It’s time to brace for another hit to my search engine rankings, as I write yet another blog post on Silicon Valley’s brutal discrimination and identitarianism.
Wall Street Journal, famous for its misleading journalism to suit its own agenda, had the temerity to betray its own ideologues by pointing out the discriminatory hiring practices at YouTube.
Yesterday’s WSJ article highlights Arne Wilberg’s lawsuit against Google that alleges YouTube has been proactively screening applicants based on race and gender:
YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn’t help the world’s largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee.
The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of AlphabetInc.’s Google set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims.
No surprise, I guess I’m now eligible to be double blacklisted from Silicon Valley. An article I wrote describes how critics of “social justice” ideology are put on shared blacklists among Silicon Valley employers, primarily to maintain ideological conformity and avoid viewpoint diversity. That would be the first reason I’d be blacklisted. The second reason is now because of this allegation of racist hiring practices, a practice that is almost a certain likelihood now, and was also likely happening back when I was working for big tech.
It sounds like it has gotten much worse now, not to my surprise.
While I applaud WSJ’s reporting on the lawsuit itself, its standards of objective journalism still appear to be lacking. It doesn’t really matter whether Wilberg was a “white male” or not, the matter of fact is that these discriminatory practices were taking place and anyone worth their merit should be arguing against such policy. Many skilled so-called “minority” employees exist, but it would be much more comforting to all employees to know they were hired based on merit and not the colour of their skin, their chromosomes or some other superficial feature.
A Google spokeswoman said the company will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. “We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” she said in a statement. “At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”
You can’t just say “at the same time” between two statements that inherently contradict each other. Saying you have a policy to hire on merit and not on identity can’t be immediately followed by unapologetically trying to find diversity. It’s logically incoherent, unless, of course, she’s openly admitting to violating policy in favour of pursuing ideology.
If they were serious about hiring on merit, then interviews would be blind to race, gender, baldness, height, weight, shoe size, or whatever superficial quality the ideologues want to focus on. If a dog can code the next algorithm that cures cancer, then hire the dog based on its merit, not because you want more animals in the workplace. Test the candidate without letting stereotypes and visual discrimination get in the way.
Google in particular has found itself in the middle of the gender debate following dueling lawsuits in January, one that alleged the company discriminated against women, the other claiming discrimination against conservative white men. The latter suit was filed by plaintiff James Damore, an engineer who was fired from the company last year for distributing a memo that suggested men were better suited to certain tech jobs than women. Google has said it disagrees with the allegations in those suits.
Wall Street Journal’s lack of journalistic accuracy strikes again. Which makes me wonder whether their article is objectively true or not to begin with, but I digress.
James Damore’s memo never suggested men were “better suited” to certain tech jobs than women. Clearly WSJ didn’t read the memo. For anyone siding with WSJ (and Google), read the entire memo for yourself (and keep an open, objective mind, not letting emotional bias cloud your interpretation of Damore’s writing). It’s a good test whether you understand fundamental evolutionary biology or not, and whether you like to conveniently accept scientific proof when it suits you and reject it when it does not.
The gist of Damore’s memo, although much more nuanced as suggested by the size of the memo, is that men are generally more inclined to work in technical fields, and the distribution of men in tech versus women reflect this distribution of interest. If the goal really is to intervene with the natural choices of men and women and coerce more women to get into Google, Damore’s suggestion in his memo would be to simulate the environment of fields that women are generally more inclined to work in.
In Scandinavian countries where the freedom of opportunity is a cultural norm and the sexes are left to their own will to choose their life paths literally from birth, it is no surprise that fields in healthcare and education are dominated by women and tech and construction are dominated by men. It is an accurate representation of the distributions, driven by biology and evolution, outlining the paths of interest, and has nothing to do with intelligence in any particular field.
You have a lot of smart men, specifically in their field of expertise, working in tech. There are smart women in tech too. There just happens to be many more men interested in tech than women. On the flip side, you have a lot of smart women, specifically in their field of expertise, working in healthcare. There are smart men in healthcare too. There just happens to be many more women interested in nursing than men.
To suggest the imbalanced gender ratios in either field are a sign of systematic discrimination is pleading ignorance to the fundamental nature of humans. Instead, Silicon Valley is actively trying to put systematic discrimination back in style with these affirmative action hiring practices, shutting out white men and Asian men (like myself) just because by nature we followed our own interests in tech and engineering. Based on YouTube’s alleged hiring practices, apparently we we’re born into the wrong body and don’t deserve to be hired.
* * *
Since my site will probably be unlisted or severely downranked on many search engines soon, it’s important that you share this article manually. Leave a comment and subscribe to the RSS feed for similar articles. As western culture dabbles more with Marxist and Communist ideals, our individuality is slowly eroding in favour of the collective, and you are progressively known more for the identity given to you by ideologues rather than the individual that you really are. Keep that individual self alive, share this article, and maintain this discussion before it all gets censored.