Image 01 Image 03

Google Diversity Memo – Weaponizing giant social media companies to silence dissent

Google Diversity Memo – Weaponizing giant social media companies to silence dissent

Silencing of dissenting voices on campus has moved to social media giants, with profound implications

The controversy regarding Google (former) employee James Damore may have peaked, but it’s not going away.

Most of the mainstream and tech media coverage has been completely dishonest. As mentioned in my first post about the diversity memo Damore wrote, the media was describing the memo and Damore as being “anti-diversity.” That plainly was false, as I wrote in Google Senior Engineer commits diversity heresy:

A Google Senior Engineer circulated internally at the company a 10-page memo addressing diversity and why there might be an achievement gap between men and women for the tech skills valued by Google. He did not address diversity gaps generally, only in High Tech (which he defined as Software Engineering). So the gap at issue was in Software Engineering, and that’s what his memo addressed.

People went crazy, grossly exaggerating the nature of the memo….

While the memo is being regularly described as “anti-diversity,” a plain reading of the document shows that is not accurate. The Senior Engineer does not question diversity as a goal, but does question the explanations given as to why it is not being achieved in High Tech.

By falsely portraying the memo as anti-diversity, and Damore as anti-woman and anti-gender equality, the media poisons the discussion of the substantive points made by Damore.

The Federalist collected numerous examples of this dishonest media coverage, Here Are All The Media Outlets Blatantly Lying About The Google Memo.

Alexandra DeSanctis at National Review points out many examples

For example, Recode and Gizmodo — both of which republished the memo in full — removed every single one of Damore’s extensive links and graphs, which had provided rigorous data and research to substantiate his argument. There is absolutely no reason for a site to erase that context, other than to vilify the author and make his argument appear less credible.

Gizmodo also gave the memo the fair-and-balanced label “anti-diversity screed,” as did pieces in The Atlantic and HuffPost, Reuters, ABC News, New York magazine, CNBC, USA Today, and The Guardian referred to it as an “anti-diversity memo.” Vox, meanwhile,went a little further, calling it a “sexist screed . . . arguing for less emphasis on gender diversity in the workplace” and describing its publication as an act of “hostility.”

CNN classified the memo as an “anti-diversity manifesto” and tweeted, incorrectly, that it “argues women aren’t suited for tech jobs.” Such an argument didn’t appear once in the memo. Either CNN’s reporters decided to write about the memo without having read it, or they intentionally misrepresented its content.

Here is another example I noticed today, a thoroughly dishonest characterization at Wired:

Motherboard used the false “anti-diversity” language to report that Internal Reactions to Google Employee’s Manifesto Show Anti-Diversity Views Have Support:

“Honestly, more people have been agreeing with it than I would like,” a current Google employee who spoke to Motherboard on the condition of anonymity told us. Motherboard is granting Google employees anonymity because of the company’s notoriously strict confidentiality agreement. The employee said the comments they saw came in internal company email threads.

“From what I’ve seen it’s been a mix of women saying, ‘This is terrible and it’s been distracting me from my work and it shouldn’t be allowed;’ Men and women saying ‘this is horrible but we need to let him have a voice;’ and men saying ‘This is so brave, I agree,'” the employee said.

Meanwhile, there has been notable support for Damore’s analysis of the reasons why discrimination may not be the primary explanation for the gender gap in Software Engineering. Deborah Soh at The Globe and Mail writes, No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science. Cathy Young at USA Today writes, Googler fired for diversity memo had legit points on gender.

But none of the reasoned discussion has much impact with screaming false headlines and story lines about the “anti-diversity” memo and the anti-equality Google guy.

Where is this going legally? The NY Times reported on Damore’s plan to protect his legal plans:

In a short email exchange on Monday after his firing, Mr. Damore, who was a senior software engineer in Google’s search division, said he had not expected this type of reaction when he shared his missive last week.

“As far as I know, I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does,” he said. Mr. Damore said he would probably take legal action against the company.

Damore also has given interviews to non-mainstream media. Can you blame him considering how dishonest the mainstream and tech media has been?

This is an edited interview with Jordan Peterson (who has had his own run-ins with political correctness on campus). In the interview, Damore presents himself as speaking out and objecting to illegal racially discriminatory conduct at Google. He notes that his memo was presented to Google in that context because he hoped to improve Google’s conduct. This has all the hallmarks of someone who will claim some sort of protected status:

Tonight brings reports that Damore has filed an NRLB complaint. That’s a curious choice. I’m not familiar enough with NLRB protections, which normally pertain to union or collective bargaining activity, to offer much insight. Gizmodo has the complaint:

The complaint, as filed to NLRB, alleges that Alphabet violated the National Labor Relations Act in the following specific ways:

since on or about august 2, 2017, the above-named employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights protected by Section 7 of the Act by threatening employees because of their protected concerted activities and by making threats of unspecified reprisals against employees because of their protected concerted activities,

According to the NLRB website, Section 7 mostly pertains to workers’ right to unionize, and guarantees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” A “concerted activity” is described as an activity related to the right workers have to “address work-related issues in many ways.”

US Labor Complaint (Redacted) by Dell Cameron on Scribd

I don’t know if this explanation by Gizmodo is correct or not, it just seems curious to me that Damore’s first move was to file with the NLRB. California’s notoriously pro-employee anti-discrimination laws, which protect the right of employees to complain about discrimination without retaliation, would seem to me a more logical legal path.

The media coverage and the legal wrangling involving Damore are important, but to me there’s a bigger point here.

The insanity of the campus long ago migrated to corporations. In part that was a legal strategy, in greater part it’s because a generation of social justice warriors now inhabit positions of power, or at least positions that allow them to demand action from people in positions of power.

That has profound implications for companies like Google, Facebook and others in Silicon Valley who control and have access to enormous amounts of our personal data and communications, and on which we depend to transmit ideas. Already we have numerous complaints about conservatives being silenced on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

Is it really that great a leap to expect that within a decade the people at Google demanding that James Damore be exiled from the company and rendered unhireable will use that power against non-employees?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Actually, filing with the NLRB makes sense now that Trump has appointed some non-liberals to it. If CA arbitrarily rules against him, he’s got a federal string to his bow.

What’s next, Stasi police at Google?

Pelosi Schmelosi | August 9, 2017 at 9:40 pm

Funny how the Right has all three branches of govt and yet the Left has all the power….no not really…

Google and Facebook scream on and on about net neutrality and the risk of cable companies censoring the Internet.

When Google and FB are and will be the ones who censor the Internet the most.

    That’s utter BS.

    Yes Goolag and Facebook are for net neutrality is. But you know what the most PC “internet company is”? The biggest? AT&T.

    AT&T was more PC then Goolag is now in the 90s, before most internet companies existed.

    Net neutrality is the principle that AT&T and other other ISPs cannot examine the packets they deliver. They can only deliver them. Now the reason AT&T does not want it is sdo they can look at packets and charge more if they come from Netflix or their competitors, but they can also filter packets.

    Goolag cannot stop me from getting Drudge, Breitbart, LI or any other website I want. If I don’t like their search I can go someplace else. But ( by FCC records) about 75% of Americans have only one choice for ISP ( unless you are willing to pay 3-4 times as much for a business line ).

    Things are even worse because Goolag at least have their board which can be convinced. Who makes the decision for AT&T? THE SJWs go to AT&T lawyers and say “if you do not cut off Drudge we will sue you for sexual harassment”, the lawyers go to the managers and say “cut off Drudge or we will be sued”. There is no one making the decision, it’s the machinery. There is no appeal.

    Do you want to give your only ISP to cut off your access from parts of the internet?

    Matt_SE in reply to PrincetonAl. | August 10, 2017 at 12:58 am

    Like the Nazis v. the Communists, they’re competitors not enemies.

With every passing day, and each new social justice absurdity; I feel like I’m watching free speech in this country suffer death by a thousand paper cuts.

I don’t think many reporters can comprehend what Damore wrote.

You know, I know this article is about the PC oppression of Google and the level to which identity and gender politics has sunk.

But when I look at that picture all I can think is,

God DAMN that’s a huge nose.

Information brokers who censor WrongThought cannot be trusted. If you found out your stock broker had lied to you about Enron, would you still use him?

“Social Justice” is clearly a religion. Damore was fired for not subscribing to the tenets of that religion. Why not bring suit against Google on the grounds of religious discrimination.

    TX-rifraph in reply to Asher. | August 10, 2017 at 4:05 am

    Not just a religion but a religious cult where one may not question any dogma. Cultists know at some level that facts are threats so 100% belief must be enforced.

    “Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.”
    ― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

    “The loyalty of the true believer is to the whole — the church, party, nation — and not to his fellow true believer.”
    ― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

    “The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ.”
    ― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

James Damore gives interview to Jordan Peterson

James Damoree gives interview to Stefan Molyneux

PS: Professor the new name of the company is Goolag.

The left doesn’t tolerate dissent. That’s why CNN, the Daily Beast, Time Magazine, the National Journal and MSN News have all discontinued reader comments.

    kenoshamarge in reply to bw222. | August 10, 2017 at 11:27 am

    Conservative Review has also stopped allowing comments. I don’t blame any of them. The comments in many cases are simply name-calling and attacks on the writers. Discussion is seldom to be seen.

The legal departments of all the tech giants (Gulag included) recently filed a joint friend brief (sorry don’t know the term) ascribing how they would be financially hurt if all the LGBT laws aren’t passed at local levels.

They went to great lengths to describe how someone with a tranny kid would not relocate if the local school didn’t have a tranny friendly bathroom. Wow.

However firing someone for disagreeing with a policy that is horridly anti male would appear to have no negative blowback on recruiting talent from a talent base that is primarily male.

I think it would behoove him to use their words against them…

    legalizehazing in reply to Andy. | August 10, 2017 at 3:30 am

    Isn’t that just insane. For all the complaints about corporations from the left and the left’s HORRID economics(etcetcetcetcetc) they sure are strange bedfellows

Everything Goolag does should now be seen through this prism. Their corporate leadership is rotten and probably criminal. They encourage hatred among their employees, judging by the kind of vitriol they tolerated on their intranet in response to this mild criticism..

Goolag is quite led by either criminals or zealots.

Everything you are worried about will happen – if you sit by passively and watch it happen.

You – and all of us – need to passionately act in every which way we can. Only we are going to save our liberty.

The left is trying to take it, and the scum of the GOP is trying to help them. Damn McConnell, McCain, McMaster, McRyan and the rest of the McGOPe scum to full-time unemployment.

If I was a Google shareholder is be more worried about the fact there us an entire industry aimed at “Diversity” than an employee wanting to highlight diversity issues.

All these dead resources must be sucjubg huge amounts of money out of the organisation for SFA in return apart from, in this case, bad pr!

I’m sorry. I read the article on the road. When I got home I commented and forget the fact that you linked to the Jordan interview.

There is an aspect of that act that precedence has established: it is illegal for employers to ban employees from talking to each other about their salaries ( or I gather other working conditions ). In fact I seem to remember Google beeing involved in some sort of action about this.

There are a lot of complexities to this case. From previous stories and what he told Peterson, he was subjected to a secret meeting where illegal practices were advocated. At a company that makes it a policy not to have secret meetings.

He forwarded the memo to a select group of people sitting on some committee ( I forget what they were called ) which is supposed to hear such things and encourages employees to complain. Someone in the group outed the memo.

Considering that many on this forums are lawyers or associated with lawyers, I would hope that someone gets in touch with him and makes sure he has proper legal representation.

This is not the only such event. I pointed out before the SJW took over github:

We are seeing a slow take over of the tech sector like we have seen in the past with Universities. It’s time to act before we lose this critical sector.

I forgot to say: I would hope Congress gets involved and asks the CEO of Google why they need H1Bs when they can afford to fire guys like this.

legalizehazing | August 10, 2017 at 3:19 am

Most multinational corporations have difficulty firing employees on a whim… let alone a malicious case like this.

I’m curious what the long run result will be

Damore knows that to solve a problem, one must accurately assess and describe the problem. The left must shut down such behavior because the left does not want the problem solved. Totalitarian behavior needs problems to use as excuses for the “solutions” and controls that it imposes on people.

Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia must always be in a state of war. North Korea must always be at war. The left must always be in a state of war.

The left must be defeated.

James Damore is owed a yuge thank you for cracking open Pandorax Box:

Is Google going to be a search engine or a safe space? Can’t be both.

Is science going to be empirically correct or politically correct?

Is education about teaching individuals how to think or what to think?

Are social media “technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information” (Wikipedia) or tools for the censorship and suppression of ideas.

Are those protected by the First Amendment (like, say, the MSM) truly committed to preserving those rights for all?

Can the relentless corrosion of our liberties be reversed?

Can any of this even be discussed?

Don’t ignore the stealth censorship at FakeBook and Twatter. This has become a pervasive problem which has infected many large companies as well. Then there is academia.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 10, 2017 at 9:46 am

Reminds me of the Shirley Sherrod/Breitbart dispute. ProfJ proved without a doubt that the media was dishonestly reporting the controversy. But it did not matter. They had a “narrative” and they were not going to deviate from it. To this day most people familiar with the incident who don’t read this blog have a false impression of what happened. Sad.

I thought Damore’s interview with Stefan Molyneux was better than the one he gave to Professor Jordan Peterson (who I like a lot and is developing a plan to crush gender/ethnic studies – the foundation of social justice warriorism – from the bottom up.
Stay tuned.) Peterson dominated the interview and didn’t let Damore speak as much as I would have liked. Molyneux let Damore speak more.

Finally, to see how committed Google is to radical PC culture, Google the term “American inventors”.

“I don’t think many reporters can comprehend what Damore wrote.”

What makes you think they read it? I don’t doubt that most reporters are ignorant of even the rudiments of statistical analysis, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if reporters sourced this entirely by going to whatever contacts they have at Google and just couldn’t be bothered with actually reading the essay.

If Damore had realized the consequences perhaps he would taken more time to refine his essay, for as it is written it reads as a first draft, hastily banged out and submitted. Presumably he expected it would spark discussion within Google and not that it would bring down the hammer of authority; nonetheless, it would surely have benefited from a few edit-revision cycles.

bottom line: who watches the watchers

Come Google, put your money were your mouth is, implement a diversity program and demand the 50% of engineers be female!

See how fast the dominance crumbles!

Or you can go on making billions being hypocrites, bigots and liars!

    heyjoojoo in reply to Merlin01. | August 10, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    Start with females, then african american, then Buddhists, then trannies, etc… when will this madness end?!

Henry Hawkins | August 10, 2017 at 9:46 pm

A left wing, super PC, SJW, Diversity As God corporation such as Google is the perfect setting to watch management eventually run out of victims and start eating their own. What constitutes an offense by needs will get smaller, punier, and sillier because that’s all these leftist totalitarian fascists know how to do – find offense and attack the perceived offender. They won’t stop when they run out of free-thinkers within the company. This snake will inevitably swallow and choke on its own tail. Damore will be far from the only Google employee struggling with such wrongthink. He may well have just burst a dam.

Henry Hawkins | August 10, 2017 at 9:48 pm

I smell a James O’Keefe video coming on.