Yeah - since the computer science they teach in a four-year college degree in computer science is pretty much irrelevant, I doubt that the 9 months, at-least-a-C -to-pass they'll be able to dedicate to it at the high-school level will mean anything at all.
"Blacks are not oppressed" is now vile? You can say that you disagree, but this appears to be suggesting that you can't even ask the question. Talk about wrongthink.
Whereas in America, it's the other way around - with Google execs demanding that white men not be allowed to participate in conferences and firing anybody who suggests that men and women may be different in noticeable ways.
I can't help but marvel at the dichotomy here, too: when men, who are about 50% of the population, represent, say, 75% of the hires, it's evidence of rampant discrimination. When Asians, who represent about 5% of the population, are 90% of the hires, it's just evidence that "the best qualified rise to the top".
Actually it's even more than that. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from consequences of speech, but freedom of speech as a concept - an ideal rather than a legal concept - is more general than that, and that's probably what the grandparent is referring to. It's disturbing that so many liberals can't comprehend the difference between a social ideal and something enshrined in law - to them, the only way to accomplish anything is to put the government in charge of it.
It bothers me that Americans don't understand what the term freedom of speech implies
It bothers me that so many liberals (of all people) don't realize that there's the first amendment, which describes freedom of speech from a legal perspective, and freedom of speech as a general concept, and that the two things can be discussed completely independently.
Funny how you don't have to talk to most social justice warriors for more than about 5 minutes to see that they're far less interested in achieving anything resembling justice than they are in just plain hurting white men.
Google employees of other races and genders have made much more hateful statements toward problematic white men than anything he did (publicly as well) and to my knowledge none of _them_ have ever so much as been disciplined for it.
So what you're saying is that, in the 1800's, Republicans opposed discrimination based on skin color. And then, in the 1960's, continuing on until today, the Republicans continued to opposed discrimination based on skin color. Sounds about right.
No, not really - in fact, I think a lot of tech companies do exactly that. They hire almost exclusively asians and get pats on the back for not hiring any "problematic" white males.
Hand in your resignation all you like. The next job will be an all-distractions, all-the-time open office just like the last one. They can do it, so they do.
What's next? We'll discover that noisy open office bullpens aren't conducive to any sort of work that requires concentration? Or will we discover that most managers don't much care about productivity as long as they maintain the illusion of control?
Slashdot Mirror
Shut up SJW.
Yeah - since the computer science they teach in a four-year college degree in computer science is pretty much irrelevant, I doubt that the 9 months, at-least-a-C -to-pass they'll be able to dedicate to it at the high-school level will mean anything at all.
"Blacks are not oppressed" is now vile? You can say that you disagree, but this appears to be suggesting that you can't even ask the question. Talk about wrongthink.
That'll get you fired from Google these days, too.
Yeah, as long as it doesn't go down (or maybe even keeps pace with inflation?), I'll be in good shape when I'm looking at retirement in 20 years.
Whereas in America, it's the other way around - with Google execs demanding that white men not be allowed to participate in conferences and firing anybody who suggests that men and women may be different in noticeable ways.
And the fact that Damore got fired and this guy didn't just bolsters Damore's case and make you look like a prejudiced moron.
accustomed to oppressing others
You want to lock somebody up based on their skin color and you say I'm the oppressing one?
I can't help but marvel at the dichotomy here, too: when men, who are about 50% of the population, represent, say, 75% of the hires, it's evidence of rampant discrimination. When Asians, who represent about 5% of the population, are 90% of the hires, it's just evidence that "the best qualified rise to the top".
Actually it's even more than that. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from consequences of speech, but freedom of speech as a concept - an ideal rather than a legal concept - is more general than that, and that's probably what the grandparent is referring to. It's disturbing that so many liberals can't comprehend the difference between a social ideal and something enshrined in law - to them, the only way to accomplish anything is to put the government in charge of it.
It bothers me that Americans don't understand what the term freedom of speech implies
It bothers me that so many liberals (of all people) don't realize that there's the first amendment, which describes freedom of speech from a legal perspective, and freedom of speech as a general concept, and that the two things can be discussed completely independently.
freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences
It is, actually - that is, in fact, the definition.
Funny how you don't have to talk to most social justice warriors for more than about 5 minutes to see that they're far less interested in achieving anything resembling justice than they are in just plain hurting white men.
Unfortunately he was brainwashed by the U.S. public education system - so that means that you and I paid for his brainwashing.
... I predict.
lack of unbreakable encryption is an urgent public safety issue.
Google employees of other races and genders have made much more hateful statements toward problematic white men than anything he did (publicly as well) and to my knowledge none of _them_ have ever so much as been disciplined for it.
So what you're saying is that, in the 1800's, Republicans opposed discrimination based on skin color. And then, in the 1960's, continuing on until today, the Republicans continued to opposed discrimination based on skin color. Sounds about right.
No, not really - in fact, I think a lot of tech companies do exactly that. They hire almost exclusively asians and get pats on the back for not hiring any "problematic" white males.
As far as I can tell, the courts have been more than happy to allow this for at least the past 50 years.
shouting down telephones
Even better, putting their phones on speaker so everybody else can hear both sides of the conversation.
Hand in your resignation all you like. The next job will be an all-distractions, all-the-time open office just like the last one. They can do it, so they do.
Arbitrary deadlines = arbitrary results.
It doesn't matter if the ideas are inspired - it doesn't even matter if they work! As long as they're on time.
What's next? We'll discover that noisy open office bullpens aren't conducive to any sort of work that requires concentration? Or will we discover that most managers don't much care about productivity as long as they maintain the illusion of control?