How do you recycle depreciable electronics

Deus ex machina

A young man from an elite university joins Google and experiences the corporate culture with its relaxed flair - at least on the surface. He rises to the middle level of the company and sees meetings and events that are about diversity - the goal of keeping the company open to people of all origins, religions and sexual orientations. The theories suggest that a company with diversity is better able to adapt to its customers and develop suitable products. The young man does not doubt that when he sits down at his computer during a business trip to China and writes:

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.

He values ​​diversity and inclusion, he recognizes the existence of sexism; and he rejects the use of stereotypes. That's good - actually. And then he continues:

When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem

His concern is about the proper representation of the different groups in the company, and he thinks that there is a need to talk about differences in these groups - if you didn't do that, there would be no real solution. In short, he also finds that the current gender representation is incorrect. He supports the goals of diversity and thinks that one should therefore take a closer look at the groups involved and talk about them openly in order to get a better result.

He does that too. He does not say that women cannot program, but he does argue that women, on average, as a group are more interested in social interaction, while men as a group, on average, prefer to deal with things and are more eager for status. Women would have more problems asserting themselves in salary negotiations. With the currently practiced form of work at Google, this leads to a preference for men, so the company would have to accommodate the skills of women -

and do not consider the oppression of women as the sole cause, and rule out all other possible reasons in advance. But that would happen with Google because there other points of view are suppressed, hindered and excluded. Instead, try a funding practice at Google that ignores the real problems. Diversity is a primary goal to which the company has to subordinate itself with its business, and this is confirmed again and again by the social pressure in the echo chamber, without discussion or questioning. The man writes down his proposal, substantiates his theses with graphics and quotations, clearly states that he does not want a generalization, invites discussion, and gives the whole thing the startling title:

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber
How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion

To break that down to a handy example: It will hardly be possible to inspire a woman to grasp heartily into an oily bicycle chain. The question now is whether one understands the oily bicycle chain as discrimination against women and tries to change the principle of the oily chain in such a way that the proportion of women reaching into it rises to the level of men - many of whom, incidentally, also shy away from such work . Or do you say to yourself that women just don't like getting their hands dirty, and this attitude is accommodated by offering them rubber gloves. That's still not a guarantee that women will, but it definitely accommodates the small gender differences. And of course there are women who also like to join the chain. Only, one should offer sensible solutions to the average woman ..

You can also tell the same thing about areas in which men are underrepresented out of ignorance or reluctance or other interests: Cooking is not necessarily a male domain - as long as you don't put a grill on men (on average, you can chase me away with a barbecue, I like silverware ). Or: Intuitive usability also suits men who are traditionally hostile to user descriptions (on average, I can do everything) (as all men on average believe).

Looking at this average is called in America, if one is malicious, advancing harmful gender stereotypes - like the above representation of a nerd apartment on Google. The author of the 10-page text James Damore has distanced himself from stereotypes. But he was unlucky that his text on the Google intranet was initially ignored. But slowly he was discussed because of his criticism of the existing conditions, there were outraged reactions, the memo was forwarded to the gossip and trash site Gizmodo, where a version was created with quotes and graphics, and this version was branded as sexism. So the #Googlememo was born, and because the first “sexism” screamed, everyone screamed it, the media shouted along with it, claiming that the memo claims that women cannot program and that is why they are not making any headway on Google.

And this despite the fact that the memo is on the Internet and, as explained above, advocates new, better and at the same time all employees acceptable ways to more diversity in programming jobs. It only denies that discrimination is the only reason for the development so far, and also attributes it to different gender attitudes on average. But in the end that went completely under, and so you could see how the author was hounded by the press on both sides of the Atlantic, with allegations that he did not even make - and was ultimately fired by Google. Because of “advancing harmful gender stereotypes”. After his release, Nina Bovensiepen, a leading employee of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, wrote this:

She probably did not understand the goals of the non-anti-feminist, non-macho, non-men's rights, non-right-wing extremist, inclusive, diversity-demanding memo, which is also not a manifesto and was never intended to be so, in its goals, and spread the word with the term "white men" exactly what Damore was supposed to be: blanket gender stereotypes, provided with racism and sexism. In addition: if you as an old, white man really don't want any change, you don't celebrate a memo that calls for more change. At most, white men cannot see themselves confirmed by Damores' stupid assessment that modern companies are actually intolerant when it comes to gender and diversity ideology, silence those who think differently and, if the mob on the Internet lies just loud enough, fire them immediately. Even because of an internal text that advocates diversity. In addition, Google employees promised in the changed “work environment” demonstrably to punish supporters of Damore's theses. There actually are: in a survey, a majority spoke out against his dismissal.

Now the outrage on the Internet for James Damore and Google has a history: Damore claims to have experienced diversity training that is reminiscent of sect-like rituals and is problematic under labor law because of the possible discrimination against men. Breitbart made a whole series about annoyed male Google employees because the fall of America's alternative conservatives in their conflicts with the regressive left comes to the fore. Google itself, like the rest of Silicon Valley, is under pressure over government investigations, lawsuits, and reports of sexism. In the case of James Damore, Google was able to show that it was fighting sexism with little effort, thereby creating a complainant martyr. What follows is a comparatively open debate, which, in contrast to the first reactions and the uniform German condemnation, is complex, interesting and not incomprehensible. The New York Times sided with Damore in an opinion piece, supported his theses - and called for the resignation of the Google CEO.

Ultimately, Damore had tried to scientifically support his theses. The progressive magazine Slate, loyal to the line, responded to the effort with the text of a feminist who advocated no longer equating science with truth.

With this dominance of the regressive left, Damore arrived in the same witch hunt that Richard Dawkins, Tim Hunt, the victims of American rape hoaxes, Jörg Kachelmann and Jacob Appelbaum had to experience: a wave of outrage that did not support the opinion of the accused in the least interested and don't have to do that. In the face of a campaign for a later convicted Gina Lisa, ministers can stand up for their team and do not have to resign. Representatives of the media have no professional consequences to fear even in the event of gross misrepresentation: After all, it is about the good cause if you peddled Oktoberfest lies. In this climate of ignorance towards those who think differently, Damore has long since made his mark as a sexist, misogynist and new right wing - because, mind you, he wanted to talk about other and better ways to achieve more diversity and criticized the very processes that were carried out on him. Here is an example from ZEIT with the manifest fake news:

Perhaps the Bovensiepens, Valentis and agents of this world think that they have shown how little reality is needed when it comes to achieving the right goals. For me, as what is commonly referred to as an old, white man, the lesson is a different one: It is of no use if you are committed to the noble goal, but only want to deviate slightly on the way there. Whoever does that is just as damned and reviled as someone who does not set an inland I and rides the subway with his legs apart. It's like the failed wiki agent: all dissenters are lumped together, all are insulted in the same way - and all who do it hate Trump and prefer Clinton. The Google vice president for diversity and governance, whom Damore strongly condemned at an early stage, helped Clinton in the election campaign.

An election campaign after which many were shocked why so many men, including well-educated men, had voted for Trump. And so many privileged white women. Why Clinton could mainly count on women from minorities - the main sponsors of diversity policy. Commentators scolded the false voters back then as they scold the Damore understanders today: They wouldn't understand that the right path is another, and just for selfish reasons would not do what Clinton and most of the media wanted: A better world. A world like Google's Mountain View Campus, the epitome of the other, better, liberal America. The future.

What this future looks like from the editorial offices of Gizmodo with their forgers to the perpetuation of stereotypes and enemy images - the nerds, the white men - in Germany has been impressively seen. The future wasn't exactly overflowing with the social skills of women, so praised by Damore, if they call themselves feminists. It may be that Trump makes questionable political decisions, understands nothing about politics, and uses his tone against Iran and North Korea. These are problematic states with nuclear armaments. Damore is just an employee who has written down what he thinks in a discussion paper for internal use, and he certainly does not think that way alone. For these thinking, but hardly represented in the media, the Trump Administration is possibly only the fourth worst of all possible worlds - but still far ahead of the mullahs, Kim Jong Un and the brave new world of forced diversity with people's tribunal and public social execution of the counter-revolutionaries which is now noticeably separated from the New York Times.

To press
Send post by email

With feminist ignorance from Googlememo to Goolag

From Don Alphonso

An error has occurred. Please check your entries.

Send post by email

Many Thanks
The post was sent successfully.