I had a discussion with someone yesterday over Google's alleged discrimination towards white and Asian applicants

I had a discussion with someone yesterday over Google's alleged discrimination towards white and Asian applicants.

Her argument was that it isn't discrimination due to whites and Asians already being way overrepresented in the tech industry, and that minorities need all the help they can get.

My argument was that discrimination is discrimination, and if what Google is allegedly doing is true, then that is absolutely discrimination. I also explained that while I am not opposed to improving workplace diversity, I am against how it is being implemented.

Who do you agree with?

You.

You're both right.

Why you hating. Put niggers in google. Crash it with no survivors.

Representation and diversity are memes to hurt white and Asian men who work hard.

But I concede that positive discrimination still has discrimination in it and that it might be nothing more than an ideological posture when not backed up by sufficient data. Is overrepresentation something inherently bad or harmful to other groups, and is artificially balancing those groups productive for the ensemble. Those are the real questions. Furthemore, what is the actual method behind that and is it actually related to demography or just representation. For instance, there are 5 times more white people than black people in the states.

you are fucking faggot if you have to post an argument you had with a woman about google on to Sup Forums

There is no such thing as positive discrimination. This discrimination is negative because it costs the better candidates their jobs and harms the company when it hires less qualified employees. Everything about this is negative. The only people who benefit are the unqualified hires who will be miserable since they can't perform their jobs as they don't have the required skills or knowledge.

Maybe he just wants to expand his knowledge of the subject. Jesus christ you people get triggered so easily. Not everyone shitposts all the time. And maybe he is, who cares, can we discuss things like normal human beings without mongoloïds constantly REEEEEing at the sheer mention of "women"

> her

He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy. - George Orwell

Who said they were necessarily less qualified? The goal of positive discrimination is to expand the visibility of a certain group with the same qualifications by applying a preference based on their social background.

Then pretend I was arguing with a man about niggers. I don't care.

Discrimination is discrimination. If they're passing on the best applicants because of skin color, that's racism. Period.

If they were more qualified they would get the job without artificial discrimination. These hiring practices exist because the most qualified were being hired and those were always white and Asian men. They've done experiments where they removed gender from applications. This resulted in even more men being hired. This is bad because diversity advocates can't explain it. So they invent fake discrimination and use more discrimination to counterbalance the discrimination that didn't exist in the first place. It's all nonsense. This will hurt Google as the better candidates will just go to the competition. Google will slowly kill itself off.

OCD bullshit. Why do you want 'diversity' WTF for. WHY?

You're just butthurt because you didn't work hard enough

Kek
Discrimination is discrimination, you are correct. The idea that diversity is more important than meritocracy is ridiculous, especially in the tech industry.
If Google runs on the principle of hiring on ability and still has a “problem” hiring women, black people, etc, we can assume it’s because of a combination of a couple of key factors.
>Not enough applicants from underrepresented groups
>Applicants from underrepresented groups are not as qualified as others
If Google wants to solves these issues they should encourage more underrepresented groups to apply for positions, and offer programs targeted at these groups that teach necessary skills at younger ages. Unfortunately, the second issue is more of a cultural problem.
That being said, diversity can offer some inherent benefits in certain positions that are not easily quantifiable. Having people from different backgrounds is often very valuable in positions like marketing, HR, and other areas where having an inate understanding of a group of people is an advantage. For example, a person who grew up in a Muslim community will be better at marketing to a similar community than someone growing up in a Christian, midwestern community. That is of course assuming both applicants are similarly skilled.

If companies want to be diverse, then that's fine, as long as they're doing it in an ethical way, rather than rejecting applications based on the applicant's race.

And what if it's just a matter of choosing between two people with the exact same skillset? It's like saying, "well okay, guy A and B have the same qualifications, but B has generally less opportunities so I'll give him the chance, A can always find work more easily anyway".

The exact opposite exists too "A and B have the exact same skillset but I'll choose A because he doesn't come from this bad neighborhood"

If it was that it wouldn't matter. But that's not what is happening. Instead they are rejecting the best candidates because they don't have the right skin color or genitals. That's just morally wrong and a stupid business decision.

MLK said we should judge based on merrit, not skin color. If she disagrees with MLK, she's a racist. If shes a racist, you win the argument.

based poo

>tfw too stupid to work at Google despite the minority handicap

This.

>arguing with a fucking woman

With that logic, should the NBA be forced to hire & get white & Asian basketball players? Because NBA has like 90% African-American players and not enough non-black players to satisfy diversity quota

I'm still under the belief that there are 2 genders, so it's a 50/50 shot as to who I end up getting into an argument with.

Identical skillsets between two candidates are theoretically possible, but extremely rare in practice. Applicants from different backgrounds will have inherent and significant differences and these could be valuable to a company. Hiring practices can morally take these into account.
Agreed. Google tossing white and Asian applications purely based on their skin color or genitalia is both morally wrong and hurtful to the company. If companies wish to focus their hiring practices in this way, it will be to their detriment.

Learn from the master and fill out your application like this kid did. Guaranteed to be Google CEO.

Even when I was relatively liberal, I thought along these more rational lines and people thought I was a Nazi. I’m fucking Asian too. I ended up coming here for answers so that’s that. If every Liberal (that matters desu) thought like you things wouldn’t be so bad.

women cannot reason the way men do, therefore men should not waste their time.
argument means using logic, something women can't use, thats because all their "arguments" are based on feelings / emotions alone.

Funny you mention that, because every now and then, I see people complain that the MLB doesn't have enough black athletes, as if teams are actively trying to avoid drafting black athletes.

Ironically, professional athletics are the last bastion of pure meritocracy in “hiring.” If you aren’t better than the person next to you, you don’t play. The best man that proves himself the best wins out every time. Colin Kaepernick was a talented Quarterback. He started to slip and was subsequently benched. While his kneeling protests did cause a problem for the NFL, if he was still winning games, he would have kept playing. Somebody would have picked him up. Ray Lewis beat a murder charge, Michael Vick survived his dog fighting charges, Kobe Bryant bought off his rape victim, and Adrian Peterson is still playing despite beating his children. If you are valuable, a team will find a place for you.

Fair points.

But you could justify that perceived lack of ethics by saying "well okay, look, this group has inherently less opportunities than that group. we cannot influence how people are educated so far and it's sad, everyone should be able to get a good education. let's lower our standard of acceptance (we are a private company after all) we'll cover for it with more internal formation (since the educationnal system would not provide that to them), people from this underprivileged group will now see that it is not impossible for them to become something and in return will ask to their representatives to improve educationnal opportunities for everyone"

I mean, just because you're poor doesn't mean you should not be able to become a doctor.

So maybe it's a bad, temporary thing until people get real equal opportunities. Which is beneficial to everyone because it helps breaking the cycle of poverty which leads to a thriving economy.

White genocide 100 times, gets the FBI called on you

There is nothing stopping the poor and minorities from becoming doctors. Didn't stop Ben Carson from becoming the best neurosurgeon in America. But he did that on his own merits. He didn't take the job away from a more qualified neurosurgeon, he just worked hard to be the best. Do you really want subpar neurosurgeons doing your brain operation because they have a darker skin tone and filled a diversity quota? Do you want subpar security experts at Google handling your private data and leaving vulnerabilities to hackers because they filled diversity quotas? These people can do extraordinary harm in their jobs if they aren't the best. You won't right the wrongs of the past by giving underqualified slackers jobs they can't do.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly conscious of the leakage between social justice and other campus engineered type of thinking into HR/PR departments. I'm just inferring as to what might go through a company's head and what underlines people's outrage.

Yeah okay but Ben Carson is the exception that confirms the rule.

I'm not arguing against any of the points you're highlighting regarding competence vs. diversity quotas but...

You have to put things into perspective. One indicator that shows the American dream and all that meritocracy stuff is long gone is that a large majority of rich or upper middle class families loose 90% of their wealth in less than three generations. And it's a constant. Now think about those people who cannot even contract a loan!

I mean all of that is an ongoing conversation. But it's important to remember that even though there are less and less inequalities, sure, that the gap between whom there are inequalities grows larger and larger.

It exists on a massive, planetary scale too. I could expand on that if you want. Anyway my point is, you do not want to inadvertently create a massive, single, isolated and monolithic underclass in a country. It is in my opinion important to integrate it upwards, otherwise if you let it unattended, uncared for, that underclass might bring the rest of down society with it.

And the less you give it care, the deeper the hole.

And to conclude my thoughts: I don't think underqualified neurosurgeons are an actual thing. If your title is neurosurgeon you are by definition overqualified. That's the point of being a neurosurgeon. I don't know about Google but they certainly don't pick up their applicants in a trash of pile to begin with..

To your point, it's far more dangerous to destroy meritocracy with diversity hires. You teach that underclass that their chief value is their skin color. That's not a good lesson for life. Skin color doesn't solve problems, teach jobs skills, or give you the things you need in life. They need to be taught that in reality you have to work your ass off to reach the top. There are no shortcuts based on race or gender. And they shouldn't be taught to rely on government welfare either. That just breeds a helpless society.

And as far as wealth disappearing in three generations that has more to do with changing economics. As an example the old time railroad barons have no wealth anymore because trains aren't as important anymore. So those families saw their wealth vanish. Rich kids also don't have incentive to work hard and create new industries when they get everything handed to them. So over time the family wealth disappears.

Go back to /reddit/

>Talking about politics with your female friends

>implying that I have female friends

Totally agree that we should not give people free passes and teach them responsability instead. But we can also teach people that they should not necessarily feel doomed by their genitals or skin color. How do we do that as a society, how do we strike a balance and what kind of tools can we put into people's hands for them to build their own future?

My apologies lad,

>talking with politics with girls that are not your friend.

I know you don't do it by giving them an artificial boost. That teaches the wrong lesson and hurts other people.

i hope they hire more niggers at google. Would like to see them crash and burn.

>the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy. - George Orwell
haha Party swallowers.

Why aren't there more asians in the NBA then?

Most of the NBA's profits comes from Asia, they should have more representation by the liberals logic.

So we agree that those changes would have to be more profound to really benefit everyone.

This.

...

I think the changes need to be internal to the individual and the community. You won't make lasting change by rigging the hiring process and making it unfair. That kind of change will be negative.