Valley he would probably still have a job.
Just about every workplace has a "pro-censorship agenda" on topics that make the workplace look bad to the general public. I'm sure you know that.
Free speech? You are free to call the management in your workplace an "echo chamber" so long as you don't mind being free to seek other employment. While that kind of sucks, the alternative of being forced to keep people around that try to humiliate the company in public is a bit too much of a State interfering with private business don't you think?
It's different because it's not imaginary "attacks" that are as unlikely as being nibbled to death by ducks.
How about being what you can be instead of wanting to be a victim as well?
Whoops, that was hsthompson69, sorry sessamoid - on an old version of chrome the nested quoting (and pretty well everything else on slashdot apart from the ads) has gone a bit weird in the last week, but that's still no excuse.
This guy didn't send his memo to the press. The person in charge of making sure everybody thinks the same way did.
So now you've learned something today from that guy's mistake. Don't write something for circulation to a large number of people if you can't face the consequences of it ending up on the front page of a newspaper.
So men are far more suited for quiet indoor office work typing away and the women should be outside cutting down trees?
Wouldn't grandpa have called such idiots a sissy for suggesting such shit "bro"?
WTF is it with this woman hating "bro" stuff? What's wrong with having women in the workplace? They were there before you "bros" turned up and started whining about being picked on. The guy who wrote the whining screed is pretending that his biological skill with cuttlefish or whatever means he should be believed when he says that women should not be employed at Google because they are crazy - what an absolute fuckwit.
True, but it's not actually biology he's writing about is it? How people act is more than a little bit out of that field and he demonstrates very clearly that he hasn't really considered it very deeply. I'm an engineer turned computer wrangler and even I cringe at how poorly he is grasping the topic.
Complete F00F.
Because they like to think they own you.
It seems the larger the org or company the more some managers think like that.
It's kind of funny that they act like they own their employees far more than the military do.
They can't see any gain in it.
A good way to sum up the essay is that the author set up a social minefield and played hopscotch making sure he hit every one of the mines.
He's even had a dig at evangelicals just as an analogy - so much for "stop alienating conservatives".
Of course he was going to get fired as soon as this angry "I'm the victim" bro-screed came to the CEO's attention.