Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral' - LiveLeak Video shows Proof Goog

a reply to: Outlier13

Great to see others waking up to this knowledge.
It's been known for a while but now it's becoming far more 'overground' and these companies are ripping off their masks to show what is underneath.

Globalism is a virus and those SJW's on the left and Antifa and all those other crazy libtard groups that seek to pigeonhole the world into umpteen million boxes of idiocy are complicit it facilitating it.

Don't by into any of this if you can help it. Boycott their companies and products as much as you can. Constantly call them out and fight back with the truth (because it ALWAYS wins through in the end).

a reply to: Grambler

The assertation in the OP is simple and straightforward ... and utterly unproven to this point.

I'm not moving any goalposts, I'm asking for what I've been asking for the whole thread, which is EVIDENCE rather than OPINIONS.

originally posted by: Outlier13

UPDATE: Google is already trying to get ahead of this. Check out the video posted on LiveLeak listed below.

LINK to LiveLeak Video: www.liveleak.com...

"It's not worth thinking about this as an isolated incident and instead a manifestation of what ails all of Silicon Valley."

At least eight Google employees tweeted Friday about a document that was circulated within the company calling for replacing Google's diversity initiatives with policies that encourage "ideological diversity" instead. The document, which is the personal opinion of one senior software engineer, was shared on a company mailing list but has since gone "internally viral," according to a Google employee who spoke with Motherboard.

Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral' - Live Leak Video shows Proof Google is Censoring and Manipulating Search Results

EDIT: Watch the LiveLeak video which connects the dots to the article based on the internal memo.

When will people wake up?

We are being spoon fed what the establishment wants us to consume.

SUMMARY: Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are manipulating all content to force the primary consumer of social media (millennials) into a mindset that is left extremist. The LiveLeak video details this and correlates directly to the internal manifesto by the Google employee whose message is Google only supports an extreme left mentality.

I must say, the points made by the "disgruntled Google employee" are spot on. It is of course almost a punishable offense these days to point out the blatantly obvious: Men and women are different and have different interests and priorities.

I seriously feel sorry for those trapped in Google - My feeling is they are just one step away from wearing identical jumpsuits and shaving their heads. The color of the jumpsuits should of course either be pink - or some perfect mix between light blue and pink - to properly underline the fact that we are so diverse yet similar.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out hiring unqualified people based on skin colour or sex has negative repercussions.

Although it probably hasn't dawned on those pushing identity politics yet. They're a bit slower then your average person.

If I were an employer anyone with a gender studies degree would be laughed out the interview.

Not sure how I feel about "ideological diversity" crap he's pushing. That is essentially hiring people based on political belief. Which is equally ridiculous as hiring blacks or women simply for being blacks or women.

a reply to: Outlier13

This is, without doubt, utter nonsense.

Google algorithms have been routinely avoiding presenting results from ACTUAL left wing sources, as opposed to the centre right (Which Americans CALL the left, because they don't know any better, by and large). This has been going on since at least last month, if not somewhat before that.

But never mind a balanced and worldly view of events, eh? Just continue to believe whatever you fancy to. This is, after all, the post truth age, where reality is whatever you say it is at any given time, as long as it suits your preferred narrative.

Every one knows in today's world a video carries more weight as factual then the written word. Ask Secureteam...

i guess pulling advertisers out suddenly because "alt-right" and right wing extremist videos didn't hurt them enough so now they are turning to making them look like racists, sexist, etc instead.

someone sure is trying hard to destroy alphabet aren't they?

a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

If and when you read the ten-page memo, you'll notice that what we have, by the writer's own admission, is a personal perspective. He is upset because he is unable to fully express his personal ideology at work. I don't know which rock he has been hiding under, but that is SOP in all workplaces. Your opinion is only that, an opinion. I hate to break it to him, but Google has been able to operate following their mission statement without much of a hitch.

Once you start actually going through his points, his assertions reflect an outdated ideology, more akin to the analog world of the late 19th, early 20th century. He wants to reclaim and re-establish a set of principles that do not benefit society at large and would be anathema to the company he is working for. He doesn't like that he feels immoral and out of pace. He doesn't want to change, adapt or learn to live with this uncomfortable feeling. So he transfers responsibility and instead makes it a group issue.

"Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions."

Basically stating that he can continue to transgress without a care regarding other's sensitivity, but being very mindful of his own. Faulty thinking. I wonder if he would really appreciate this implementation if it meant that the people he is microaggressive to would respond in kind. In short, he is a bully using the system to ensure that he will be able to continue bullying without repercussions.

Sometimes you are a peg in a square hole. If you can't adapt, you must move on. He should consider creating his own web search engine conglomerate in which his "diversity" would be more acceptable. There is a small percentage of the population that will gladly use it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Don't you recall the manipulated search results prior to the election where multiple search engines were used and compared to Google and the Google results were dramatically different? Google was intentionally burying negative information on Hillary Clinton. Anyone could type in the same search string and get the same results. It's not like people are just randomly making this stuff up.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Outlier13

From your quote, emphasis mine.

The document, which is the personal opinion of one senior software engineer, was shared on a company mailing list but has since gone "internally viral," according to a Google employee who spoke with Motherboard.

as a current/former executive, I can tell you that if you circulate a memo with only your opinion on it while being an executive, you have created policy.

Its not just an opinion when its an executive circulating something on company letterhead, or via company electronic systems.

a reply to: Outlier13

I tend to agree. It is identity politics through and through with nothing to do with a pragmatic or egalitarian approach.
It's a great way to gut a dominant culture in their home land.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
a reply to: Gryphon66

Or you could just apply some basic common sense and assume that Google operates like many other large corporations in it's pathetic virtue signalling.

No?

What you call "virtue signaling," the US Government calls equal opportunity employment. In fact, the only documented actions of Google in the thread stem from addressing concerns brought by the Department of Labor.

Next?

It isn't equal opportunity. It is equity. Meeting a quota isn't completely open opportunity presented equally to everyone.
How do you figure this is some manner of equality?????

originally posted by: Immortalis

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
a reply to: Gryphon66

Or you could just apply some basic common sense and assume that Google operates like many other large corporations in it's pathetic virtue signalling.

No?

What you call "virtue signaling," the US Government calls equal opportunity employment. In fact, the only documented actions of Google in the thread stem from addressing concerns brought by the Department of Labor.

Next?

It isn't equal opportunity. It is equity. Meeting a quota isn't completely open opportunity presented equally to everyone.
How do you figure this is some manner of equality?????

Well, a) I'm not the US Government and b) there's more to the EEOC than "meeting a quota' and c) the presumption seems to be that because some companies intentionally choose to hire a certain demographic that for some reason they're not choosing the "best person" for the job.

IN MY OPINION, there is no "completely open opportunity" in any business situation with which I am familiar.

That's one of those claims that sounds good on paper (or on a screen) but isn't real.

Further, the reason why ANY of these issues arose in the first place is because certain minorities, sexes, genders, sexual orientations HAVE been discriminated against historically. It is SHAMEFUL that these artificial methods have ever been necessary to help level the playing field, but, alas, the world isn't a perfect place.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Outlier13

From your quote, emphasis mine.

The document, which is the personal opinion of one senior software engineer, was shared on a company mailing list but has since gone "internally viral," according to a Google employee who spoke with Motherboard.

as a current/former executive, I can tell you that if you circulate a memo with only your opinion on it while being an executive, you have created policy.

Its not just an opinion when its an executive circulating something on company letterhead, or via company electronic systems.

That's true, for the most part ... so I'll put it to you this way ... is there a problem with an executive, anywhere, tacitly establishing a policy that it's not okay to treat female employees differently because of perceived "biological differences"?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
as a current/former executive, I can tell you that if you circulate a memo with only your opinion on it while being an executive, you have created policy.

Was he an executive? What I read said Senior Software Engineer at Google. I don't know if you're aware of Googles title system, but Senior is actually a pretty low rank it's not even management level. At best it's being a team lead of something.

Googles promotion system works like this
L1 - Summer of code people
L2 - Intern
L3 - Software Engineer II (this is where most new grads start, it's effectively the junior role)
L4 - Software Engineer III (almost everyone hits this within a year)
L5 - Senior Engineer (this is where most plateau, its a team lead which is barely management experience)
L6 - Staff Engineer
L7 - Senior Staff Engineer
L8 - Principal Engineer
L9 - Distinguished Engineer
L10 - Google Fellow
L11 - Senior Google Fellow

In essence, up through L5 are the low level positions, within 2-3 years everyone should attain it. 6-8 are the mid level stuff that few obtain, and 9+ are mythical ranks usually reserved for founders, early employees, etc.

Essentially, one could be a senior engineer at Google and still have so little experience that other companies would consider you junior.

a reply to: Aazadan

If that is the case, then he didn't even send a memo. He just spouted some opinions using Google's email system.

Typically, i've seen employees doing that kind of stuff fired in a larger corporation.

a reply to: Gryphon66

but, alas, the world isn't a perfect place.

And any attempts to make it such, will only make it more imperfect.

Is an individuals inherent bias more or less innocent than forcing bias institutionally?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

but, alas, the world isn't a perfect place.

And any attempts to make it such, will only make it more imperfect.

Is an individuals inherent bias more or less innocent than forcing bias institutionally?

I'm not sure that I would condemn the existence of biases in any of us. We all have them in varying degrees. Anyone who claims they don't is either lying or very confused. (Much like the word "bigot" ... we are all bigots in some sense.)

However, in my opinion, overcoming our biases to treat other people as equitably as we can has always been a measure of personal development.

(And of course, measuring "personal development" is another bias.)

Institutionally, as in large corporations? Hard for me to say - I hate just about everything about megacorps.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Institutionally meaning any organizational level. From small business policies to government mandates.

I'll give some examples. Individual biases would be me frequenting a business run by people I like (for their race, religion, sex, or creed). Institutional biases would be a business like google giving preference (as a matter of policy, not personal opinion or bias) to certain people (based on their race, religion, sex, or creed).

Is one worse than the other?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Institutionally meaning any organizational level. From small business policies to government mandates.

I'll give some examples. Individual biases would be me frequenting a business run by people I like (for their race, religion, sex, or creed). Institutional biases would be a business like google giving preference to certain people (based on their race, religion, sex, or creed).

Is one worse than the other?

I've worked in small to medium businesses my whole life.

You know as well as I do that there are laws in place at the Federal and State level that seek to level the playing field due to past unfair discrimination.

As long as Google isn't breaking any laws, nor treating anyone unfairly or illegally, then from my perspective, they can run their business the way they want and let market forces decide their fate.

I'm not trying to avoid your questions ... Do I think that the guy who wrote the 10-page letter had some decent points? Yes indeed.

Did I think his good points were absolutely killed by comments about treating women in the workplace differently because of "biological differences"?

Absolutely.