• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
spygirl

2017 Bellend of the year

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SNACR said:

Ok, struggling with this without a link.....

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/05/theres-an-anti-diversity-manifesto-circulating-around-google/

2 minutes ago, Libspero said:

Didn't he just call them out on their ridiculous PC "diversity" culture?

I've not followed the story very closely,  but I think you spelt "hero" wrong in the thread title.

Ive bitched about past companies  dumb fuck policies.

I didnt circulate a 10 page memo on them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I concur sounds like a bellend biggest problem is he tried to engage with them with by agreeing with some of their nonsense. Seems a bit like one of those blokes who think they're going to get to shag lefty women by going along with their batshit crazy feminism only for them to shag some scaffolder, in a pub toilet, after he wolf-whistled at them when they walked past.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think he was trying to make a fair point about the fact men and women are not equal - and thus got fired for it. 

He maybe a bit geeky but he's hardly bellend of the year material. Plenty of other worthy candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure him having a 10 page "manifesto" makes him more of a bellend than Google for having a ??? page corporate manifesto.

He probably could have saved a lot of effort by just pinning this up in the canteen though:

Pay_gap_myth.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has been fired.

Meanwhile Google is apparently removing, or threatening to remove, youtube channels of those whose political opinions they do not agree with - i.e. claiming that such people are promoting intolerance, racism, etc, etc. This video from the Rebel sums it up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly not my field but what's to stop the current YouTubers who feel censored and threatened from moving en masse to a separate platform? Video.me is a valid alternative AFAIK; if they go and take their audience with them then YouTube descends into iPlayer political correctness and loses the youth vote and the advertising revenue.

At the moment it's all pleading to not be censored / banned whereas the correct response is to stop trying to appease and just decamp.

If they want a successful precedent to emulate well, we're here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It's certainly not my field but what's to stop the current YouTubers who feel censored and threatened from moving en masse to a separate platform? Video.me is a valid alternative AFAIK; if they go and take their audience with them then YouTube descends into iPlayer political correctness and loses the youth vote and the advertising revenue.

At the moment it's all pleading to not be censored / banned whereas the correct response is to stop trying to appease and just decamp.

If they want a successful precedent to emulate well, we're here!

 

Youtube has been removing adverts - i.e. advertising revenue - from certain youtube channels for some time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It's certainly not my field but what's to stop the current YouTubers who feel censored and threatened from moving en masse to a separate platform? Video.me is a valid alternative AFAIK; if they go and take their audience with them then YouTube descends into iPlayer political correctness and loses the youth vote and the advertising revenue.

At the moment it's all pleading to not be censored / banned whereas the correct response is to stop trying to appease and just decamp.

If they want a successful precedent to emulate well, we're here!

It's not very healthy for (mostly) reasonable political opinions to be isolated to different platforms where they will essentially have free reign and naturally become more extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

It's not very healthy for (mostly) reasonable political opinions to be isolated to different platforms where they will essentially have free reign and naturally become more extreme.

 

No. But that is what is happening. It has happened in traditional media and now the likes of Google, Facebook are politicising big time. Google has been doing it for years re appeasing China but it now appears to have turned its attention to influencing and dictating what people can say on their enormous platforms here in the West. Lest we forget TOS and their concerns about offending Google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Google's statement on the matter:

Quote

... let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it.

... So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.

... there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent.

And they even manage to get my pet hate SJW fucktard expression in.

So people must feel free to express dissent, but Google must feel free to sack them for it. As for believing that the vast majority of Googlers agree with them, I suspect that just demonstrates quite how far up their own arse they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was he a bellend to try and redpill one of the biggest global corporations in the world, or a bellend for speaking up when he should have kept quiet and took the salary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It's certainly not my field but what's to stop the current YouTubers who feel censored and threatened from moving en masse to a separate platform? Video.me is a valid alternative AFAIK; if they go and take their audience with them then YouTube descends into iPlayer political correctness and loses the youth vote and the advertising revenue.

At the moment it's all pleading to not be censored / banned whereas the correct response is to stop trying to appease and just decamp.

If they want a successful precedent to emulate well, we're here!

If someone like The Rebel or someone else on my sub list moved exclusively to vid.me then I would follow them.

23 minutes ago, Fossildog said:

Don't think YouTube is censoring per se, just blocking advertising on videos that they feel conflict with its values which means the creator of the video does not make money from them. Their house, their rules I suppose. 

They deleted Jordan Peterson's account with no warning or explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 201p said:

Was he a bellend to try and redpill one of the biggest global corporations in the world, or a bellend for speaking up when he should have kept quiet and took the salary?

 

Most of these Silicon Valley tech firms make a big deal of their openness culture - everyone is supposedly meant to be free to speak out about how they feel about the company in order to enhance it, make it a better place to work, make more money. In practice, from my personal observations, it is often just a ploy to weed out those who have not succumbed to the drone brainwashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything in his memo is demonstrably true.

He's been sacked because political correctness, and the "we're all the same" culture is a now a religion, and unbelievers must be persecuted.

Burn him! :PissedOff:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny.  The initial point of his memo was that you've got to be careful not to just silence any opinion that is different to yours through some kind of moral outrage.  

I have read the memo.  Some of it is a bit stupid, but quite a bit of it seems reasonableish at first glance.  

I do wonder about distributional effects on all gender issues.  

So, it might be the characteristic to become a top leader are [whatever], and these characteristics are exhibited in 3% of males and 2% of females (say).  Then you'd get 50% more male leaders.  At that point you might say 'we need more female leaders' and encourage 3% of women into leadership.  But you're now supporting 'a quality of leader' based on gender, and supporting females outside of the 2% 'leadership group' and ignoring males who are also outside the leadership group. The decision is intrinsically sexist.

Or what about asking for a pay rise, which is pushed about as one of the reasons for gender differences in pay (so employers have to be more thoughtful).  Maybe 30% of males and 20% of females are aggressive and push for a pay rise.  This would result in a pay gap between men and women.  So you introduce systems to equalise opportunity of pay rises for women.  But what about the 70% of males who aren't aggressive in their pay negotiations -- is it just tough, just their fault for not being aggressive enough?

Anyway, the guy is clearly a moron because everyone knows that you don't criticise the new religion publicly, as you'll end up a social pariah. 

 

I was listening to 'the listening project'* on R4 the other day and there were two women talking who were the first brickies from the first women's only bricklayer course.  They were going on about how they (well, at least one) had given up because it was too physically demanding for a woman.  Seems that gender differences are okay to be discussed when they're being discussed by a female.

[* which is dreadful, but which is not quite annoying enough for me to bother to turn it off, especially when I was only there for a minute.  Unlike, say, 'The Archers']

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 201p said:

Was he a bellend to try and redpill one of the biggest global corporations in the world, or a bellend for speaking up when he should have kept quiet and took the salary?

Can't recall Morpheus writing a ten page manifesto for Neo though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SNACR said:

Ok, I concur sounds like a bellend biggest problem is he tried to engage with them with by agreeing with some of their nonsense. Seems a bit like one of those blokes who think they're going to get to shag lefty women by going along with their batshit crazy feminism only for them to shag some scaffolder, in a pub toilet, after he wolf-whistled at them when they walked past.

 

Perfection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.