January 9, 2018

"The [James Damore] lawsuit claims that numerous Google managers maintained 'blacklists' of conservative employees with whom they refused to work..."

"... that Google has a list of conservatives who are banned from visiting the campus; and that Google’s firings of Damore and the other named plaintiff, David Gudeman, were discriminatory... The company’s workforce, like much of the rest of the tech industry, is overwhelmingly white, Asian, and male.... But the Damore lawsuit purports to expose a cultural bias toward promoting diversity and 'social justice' that, the suit claims, has created a 'protected, distorted bubble of groupthink.'... Internal posts discussing the debate around diversity at Google, such as a meme of a penguin with the text 'If you want to increase diversity at Google fire all the bigoted white men,' are filed as an appendix to the lawsuit under the heading 'Anti-Caucasian postings.'..."

From "James Damore sues Google, alleging intolerance of white male conservatives/Class-action lawsuit led by fired engineer includes 100 pages of internal documents and claims conservatives are 'ostracized, belittled, and punished'" in The Guardian.

127 comments:

n.n said...

An allegation and forensic evidence. A viable claim in the established context of diversity.

n.n said...

Intellectual, color, and sex diversity.

hawkeyedjb said...

It is not illegal or immoral to be racist or discriminatory, as long as your targets are in the disfavored group. "Situation ethics" are the very basis of the Social Justice worldview.

Maybe one day it will be your turn to be in the disfavored group; maybe not. Take your chances!

anti-de Sitter space said...

That loser must never get laid.

Did any of the internal correspondence indicate that Google had a blacklist re fugly people?

OTOH, at least, maybe that dude has found research re a correlation re nose size and cock size? Even so, it'd be like the thing re a tree falling in the forest sans anyone being around to hear: did it make a sound?



Virgil Hilts said...

Does this lawsuit help or hurt G? Search "google discriminates against women."
G is facing multiple investigations and lawsuits about extreme pay discrimination and lack of women in high positions, etc., which I assume G takes very seriously and in which the statistics look pretty bad.
The Damore case and its allegations (I think) severely undermine the foundation of the "G discriminates against women" proceedings. So, is it crazy to consider whether Damore's suit may be something that G somehow conspired to bring about (or at least nurtured)? This theory might be crazy when applied to most companies, but G has some of the smartest people in the world.

rehajm said...

Leftie standards and usage guidelines require this lawsuit to be referred to as reverse discrimination. To characterize it as discrimination could confuse the reader into an equivalency with this suit and one filed by an approved, socially acceptable aggrieved group.

Omitting the term discrimination completely while including frivolous, bogus or other synonyms is also acceptable.

Fernandistein said...

Sailer:

"Obviously, Google isn’t actually going to stop hiring Asian and white male engineers and replace them with black and Hispanic women. Management has the world’s second highest market capitalization to protect. But Google executives like Susan Wojcicki don’t like being blamed for doing what they do to maximize stockholder wealth when instead they can demonize junior white and Asian male employees like James Damore as The Real Problem with why Google’s hiring doesn’t reflect The Narrative.

Keep in mind that Susan Wojcicki had Damore fired for defending Google’s actual hiring behavior."

Bad Lieutenant said...

...Google had a blacklist re fugly people?

OTOH, at least, maybe that dude has found research re a correlation re nose size...


So what you mean, PBshilohJ, is that you have nothing to say, and you shall shriek it at the top of your voice.

Must be a day of the week that ends in Y.

I wonder why you would fear such news. You must fear it because if you were not interested you would presumably just shut up, as I do with football posts.

The Drill SGT said...

I read Damore's filing and his examples seem fairly damning. Google's HR officer should have been more circumspect rather than cheer leading labor law violations in public.

The Class action costs could be very high

mockturtle said...

His attorney, a woman of Indian descent, is articulate and convincing regarding this case. It sounds as if there is enough evidence to pursue a class-action. Obviously, as in most such lawsuits, it is not meant to compensate the victims but to highlight the issue.

mockturtle said...

These companies need to realize that their customers aren't all of a mold. The morning after the Presidential election, I got an email from Apple with advice on how to survive the trauma. I asked them to remove me from their mailing list.

Seeing Red said...

Boy, the President has a lot on his plate. Time to go after the tech giants. Cue anti-trust division.

FullMoon said...

Am I wrong in thinking Microsoft was viewed as the evil empire a decade or so ago because they were so huge and dominant? MS pales in comparison to Google.
Does Asian in this case include Indian?

anti-de Sitter space said...

Bad L,

I'm cranky cause I ended up w/ two left socks bundled together this morning. Incompetent staff work cannot be tolerated.

I'm sure this nerd is a perfectly nice dude. But, clearly he's a loser. Gots zero game. So, now gals and minorities need to pay the price re his short coming.

buwaya said...

This is correct, and it certainly isn't just Google.
The executive/professional ranks of the Fortune 1000 are in the same state.

Its why it is very easy to find their management saying progressive things, while voting with their feet (their money) in quite another way.

Bay Area Guy said...

Sorry, white males aren't a "protected class."

No soup for you, Damore!

buwaya said...

That is the entity formerly known as PB&J, not Shiloh.
Shiloh had an edge of honest resentment.

ADSS (PB&J) exists in a universe of snark, where all matter is snark-matter, dark or otherwise, and all energy is snarkergy (which may or may not be conserved, physical laws being different). Of course, he (it) ultimately serves Satan.

jimbino said...

While Google clearly favors White and Asian Males, the most significant discrimination practiced throughout the tech world is age discrimination, long prohibited by the ADEA.

n.n said...

severely undermine the foundation of the "G discriminates against women"

The allegations and forensic evidence affirm that Google is diverse, which implies it discriminates by color, sex, and other incidental features, as well as, apparently, ideological differences. They are Pro-Choice - the so-called "corporate religious consensus". What remains to be known is how it affected individuals who were viable (i.e. worthy) candidates and employees.

M Jordan said...

I’m betting Damore has some evidence he carried with him when he left. The guy is a tech whiz.

Google will lose this round.

Tim at large said...

No need to worry though that the vastly profitable corporation that has almost complete market domination in information delivery takes sides, because conservatives are “fugly.”

This is how the enlightenment ends. When a small group of people decide what information the rest of us need, while at the same time making huge fortunes off of the reactions to that information.

So, now gals and minorities need to pay the price re his short coming.

That’s pretty racist and sexist. Are you suggesting that they have no “game” and can’t compete in a fair environment?

Freder Frederson said...

For people who just love right to work laws and employment at will, when one of your own is subjected to the harsh reality of the free market, you sure whine.

Sorry, white males aren't a "protected class."

Actually, they are, if they are discriminated against because they are white males. This guy got fired because he is an sexist asshole, which definitely not a protected class.

Henry said...

The lawsuit looks like an overreach but discovery will be a bitch.

Gahrie said...

Sorry, white males aren't a "protected class."

Correct. In fact they are the exact opposite...White (heterosexual) males are the only people you are allowed to discriminate against, and in many cases mandated to discriminate against.

buwaya said...

PB&J misses the fact that even Bill Gates got himself a woman, and that long before becoming a billionaire - I met the pair in the 80s when he was with his then-girlfriend; he was on a marketing tour for the then-new MS Excel.

chuck said...

> This guy got fired because he is an sexist asshole,

Mother nature is a sexist asshole. Sad! But true.

Tim at large said...

This guy got fired because he is an sexist asshole, which definitely not a protected class.

Yes, provable by geometric logic!

It’s always amazing to me how “liberals” jump to the defense of Google at every turn. Whether it’s “net neutrality” or whatever.

Fernandistein said...

n.n said...
the so-called "corporate religious consensus".


No results found for "corporate religious consensus". Better stick to talking about dead babies and their ghosts.

Tim at large said...

Rational, abstract thought and asking hard questions are sexist male traits, and the country will be far better off when this characteristic has been purged from the workforce!

buwaya said...

But Freder, in what way is he a "sexist asshole", how can such a charge be made, without simply tossing out intellectual standards? He made a perfectly sincere, reasonable, well supported case.

Tim at large said...

Imagine the founding of Google, had they been required to meet the demands of the SJWs. I bet it would have gone exactly the same!

Tim at large said...

how can such a charge be made, without simply tossing out intellectual standards?

Bingo!

buwaya said...

If Damore had written such a paper, using the same approach, regarding policy on any other matter, technical, operational, business-strategic, it would have been seen as innocuous, or even creditable.

But in that area, it was "wrong", somehow. Is the fault that of Damore, or a defect in modern mores?

mockturtle said...

Gahrie supposes: White (heterosexual) males are the only people you are allowed to discriminate against, and in many cases mandated to discriminate against.

Not quite. Christians are not only subject to discrimination with impunity but discrimination is widely encouraged by the MSM.

anti-de Sitter space said...

Buw,

I feel like there's some sorta Bentsen/Quale thing-y here. Except quite different.

Anywho, I don't care if you think this nerd is like Bill Gates.

But, really it just seems like yur fishing.


Carry on.

Humperdink said...

I am confused guy. Why do the lefties keep changing their ID's? TTR, Ritmo, Inga, Alley Oop, anti-de Sitter space, PBJ etc ...... Mystifies me. Could someone enlighten me?

Sigivald said...

Deliberate misreading time:

"conservatives are 'ostracized, belittled, and punished'" in The Guardian."

Well, yes, they would be; it's the Guardian.

Achilles said...

anti-de Sitter space said...
That loser must never get laid.

So you have nothing. You have been intellectually void and useless in these conversations for a while now. It is funny to watch you pretend to discuss things with Buwaya who is actually thinking critically and effectively about these topics. You are just a joke.

Fernandistein said...

https://www.scribd.com/document/368689407/Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit

MikeR said...

Google is a big target, and they are looking very vulnerable right now. Let's see if they settle.

Achilles said...

FullMoon said...
Am I wrong in thinking Microsoft was viewed as the evil empire a decade or so ago because they were so huge and dominant? MS pales in comparison to Google.
Does Asian in this case include Indian?


Microsoft was viewed as the evil empire a decade ago because they didn't donate to politicians and didn't seek rents. The government filed class action on them and now they act accordingly. Uber is being forced to play similar fuck fuck games.

Google seeks rents and is a solid contributor to politicians. They will not have to worry about this lawsuit or anti-trust.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

anti-de Sitter space said...

Incompetent staff work cannot be tolerated.

That's what she said!


...I'll now go and report myself to H.R.

Gahrie said...

I am confused guy. Why do the lefties keep changing their ID's? TTR, Ritmo, Inga, Alley Oop, anti-de Sitter space, PBJ etc ...... Mystifies me. Could someone enlighten me?

For the same reason that the Democrats keep changing back and forth between liberal and progressive. Once you have completely discredited yourself/your ideology, people don't fall for your shit anymore...so you have to rebrand.

Tim at large said...

Achilles is right, of course. It’s the same reason that Trump paid so much to Democrats in New York. It’s protection money, same as in The Godfather. Nothing changes.

exiledonmainstreet said...

PB seems very concerned with cocks and cock size these days. Well, since Titus isn't around much any more (perhaps he is hogtied), someone else has stepped in to carry the torch, so to speak.

PB, there is no need to remain closeted at Althouse of all places. You are in a safe space.

Tim at large said...

ADS has him pegged though, it’s “sluggish schizophrenia”

Tim at large said...

If there is such a thing as “Cock Calvinism” PB and Titus would be that faith’s prophets.

n.n said...

Fernandistein:

Do you support the wicked solution? Selective-child is not only a wicked solution, but literally a final solution. So, was the Chinese's one-child policy, but selective-child (and recycled-child) is evidence of a general and progressive degradation, which has been compensated through immigration reform.

"What happened to women’s agency? That’s what I find myself wondering as I hear story after story of adult women..."

We are witnessing the re-moralization of sex, not via the Judeo-Christian ethos but via a legalistic, corporate consensus.

The "ethos" is a reference to religion or moral philosophy, and its replacement is a "legalistic (e.g. Pro-Choice), corporate consensus."

Paco Wové said...

"But Freder, in what way is he a "sexist asshole", how can such a charge be made, without simply tossing out intellectual standards? He made a perfectly sincere, reasonable, well supported case."

...and the crickets chirp...

n.n said...

saying progressive things, while voting with their feet (their money) in quite another way

Progress is merely monotonic and unqualified. So, they are not necessarily voting another way, but rather their voting is sympathetic with their conception of "progress".

exiledonmainstreet said...

Isn’t this the usual leftist M.O? You can remain as lily-white and male as you wish as long as you make the proper noises about “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” I remember seeing a picture of Obama’s Chicago campaign staff and they were whiter than cottage cheese. The same is (or was) true of the Vox staff. You can call for others to be inclusive – other businesses, other organizations – while remaining as “diverse” as a white-shoe Manhattan law firm circa 1955.

Todd said...

buwaya said...

But Freder, in what way is he a "sexist asshole", how can such a charge be made, without simply tossing out intellectual standards? He made a perfectly sincere, reasonable, well supported case.

1/9/18, 11:18 AM


Good luck with that buwaya. With Fender it is all about the Feelz and anti-male, anti-white, anti-conservative, anti-capitalistic bigotry. What ever hammer he needs at the time to beat on the current nail with.

Doesn't matter the topic or the facts. He instinctively takes the least rational side and dies on that hill anew each day.

DanTheMan said...

He is a "sexist asshole" because he violated the Althouse rule: he compared women to men, and did NOT find them superior. This is crimethink, and is so outrageous that it cannot even be discussed. Thus, his immediate destruction is required. For the greater good, of course.

n.n said...

The Progressive's "concept" of diversity is not inclusive, it's politically congruent. It selectively excludes individuals based on the color of their skin, their sex, their orientation (e.g. "="), etc. And, apparently, any ideology that affirms the moral axioms of individual dignity and intrinsic value, as well as seeks to reconcile moral, natural, and personal imperatives.

Unknown said...

"Am I wrong in thinking Microsoft was viewed as the evil empire a decade or so ago because they were so huge and dominant?"

I think it was more than a decade ago, more like the late 90's early 2000's, and primarily due to MS business practices. They would buy out potential competitors to shut them down, use predatory pricing to put other competitors out of business and then ramp their own pricing back up, that sort of thing. I wasn't a big fan at the time, but in hindsight it was really quite tame compared to what we see happening with the tech giants (Google, Twitter, Facebook) now.

-AP

mikeski said...

"Why do the lefties keep changing their ID's? TTR, Ritmo, Inga, Alley Oop, anti-de Sitter space, PBJ etc ...... Mystifies me. Could someone enlighten me?"

Because using one ID would leave some of them with a decade-long record of ad hominem, non-sequitur, and other trollish noise?

The blog's regulars (and author) know that they are who they are, but new or occasional readers might not realize they're the sort of people who've spent years writing hundreds or thousands of replies to substantiative blog posts with dreck like "that loser must never get laid."

If you can't help but pollute your own brand, you need to re-brand every so often.

Jupiter said...

Virgil Hilts said...
"So, is it crazy to consider whether Damore's suit may be something that G somehow conspired to bring about (or at least nurtured)? This theory might be crazy when applied to most companies, but G has some of the smartest people in the world."

Don't you believe it. Google started out with a couple of smart white guys, and by a combination of first-mover advantage, very hard work, good software design, and a huge ration of dumb luck, managed to utterly dominate Search, thus gaining accss to an IMMENSE cash flow which had formerly belonged to the various print and television media. But what have they done since? Hire airy-fairy academic show-horses to pound it down ratholes for them. Pat themselves on the back for being the smartest guys on Earth. "Shoot for the Moon" -- but not hit it.

Rick said...

This guy got fired because he is an sexist asshole,

We're watching mythology created before our eyes. This is how Hoover became known for his indifference to economic suffering and Republicans became racist. Maybe he is a sexist but his public comments include no evidence of that. The wing nutters have to twist his comments three levels from what they actually were before they can claim this but they simply believe it anyway.


"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”

EDH said...

Damore reminds me of the "Tall Elf" in Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer, but is treated more like Hermey.

Santa's Village: Another monolithic hostile work environment.

Rick said...

Why do the lefties keep changing their ID's? [anti-de Sitter space]

Who is this?

steve uhr said...

Not illegal for a company to discriminate on the basis of political views f it wants. Conservatives are not a protected class.

Jupiter said...

Google is the place that was famous for their wacky interview questions; How many golf balls would it take to fill a 747? Why are manhole covers round? How many piano-tuners are there in Seattle? They don't ask those questions any more, HR decided it was pointless. But when they did ask them, everybody talked about how that was the way Google was finding and hiring all the smart people on Earth. It is very easy to look smart when you have a gushing money spigot in the back room.

Tim at large said...

Not illegal for a company to discriminate on the basis of political views f it wants

Sure, especially companies that have overwhelming market domination in the area of providing information to the nation as a whole. Only an idiot would worry about such a thing. Still, even if it is not in Google’s best long term interest to shout down “deplorable” points of view, Steve is probably not worried because there is undoubtedly “a lot of ruin” in Google.

Conservatives are not a protected class.

Oh and we know it.

buwaya said...

"Not illegal for a company to discriminate on the basis of political views f it wants. "

Not so in California -

https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be-fired-for-expressing-your-political-views-in-california.shtml

Jupiter said...

Rick said...
"Maybe he is a sexist but his public comments include no evidence of that. The wing nutters have to twist his comments three levels from what they actually were before they can claim this but they simply believe it anyway."

Damore argued that the vast sex disparity in hiring at Google has a basis in objective criteria of ability and motivation. By the standards of the modern academic and political left, making that argument is sexist behavior if you are male.

n.n said...

Maybe he is a sexist but his public comments include no evidence of that.

He observed a correlation between sex and choice, where women and men favor different occupations, activities, philosophies, etc., and presented evidence to support his hypothesis that women and men are equal and complementary.

Jupiter said...

On the other hand, if you want to argue that women have special qualities that make hiring them especially appropriate, that is fine, not sexist at all, as long as you are careful to describe those "special qualities" in positive ways. "Chicks are cheaper 'cause they're too dumb to demand a raise" is frowned upon. But if you want to claim that women have a better understanding of product requirements because those products are sold to women, Hey, go for it. Just be careful not to suggest that the claim might still be true if it were made about men. That would be extremely sexist.

steve uhr said...

I stand corrected. California's discrimination laws are much broader than fed laws. Not good if you believe in smaller government

n.n said...

overwhelming market domination in the area of providing information

Providing? Steering. They have a virtual monopoly on directing perception through ordering search results, which may or may not reflect an independent, unbiased criteria.

Ken B said...

Achilles: Sitter always has nothing. Less than nothing in this case as it's a stock insult he would trot about about Trump -- picture Marla Maples and Melania ....

Bad Lieutenant said...

Blogger buwaya said...
That is the entity formerly known as PB&J, not Shiloh.
Shiloh had an edge of honest resentment.

I thought this had been sussed out, but I do value your opinion. Nonetheless, in the words of Marsellus Wallace,

I'm prepared to scour the Earth for that mother****er. If [shiloh] goes to Indo-China, I want a **** hiding in a bowl of rice waiting to pop a cap in his ass.

...
Once you have completely discredited yourself/your ideology, people don't fall for your shit anymore...so you have to rebrand.

Exactly, then you know at what level to deal with them. For instance, you could try to take him seriously, or you can treat him like this:



anti-de Sitter space said...

Incompetent staff work cannot be tolerated.

So go beat up your mom until her morale improves.


When Allied troops liberated the concentration camps in 1945, they found that if they let the prisoners gorge according to their hunger, they would die, from the systemic shock. You can't give the PJBs of the world too much intelligent response; they can't handle it.

Angel-Dyne said...

buwaya: But Freder, in what way is he a "sexist asshole", how can such a charge be made, without simply tossing out intellectual standards? He made a perfectly sincere, reasonable, well supported case.

Not in a million years could Freder articulate in what way Damore is a "sexist asshole" - that is, with reference to anything Damore actually wrote or said. Articulate a fantasy about what Damore said - either pulled out of his own ass or parrotted from some other source that doesn't reference anything Damore actually wrote or said - yes. (If by "articulate", we mean "hoot like an indignant chimpanzee".)

To be fair to Freder, nobody at Google or any of Google's defenders in the media were capable of articulating exactly what Damore said that was wrong or offensive, either. And the former are The Smartest People in the World; the latter, much much smarter than you.

Joshua Barker said...

I made the mistake of responding to a FB post about this guy by saying that it was disingenuous to accuse the guy of claiming that women were "biologically inferior"... because based on what I read, that was not his ultimate point... WHOA, I was not prepared for the SJW flame-fest response... I ended up losing a FB friend as a result... these people are coo-coo for coco-coco puffs...

Yancey Ward said...

I hope he gets to discovery stage- it should be hilarious.

DanTheMan said...

>>I hope he gets to discovery stage- it should be hilarious.

Bleachbit.

Jupiter said...

"Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the “Googley way,”as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers and they did so."

That would seem to be a very strong claim, if he can support it. I believe that allowing employees, particularly managers, to harass people at work is illegal even under federal law. Of course, one man's harassment is another woman's reasonable demand that a fellow employee be burned at the stake.

Vance said...

If you read his attached screenshots.... whoooo boy. Do not work at Google if you are to the right of Stalin, is all I am saying. They are openly advocating industry wide blacklists for conservatives and Trump voters. Textbook political discrimination; this stuff makes ol McCarthy look like a saint.

--Vance

ALP said...

Ugh, why do people discuss politics at work anyway? Drama junkies? I find there is quite enough tension with disagreements about legal strategy, client relations, etc. in my work day. I am constantly having to remind co-workers "No politics please. Pets, hobbies, cooking, Netflix, marital issues....plenty of subjects out there to choose from and if you don't like THAT there is no shortage of people that love that shit."

n.n said...

Bleachbit

Is that what Obama/Clinton/DNC used to clean Water Closet after Deep Plunger forced it to overflow?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Leftwing progressive communists are group-thinkers? no way!

buwaya said...

"Ugh, why do people discuss politics at work anyway? "

You may not want politics, but politics wants you. In this case it wasn't politics, it was HR policy - and everything to do with HR is, these days, political.

And then there are the cases, such as Brendan Eich, where the subject of the controversy simply made a political donation without saying anything at all in public or at work. And he was effectively fired for it.

n.n said...

why do people discuss politics at work anyway

Most people don't, but it can be inferred from topics that cover "pets, hobbies, cooking, Netflix, marital issues, etc.". Most people will consider but not exploit that knowledge.

Francisco D said...

I use Google mail.

During the primary and election, all the emails for donations to the Trump campaign went directly into junk mail.

Big Brother is watching and manipulating events.

Scott said...


">>I hope he gets to discovery stage- it should be hilarious.

Bleachbit."

I wouldn't be too sure about that. It is one thing for a old woman with no tech skills (who is in fact semi-proud of her ignorance) to claim that the data just 'disappeared', and quite another for a company whose reputation is built upon their ability to store and recall almost everything. If Google claimed that they 'lost' internal data such as this, it would not only be rather difficult to convince anyone that they actually did (and as a side matter, they have a ton of internal audit controls that would make it even harder to pull off), but their reputation and credibility would suffer as a result.

Lem said...

Appealing to a group think Court that he was fired because google promotes a group think environment.

holdfast said...

Blogger steve uhr said... "I stand corrected. California's discrimination laws are much broader than fed laws. Not good if you believe in smaller government"

Smaller government? I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing California?

But seriously, sometimes you have to use the weapons available, not the ones you might prefer. Or to crib from Alynsky, you have to make the enemy live up to his own rules.

walter said...

'sitter goes full shitter.

Che Dolf said...

My favorite part:

Curtis Yarvin has written about how "holiness spirals" drive leftist politics. Some employee at Google, which is undergoing its own holiness spiral, put Yarvin on a secret blacklist. When he showed up on campus to visit a friend working there, this "triggered a silent alarm, alerting security personnel to escort him off the premises."

mockturtle said...

why do people discuss politics at work anyway

In certain work environments, having a POV alien to the prevailing one is perceived as so unlikely that the prevailing POV [nearly always Prog] is taken for granted, therefore freely expressed. Some people I know--former friends and even family--were so shocked and outraged that I was supporting Trump that they couldn't believe it. Once they knew I was serious, they never spoke to me again.

Tim at large said...

Google, the most powerful search engine in the world, is now displaying fact checks for conservative publications in its results. No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment. And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made. - Daily Caller

Whodathunkit?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Funny- the MSM only fact checks "conservatives" too.

Luke Lea said...

Is California anti-discrimination law broader than the federal? What is the law exactly as it applies to this case?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Gahrie,

White (heterosexual) males are the only people you are allowed to discriminate against, and in many cases mandated to discriminate against.

This isn't true. In fact, it's the reverse of true, because a straight white man who exhibits rightthink will be fine. A straight white man who exhibits wrongthink is suddenly a "white nationalist" (not fine), but try being a conservative woman or black or Latino/Chicano or gay. Cf. Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Clarence Thomas, Milo Yiannopoulos. Steve Bannon lucked out, if you ask me.

Luke Lea said...

Here is something about the law in California: https://goo.gl/uLd1hD

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

why do people discuss politics at work anyway

Because it's assumed to be a safe subject, of course. Because we don't hire troglodytes like Trump supporters around here. Oh, wait, you're one? Avaunt, and quit my sight! Let the earth hide thee!

Seriously, in some workplaces it really is like that. Your coworkers have no clue that everyone else on the planet doesn't share their views.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"If you can't help but pollute your own brand, you need to re-brand every so often."

It's hardly an effective rebrand if you've intentionally kept your handle linked to the same thing since April of 2008.

Anywho, it's my (our?) sock puppets that are the real subterfuge in these threads.


Just sayin'

exiledonmainstreet said...

The next time a leftist brings up the Hollywood blacklist of the '50's, I'll burst out laughing.

Darrell said...

Fuck the Left.
Say it when you get up in the morning.
Say it throughout the day.
Say it after you say "Amen," after you close your eyes to sleep.

Google/Blogger may make this comment disappear because of their sophisticated Spam "algorithm" that doesn't take in account Althouse identifying my comments as "Not Spam" hundreds of times. I think it is because I posted links to some YouTube videos from people that are on Google's shit list over there. Like Paul Joseph Watson. Or I said "Fuck The Left."

Jupiter said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

"... a straight white man who exhibits rightthink will be fine."

You're mistaken. I have been explicitly told by people working on a team that I am a perfect fit for the job they are trying to fill, but the hiring manager will not even look at the resume of a white male. Never mind his politics. And as far as I know, that's perfectly legal, because it is intended to "remedy previous discrimination". In her defense, she was not biased against white males, as far as I know. She was just trying to get in good with top management by complying with their directives, and increase her bonus into the bargain. Why hire capable people when you can advance your career and improve your paycheck instead?

It was also very common that when no competent person applied for an open position, the manager would go with a "diversity hire". It got you points for diversity, and otherwise you'd just lose the position. Might as well increase your headcount, you never know when they'll decide to institute a 10% cut "across the board".

Gahrie said...

This isn't true. In fact, it's the reverse of true,

Really? Apparently no one has heard of this governmental program called Affirmative Action that explicitly discriminates against White males.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"you never know when they'll decide to institute a 10% cut "across the board"."

Actually, it sounds like such would be very knowable. Seeing as how you work for horrible managers who give zero Fs re getting work done. Lots of cuts should be expected.

[I'm assuming your not a gov employee. If your are, never mind the above sentiment.]

[[Or, ya could be in a private biz rent-seeking thing-y. Then, as w/ gov, never mind the silly concept re production.]]

[[[And, of course, there's the jackpot: i.e., private co that is rent-seeking via the gov. Then, really never mind my orig point.]]]

JaimeRoberto said...

I interviewed at Google about 10 years ago, but didn't get past the first round. They liked to remind me of how smart they were and how they only interview people from top universities. I got interest from only one interviewer, a white guy, but I don't think I would have been a good fit there anyway. The smug was hard to bear. I didn't get the sense that there was an SJW culture there, but I am not surprised, because a lot of the people had a similar attitude as the proto-SJWs at my company.

The weird question I was asked is how much green house paint is sold in the US every year. The don't really want an answer to those questions. They just want to see how you think. Do you just say "I dunno" or do you try to come up with a solution? I answered something along the lines of "There are about 300 million people in the US, about 3 people per household, so there are about 100 million homes. Let's ignore apartments for now, but we can adjust for that later. Taking a sample from my neighborhood, very few homes are green, let's call it 5%." At this point the interviewer cut me off and said my answer was good enough.

anti-de Sitter space said...

James,

Ya shoulda jabbered about growing organic vegies in your green house.



Rick said...

And as far as I know, that's perfectly legal, because it is intended to "remedy previous discrimination".

Remedying previous discrimination is not a legally valid reason to discriminate. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected this rationale which is why supporters of racial discrimination cite diversity instead.

ALP said...

More on discussing politics at work. I understand the responses here, but let me clarify, I include **people I agree with** in my "no politics" rule. Why? Even when interacting with someone you agree with 100%, the way they handle their anger/frustration with the world is often simply: Dump your anger and negative emotions on the nearest co-worker regardless of how little you know them. Bonus points for never noticing the glazed over look that the don't want to hear it OR never letting in a word in edgewise.

These interactions leave me feeling like a therapist that never collects on their bills. So it really isn't the policy positions at all, or even the assumption I am a liberal/democrat. Its the assumption of a certain emotional state: never ending anger simmering under the surface that is always ready to engage with another like mind in a constant state of needing to whine about politics. Again, ugh. I'd prefer to save my debating energy, focusing everything I've got drafting good legal arguments.

Kevin said...

Blacklist?

I'll bet it was more of a whitelist in reality.

Kevin said...

The Supreme Court explicitly rejected this rationale which is why supporters of racial discrimination cite diversity instead.

Exactly.

Want to watch a liberal's head explode? Explain how the law says black people are let into college to benefit white people.

3. 2. 1. Boom.

Karen said...

I don't think most of you read the complaint. There are lots of juicy parts like this:
"3
For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as “a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin” and “an expansive ornate building” presented a talk entitled “Living as a Plural Being” at an internal company event."

walter said...

I've heard him in interviews refer to his girlfriend.
But hey...could be a "composite".

buwaya said...

"For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as “a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin” and “an expansive ornate building” presented a talk entitled “Living as a Plural Being” at an internal company event."

I identify, alternately, as an amphibious reptile or as a mineral.
Talc, probably, as its slightly greenish and greasy to the touch.

walter said...

Lizard lives matter.

xpanxpunkx said...

I originally thought their case would be pretty weak as well, until I read the complaint. Powerline has it: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/01/up-from-google.php

Jupiter said...

Rick said...

"Remedying previous discrimination is not a legally valid reason to discriminate. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected this rationale which is why supporters of racial discrimination cite diversity instead."

News to me. You got a link? I'm talking employment, not college admissions. Universities can, and do, claim that having some blacks around is good for the other students. I call this the "petting zoo" theory of AA. But this claim amounts to reliance on an educational theory. An employer stating his occupational theory that "white males work better" would get short shrift from the courts. But the legal professionals at the immense corporation I worked for were quite confident that discriminating against white males was perfectly legal. Although they ended up hiring me anyway. There aren't a whole lot of people who can do what I do, much as they wish it were otherwise. And pretty much all of us are white or Asian males.

Rick said...

But the legal professionals at the immense corporation I worked for were quite confident that discriminating against white males was perfectly legal.

It is, but not because it is remedying past discrimination. It's legal because discriminating against white males is discriminating for others who provide "diversity". An admission such a program was intended to remedy past discrimination would render it illegal.

That's why the left has to pretend women & minorities provide uniqueness even as they argue anyone who thinks they are in any way different is sexist / racist. Uniqueness is critical to the diversity argument.

Jupiter said...

Rick said...

"It's legal because discriminating against white males is discriminating for others who provide "diversity"."

Again, have a link? What you seem to be saying is that an employer can claim that he "values diversity", and that gives him carte blanche to discriminate against whoever he likes, based upon whatever definition of diversity he chooses. But if he says that he "values conformity", that's a federal crime. I don't believe that either the laws or the courts allow an employer that much leeway in determining the criteria he will employ in hiring, nor that the term "diversity" has been thus privileged. I could certainly be wrong, and so could all those lawyers, but I'd want to see some evidence. Again, university admissions are a different matter.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Fernandistein said...
n.n said...
the so-called "corporate religious consensus".

No results found for "corporate religious consensus". Better stick to talking about dead babies and their ghosts.


Translate the text into Russian and search again.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Buwaya,I identify on Mondays, Wednesdays and alternate Saturdays as a pastrami on rye and the rest of the time as Eleanor of Aquitane except on Sundays and holy days of obligation, when I identify as Vatican City.

Jupiter said...

anti-de Sitter space said...
"you never know when they'll decide to institute a 10% cut "across the board"."

"Actually, it sounds like such would be very knowable. Seeing as how you work for horrible managers who give zero Fs re getting work done. Lots of cuts should be expected."

Well, I don't work there any more. And neither do a lot of other white and Asian guys. And in fact, they have been having a long string of major fuck-ups, that only seem to be getting worse. Big failures to execute, in fields where they used to just *perform*. Tick, tock, so to speak.

Doesn't seem to hurt the stock price, though. But I'll be selling mine as soon as the two-year wait for preferred tax treatment is up.

buwaya said...

Vatican City, thats pretty good.
Switch that to weekdays.
Thats a good reason to make them give you a bigger office.
I havent heard such a good space request justification in years.

Rick said...

Again, have a link?

No, I'm not a blogger to save links for future use. But I'll post one the next time I see an explanation.

I don't believe that either the laws or the courts allow an employer that much leeway in determining the criteria he will employ in hiring,

You cannot fire someone for being black. Conversely claiming it was for poor work converts the illegal to legal just as pious paeans to diversity make discrimination legal. Words and framing matter quite a lot in law.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Rick,

And the wonderful irony is that the point of "diversity" is that the "diverse" people are there to enhance the education of the white males. The black and brown (and female) are there so that the white men get a better education. I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. It's all in Bakke, which is where "diversity" originated.

Jupiter said...

Rick said...

"You cannot fire someone for being black."

Somewhat amusingly, it turns out that "blacks", the poster children for Affirmative Action, aren't really players in this space. They can't do this shit, they haven't got the IQ, and that just has to be recognized. They get hired into various support positions, but women are the chief beneficiaries of the whole preferences game. They mostly aren't actually able to do the work, but they can talk the talk in a big way. In fact, they tend to be better than men at manipulating the HR bullshit, probably
because of their lack of commitment to the idea of objective truth.

stlcdr said...

I suspect, just like a lot of companies, the very few people who make Google ‘tick’ are probably white or Asian and get everything they need to make sure google remains big and getting bigger: the star players. Everyone else are actually just grunts doing the grunt work, and all can be replaced - based on some abstract sociopolitical drive.

Ironically, it’s relatively easy to find a grunt high-tech worker. What’s difficult is to find a decent electrician or plumber.

Rick said...

And the wonderful irony is that the point of "diversity" is that the "diverse" people are there to enhance the education of the white males.

Yes, the contradictions are wonderful as they prove the SC and supporters were just looking for a justification rather than following the law. I'm also amused when blacks claim it's racist to be expected to provide the "black perspective" as if that's not the entire basis of diversity. They agree with us even as they argue we're racist for opposing diversity.

This is where abandoning principles leads.

James Graham said...

When this story broke I replaced my Google link with Bing.

PB said...

A key HR tool at many high tech companies in Silicon Valley is the federal political contributions database. If you give money to Republicans, you aren't getting hired. Not only does HR use it, but the employees who interview candidates do, too.

PB said...

Use DuckDuckGo for your search engine