[RC] Wikipedia summary statement about Google controversy

[BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community]

This entire imbroglio is funny as hell.  Count me as an enemy of Google
henceforth, although I have become  more-and-more disillusioned with
the company primarily because of its highly  politicized and odiously
Politically Correct art and visual imagery  more generally. Google
is a nest of Cultural Marxists and the  place is due for wholesale
house cleaning, kicking out everyone  responsible for what Google
has become compared to what it once was.  Upper management
doesn't know what in hell it is  doing.
 
As bad as AOL is, which is very bad, Google  has the distinction
of being even worse.
 
What is good about Google, like what is  good about AOL, is the result
of legacy features it still offers  customers. 
 
Google needs a major disaster like the  current controversy
may well turn out to be, so that it becomes  necessary for the company to
restructure its entire corporate  culture.
 
Google can go to hell as far as I am  concerned and, it now seems clear,
this sentiment is widely shared by  multitudes in the cyber community.
 
Billy
 
 
 
 
 
Considering this meek and mild but  fairly objective article for deletion???
WTH?
 
 
 
Google memo
 
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#mw-head)  
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#p-search) 
 
 This article is being considered for deletion in  accordance with 
Wikipedia's _deletion policy_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy) .
Please share your thoughts on the matter at _this  article's entry_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_memo)  on 
 
the _Articles for deletion_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion)  page.
Feel free to edit the  article, but the article must not be blanked, and 
this notice must not be removed, until the discussion  is closed. For more 
information, particularly on merging or moving the  article during the 
discussion, read the _guide to deletion_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion) . 
"Google's  Ideological Echo Chamber" was an internal memo written in August 
2017 by  American-based _Google_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google)  
engineer James Damore on the company's  ideological _stance toward diversity_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_diversity) . The memo focused on 
Google allegedly shutting down  the conversation about diversity_[1]_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#cite_note-1) , and  suggested that 
_gender inequality_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality)  in  the 
_technology industry_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_industry)  was 
"in  part" due to biological differences between men and women._[2]_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#cite_note-motherboard1-2)  Google 
CEO 
_Sundar Pichai_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai)  responded by 
saying that the memo  "advanc[ed] harmful gender stereotypes", and on August 7 
Damore was fired for  violating the company's _code of conduct_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct) ._[3]_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#cite_note-3)  
The memo and  subsequent dismissal provoked a strong reaction from 
commentators on both sides.  Initially shared on an internal_mailing list_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_mailing_list) , the paper was leaked 
to the 
public via the _Vice Media_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media)  
owned  website Motherboard.tv resulting in heated controversy across  social 
media._[2]_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#cite_note-motherboard1-2) _[4]_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#cite_note-motherboard2-4)  The 
company has formally expressed they  don't support the document and 
several current and former employees were highly  critical of it. According 
to Wired, Google's internal forums  showed "plenty of support" for 
Damore_[5]_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#cite_note-Wired-5)  who 
said he 
received private thanks  from employees who were afraid to come 
forward._[6]_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#cite_note-6) _[7]_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_memo#cite_note-nytimes-7)  
The memo provided an initial summary with the  following points: 
*   Google's  political bias has equated the freedom from offense with 
psychological safety,  but shaming into silence is the antithesis of 
psychological  safety. 
*   This  silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some 
ideas are too  sacred to be honestly discussed. 
*   The lack of  discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian 
elements of this  ideology.  
*   Extreme:  all disparities in representation are due to oppression 
*   Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct  for this 
oppression
*   Differences  in distributions of traits between men and women may 
in part explain why we  don't have 50% representation of women in tech and 

[RC] Washington Post criticism of Google

[BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community]

Washington Post
 
Why Google’s firing terrifies social conservatives so  much
 
By Erick Erickson
August 8,  2017
 
 
 
“I  strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should 
strive  for more,” the Google employee_wrote_ 
(https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html)
 .  “Women on 
average show a higher interest in people and men in things. … Women on  average 
are more cooperative. … Women on average look for more work-life balance  
while men have a higher drive for status on average,” he continued. 
“The  male gender role is currently inflexible. Feminism has made great 
progress in  freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very 
much tied to  the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be 
more ‘feminine,’ then  the gender gap will shrink, although probably because 
men will leave tech and  leadership for traditionally feminine roles,” he 
wrote. These are all quotes  from James Damore, the Harvard-educated employee 
who worked as a Google engineer  until being fired for daring to suggest 
Google needs more diversity but should  rethink how to foster that diversity. 
According  to the tech site Gizmodo, Damore wrote an “anti-diversity screed.
” Re/Code  referred to it as “sexist.” The tech site Mashable assailed 
anyone who defended  Damore as being part of the “alt-right.” The problem, 
chiefly, is that many  critics claimed Damore said things he did not and 
painted the things he did say  in the worst possible light.
 
 
 
It  is, for example, true that Damore said women suffered from “neuroticism”
 more  than men, but he made clear he was using the psychological, 
scientific  terminology for suffering higher anxiety and having a lower stress 
tolerance in  job and life situations. He did not mean it as a pejoratively as 
the left  painted it. In fact, he did not pull his statements out of thin air 
or make them  up. Damore based his statements on sociological and 
psychological studies that  are accepted by the scientific community, of which 
he is a 
part. 
Social  conservatives are looking at what Google has done and, while 
acknowledging  Google has every right to fire an employee, are concerned this 
outcome bodes  poorly for anyone who thinks differently from the left. 
There  are shadows of Brendan Eich’s ouster from Mozilla in this. Eich, 
Mozilla’s  then-chief executive, was driven from his job by outrage generated 
by technology  reporters and pundits for having the audacity to give money to 
a traditional  marriage campaign in California. No one questioned Eich’s 
qualifications or  abilities in technology. But Eich had the wrong values and 
thoughts, so he had  to be fired. Silicon Valley has no place for social or 
intellectual  conservatives. Or look at Silicon Valley’s treatment of Peter 
Thiel, the gay  billionaire, who has had the audacity to give legitimacy to 
President Trump.  Thiel is now treated as a pariah in the tech press.
 
 
 
In  his _Google  memo_ 
(https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html)
 , Damore made clear that he, too, wanted 
to increase diversity at the  company. But he also wanted Google to 
consider other ways to do it. For example,  noting that “women generally … have 
a 
stronger interest in people rather than  things,” Damore suggested Google 
could “make software engineering more  people-oriented with pair programming 
and more collaboration.” Noting that women  often find it difficult 
negotiating for a higher salary, Damore noted this was a  generalization and 
that 
some men shared this characteristic. He encouraged  Google to abandon 
women-only programs on salary negotiation and make it  available to anyone who 
had 
that problem. For daring to suggest Google not  stereotype men and women, 
Damore stands accused of stereotyping people. 
Unfortunately,  many believed Damore dared to engage in wrongthink. 
Danielle Brown, Google’s  vice president of diversity, declared she disagreed 
with 
Damore but said, “Part  of building an open, inclusive environment means 
fostering a culture in which  those with alternative views, including different 
political views, feel safe  sharing their opinions.” It is pretty clear 
now, despite those words, views  outside left-wing groupthink are not shareable 
inside Google.
 
 
 
This  is par for the course at Google. Ben Domenech, publisher of the 
Federalist,  noted in June that Google’s Eric Schmidt declared anyone who 
disagreed with him  politically would not be operating from “science-based 
thinking.
” According to  Google’s current chief executive, Sundar Pichai, Damore 
had to be fired for  daring to cross “the line by advancing harmful gender 
stereotypes in our  workplace.” This is an ironic line to take, considering 
Damore’s memo pointed  out repeated instances of Google engaging in stereotypes 
and generalizations  that often apply people regardless of gender. 
The  

[RC] Google -a short but definitive primer

[BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community]

Google =  groupthink
 " =  Cultural Marxist  mindset
 " =  epitomizes  everything that is wrong with California
 " =  Left-wing  political correctness on steroids
 " =  anti-science  values in the name of science; viz.,
   Google  denies the findings of sociobiology
 
 
 
 

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RC] Google- The Soviet Union of Silicon Valley

[BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community]

 
The American Conservative 
Google is Being Evil After  all 
By: Rod Dreher 
August 8, 2017 
Have  you been following this insane story out of Google? James Damore, a 
senior  engineer at the company, unwisely sent out on an internal forum a 
detailed memo  criticizing what he calls the Party’s _“Google’s Ideological 
Echo Chamber.”_ (http://diversitymemo.com/)  If you follow that link, you can 
read  the entire memo. Here is the memo’s summary: 
*   Google’s  political bias has equated the freedom from offense with 
psychological safety,  but shaming into silence is the antithesis of 
psychological safety. 
*   This  silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some 
ideas are too  sacred to be honestly discussed. 
*   The  lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian 
elements of this  ideology. 
*   Extreme:  all disparities in representation are due to oppression 
*   Authoritarian:  we should discriminate to correct for this 
oppression 
*   Differences  in distributions of traits between men and women may 
in part explain why we  don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and 
leadership. 
*   Discrimination  to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, 
and bad for  business.
It’s  a long memo, so read the whole thing if you have time. Here are some 
key  passages: 
Neither  side [left or right] is 100% correct and both viewpoints are 
necessary for a  functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too 
far 
to the right  may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of 
others. In  contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be 
changing  (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests 
(ignoring or  being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its 
employees 
and  competitors. 
Only  facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to 
 diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically 
correct  monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into 
silence. 
This  silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and 
authoritarian  policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the 
extreme  stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential 
treatment and  the authoritarian element that’s required to actually 
discriminate to 
create  equal representation.
More: 
We  all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run 
counter  to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that 
runs  counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., 
evolution  and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning 
biological  
differences between people (e.g., IQ [8] and sex differences). Thankfully,  
climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the 
right.  Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social 
scientists  learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, 
changes  what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism 
and the  gender wage gap [9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this 
bias and  uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly 
politicized  programs. 
In  addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are  
generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this 
likely  evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are 
 
generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive 
government  and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to 
protect  women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting 
men, he’s  labelled as a misogynist and whiner [10]. Nearly every difference 
between men  and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As 
with many things  in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being 
greener on the  other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is 
spent to water only  one side of the lawn. 
The  same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness 
[11],  which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely 
sensitive  PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their 
cause. 
While  Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re 
seeing at  universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has 
created the  same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
_Read the whole thing._ (http://diversitymemo.com/)  
Naturally _Google’s  CEO fired Damore,_ 
(https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/8/16111724/google-sundar-pichai-employee-memo-diversity)
  a senior  software 
engineer, while at the same time saying that Google ought to be a place  
where people feel free to speak their mind. He writes: 
At  the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they 
can  safely express their views in the workplace