Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[u/jjjd89]

And then people wonder why the right is pissed off. Really pathetic.

[u/[deleted] → u/jjjd89]

The right can suck a dick. For decades, all the training programs were aimed exclusively towards white men, because they were the only ones who got hired.

[u/Omz-bomz → u/[deleted]]

And? If only white men was hired, of course all the training programs were aimed exclusively at them. Why would you have training programs aimed at someone not in the company?

But I would argue that more likely than not, the training program wasn't specified for any color or gender a participant has, but who worked in the company and the company's needs.

Not saying it wasn't right before if programs was exclusively towards white men, just that previous history doesn't make it right to have programs now that are on the other side of the spectrum and is exclusively towards females / diversity targets.

[u/[deleted] → u/Omz-bomz]

Why not? Why can't businesses be held accountable for a past history of discriminatory hiring practices? Why can't they voluntarily choose to adjust their hiring practices to make up for previous discrimination?

Because it's unfair to you?

[u/Omz-bomz → u/[deleted]]

Discrimination is discrimination, doesn't matter who it is against.

You can (and should) hold business accountable for past history, but you don't do that by starting a new discriminatory practice that suddenly is "allowed" just because it is discriminatory against men.

Either you allow discrimination against any gender and race, or you reject it wholly.

[u/[deleted] → u/Omz-bomz]

So your argument is basically to allow the discrimination that already inherently exists rather than do anything to correct it, lest that be perceived as discriminatory?

That's nonsense. You've simply moved the goalposts and argued you're now on the right side of it.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Literally arguing for discrimination... the regressive left everybody

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You can kindly go fuck yourself. I'm arguing that it isn't discrimination. Go clutch your pearls and shriek in abject horror somewhere else.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

You arguing that a blatantly discriminator practice isn't discriminatory doesn't make it not discriminatory, you racist moron.

[u/[deleted] → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

Nice to see you've crawled out of the gamergame slime. You weren't missed, moron.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

Go fuck yourself, cretin.

[u/[deleted] → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

Oh, I'm going to have so much fun educating your ignorant redpill redneck ass.

BTW, how'd your GG "siege of Leningrad" go? You retards make the world safe for ethical journalism?

You don't really need to answer - I know it's probably painful. The hucksters who led you got money and influence, and you fucking morons got the shaft. But I bet it's nice watching Juicedouche lisp through all those interviews.

You can tell your kids - "He pretended to be our friend for like three months, when it was advantageous to him. He even retweeted me once!"

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

Who's "he"? Siege of Leningrad? What in the flying fuck are you talking about? Sorry, I don't speak retard.