There’s really nothing I can say about this.
There’s really nothing I can say about this.
Women, who have been refusing to reproduce (at least in developed countries) for the last 50 years, are now slated to be replaced completely.
Motherless babies could be on the horizon after scientists discovered a method of creating offspring without the need for a female egg.
The landmark experiment by the University of Bath rewrites 200 years of biology teaching and could pave the way for a baby to be born from the DNA of two men.
It was always thought that only a female egg could spark the changes in a sperm required to make a baby, because an egg forms from a special kind of cell division in which just half the number of chromosomes are carried over.
The future apparently consists of male homosexuals, growing male babies, with the help of incubators and artificial placentae. This sounds like a bizarre vision of the world, but remember just a few years ago, before a couple of men could pretend to get married, or extort decent people of the title to their bakeries, for their refusal to pay lip service to such nonsense.
“It has been thought that only an egg cell was capable of reprogramming sperm to allow embryonic development to take place.
“Our work challenges that dogma, held since early embryologists first observed mammalian eggs in around 1827 and observed fertilisation 50 years later, that only an egg cell fertilised with a sperm cell can result in a live mammalian birth.
“We’re talking about different ways of making embryos. Imagine that you could take skin cells and make embryos from them. This would have all kinds of utility.”
For the initial experiments, scientists “tricked” an egg into developing into an embryo using special chemicals which makes the egg think it has been fertilised. Crucially the cells in an embryo copy themselves completely when they divide, and so mirror closely most other cells in the body, such as skin cells.
When scientists injected the embryos with sperm, they grew into healthy mice which went on to produce their own litters.
Read More at The Telegraph (link)
Technology’s ability to render a false state of consciousness, putting the world and its contents in a state of reserve, was explored by Heidegger. He called it “enframing.” Old Mart had a rosy view of the future, in which humanity transcended their own delusions.
Read The Question Concerning Technology (here)
These stories just keep on coming. As usual, no comment from the father of this unfortunate little boy, anywhere in the text.
Such great “journalists” we have in America, right folks? Fantastic people.
Predictably, the story paints dad as yet another deadbeat, who must have simply disappeared in the night. When he is mentioned, there are implications that he was an accomplice.
I have a more realistic theory…
ST. GEORGE — A 12-year-old Toquerville boy, whose abuse case sparked worldwide outrage after he was found lying on a filthy bathroom floor, severely malnourished and unable to move because his legs weren’t strong enough, doesn’t remember exactly how long he was kept in his “torture chamber,” as prosecutors called it.
But the boy remembers hearing his siblings and parents open Christmas presents. Twice.
This is the child that looked too much like daddy. It’s also likely that “siblings” were sisters. Women have zero empathy for any man, and that includes little ones.
On Monday, a judge imposed the maximum sentence on the boy’s mother, Brandy K. Jaynes, 36, convicted of three counts of intentional child abuse causing serious injury, a second-degree felony. She was sentenced to one to 15 years in the Utah State Prison for each count, with all counts to be served consecutively.
Before sentencing her, 5th District Judge Eric Ludlow called the abuse “deplorable” and “appalling.” He made Jaynes look at a picture of the room her son was locked in, where Post-it notes with messages such as “Touch the camera, I will kick your butt with a stick” and “You will act like a human at all times” were duct taped to the wall.
“You did not act like a human at all times,” Ludlow told Jaynes. “I’ve never seen anything like this. It’s unbelievable, quite frankly.”
The chucklehead in the black robe can act all shocked-just-shocked now, but his brothers in the legal profession are ultimately responsible for separating this boy from his dad.
Jaynes denied writing the notes, claiming the boy’s twin sister was the culprit.
Did I call it, or what? He was hated because he was a he. That’s often all it takes.
Details of the disturbing case caused a widespread outcry after Jaynes’ arrest in January. Police said the 12-year-old boy was living in a feces-filled bathroom that had been fitted with locks on the outside of the doors. He weighed just 30 pounds when he was found.
Before being sentenced Monday, prosecutor Angie Reddish-Day revealed that the boy may have been locked up from four to eight years, based on witness statements and other evidence, including the boy’s physical and mental condition,
It started with him being locked in a bedroom with no bed, being forced to lie on wood planks as Jaynes poured water on him, Reddish-Day said. The boy was later moved to a stand-up shower stall where boards were put up to keep him in. Evidence of food where the boy ate was found by investigators in the shower, she said. And later, he was moved to the small bathroom, where because of its size, the boy stopped growing.
What really puts this case in a different category is that she had a live feed camera watching him suffer every single day. … She can’t say she didn’t know what was happening because she watched it happening.
As expected, cunt’s lawyer tries to blame the father. The standards based journalists who wrote up the story have no comment from that poor guy at all.
We all know a more plausible scenario, don’t we? At some point, the father of this unfortunate kid stood tall before a divorce-court judge, and begged to be part of his son’s life. The judge ignored him (or, possibly, laughed in his face). Appeals to the courts are futile, and eventually, the poor fellow probably wandered off, after paying what little money was left to attorneys. This tragedy is the predictable end result of our “family court” system.
Read more at KSL dot com (here)
It’s simple, really. If a ho’ wants to leave, I let her go. No tears, no begging, no drama. The most she gets out of me is “So long and good luck!”
It has been my experience that in about half of such cases. The bitch does not actually want to leave. What she wants is to present the illusion that she’s leaving, to goad or scare a brother into doing what she wants him to do.
I honestly don’t remember what this particular skank-ho wanted, about six weeks ago. Maybe she wanted to be exclusive. Maybe she wanted to move in. Maybe she wanted me to take her out to a fancy place. All of these ploys have been tried on ya boy Boxer, countless times. This scenario plays out with such regularity, and I’m so thoroughly used to it, that I just go off a well-worn script and don’t bother paying attention to the details.
Skank-ho left, sure in the knowledge that I’d start pining away for the lost privilege of penetration. In reality, what often happens is that less than ten minutes after skank-ho hits the bricks, I have replaced her with an alternate, and my life goes on uninterrupted.
Sometimes the alternate is cuter, and sometimes she’s not. Sometimes she’s better as she’s down on all fours, and sometimes she isn’t. What is always true is that the new bitch has yet to bore me with these pathetic theatrics. What is also always true is that it is merely a matter of time before the new bitch becomes the old bitch, and feels comfortable (and entitled) enough to trot out her own list of demands in exchange for the use of her body. Rinse and repeat.
In the interim, skank-ho waits for me to fold. She waits and waits, her confidence growing ever shakier. She has a tinder fling or three, with men who treat her with even less courtesy than I do. Eventually, it is she who breaks. She sends me a “wat up” message.
I’m always polite, but I never behave the way they want me to, and so life goes on, and it never enters the dumb cunt’s dim peanut brain that if she had just been honest about what she wanted, perhaps I’d still retain a minimal sliver of respect for her.
Only a short time ago, we profiled degenerate male feminist Christopher John Goldberg, who became net-famous with his autistic rambling about male privilege, spewed into the faces of anyone in his general vicinity who was in any way normal or healthy (link). As we have already seen, Goldberg had two distinct personae. When he logged off of Twitter and Tumblr, he transitioned seamlessly from supposed feminist crusader into his private life, where he collected and traded volumes of revolting child pornography.
As though we needed yet another example of the pathology of feminism, a woman named Kai Cole has recently penned an article about her relationship with Joss Whedon. Whedon became famous for his role in creating trashy, lowbrow entertainment like “Buffy The Vampire Slayer,” and is widely known as a male-feminist. Whedon met Cole around 1991, and they married in 1995.
A personal friend of such luminaries as Anita Sarkeesian and Meryl Streep, male-feminist Joss Whedon has championed things like rewriting nonsensical fairy tales with female protagonists, and pressuring tech and entertainment companies to hire more women (whether or not those women would actually do anything useful). My masochistic readers can watch a tedious example of his sanctimonious preening on youtube, deceptively entitled “Joss Whedon’s Equality Now Speech” (here).
Kai “Mrs. Whedon” Cole explains that her feminist husband spent several years lying to her, abusing her, and acting like a complete asshole, all while fucking countless third-rate skanks.
Joss admitted that [for a] decade and a half, he hid multiple affairs and a number of inappropriate emotional ones that he had with his actresses, co-workers, fans and friends, while he stayed married to me. He wrote me a letter when our marriage was falling apart, but I still didn’t know the whole truth…
Mrs. Whedon goes on to give us a glimpse of what really motivates male feminists to act out in public, namely: displacement, projection, and similar neurotic attempts at ego-defense.
Despite understanding, on some level, that what he was doing was wrong, he never conceded the hypocrisy of being out in the world preaching feminist ideals, while at the same time, taking away my right to make choices for my life and my body based on the truth. He deceived me for 15 years, so he could have everything he wanted. I believed, everyone believed, that he was one of the good guys, committed to fighting for women’s rights, committed to our marriage, and to the women he worked with. But I now see how he used his relationship with me as a shield, both during and after our marriage, so no one would question his relationships with other women or scrutinize his writing as anything other than feminist.
This is a very valuable insight that all men should internalize. When one sees a male feminist, he is generally looking at a deeply disturbed and degenerate person. Such a man is motivated to become a feminist nuisance not by lofty ideals of equality, but by repressed feelings of guilt and shame. The male feminist finds it easier to criticize others than to improve himself, and he lashes out at anyone around him as a result. It is a particularly pathetic form of escapist stagnation.
Unfortunately, in this case, while Joss Whedon was accusing all and sundry for doing those things that he did himself, he was also causing his wife (one of the few people he should have had some genuine concern for) serious psychological problems.
My entire reality changed overnight, and I went from being a strong, confident woman, to a confused, frightened mess. I was eventually diagnosed with Complex PTSD and for the last five years, I have worked hard to make sense of everything that happened and find my balance again. It has not been easy, because even though in my personal life I have been completely open about what happened, publicly people only know his superficial presentation of us: him as the lovable geek-feminist and me in the background, as his wife and supporter.
We can only extend our sympathies to Mrs. Whedon, for her poor choice in men, which led to the ordeal from which she is, only now, beginning to recover. It’s doubly important for any sisters who have stumbled into this blog to take her warning seriously. Do not date, fuck or marry any outspoken male-feminist. They are always driven to their zealotry by intractable personal problems.
The stories of trash like Schwyzer, Goldberg, Whedon and countless others convince us of an inescapable truth: Male feminists are unworthy of any decent man’s respect, and of any good woman’s time or attention.
Read the entire article by Mrs. Whedon here.
Special thanks to my nigga Anon, part of the award-winning Dalrock research team, for bringing Mrs. Whedon’s story to light. Show him some love here.
The author of Dalrock is finally addressing Artisanal Toad’s new, post-christian religious movement (see here and here). A couple of weeks ago, I started doing the same thing (here). My nigga Toad has advanced a number of propositions which seem (at least to me) to conflict with the text of the New Testament. Such as:
It gives ya boy Boxer a nice ego-boost to think that I’ve goaded Mr. Dalrock into a necessary and interesting debate; though it was probably catalyzed by a mixture of annoyance and boredom. Even so, the argument between Dalrock and Toad is at a sufficiently high level to (so far) be both productive and entertaining, and both sides make their points with wit and humor.
As usual, SirHamster can not abide a civilized debate, and so the stunted halfman has spent the last several days living on the internet, attempting to derail it. Leave it to this untreated Tourette’s patient to respond to funny arguments, not with witty ripostes, but with acres of ponderously dull, yet entirely pointless gibbering.
SirHamster comes to a forum where argument is the rule. He tries (and tries, and tries) to argue, but he’s not smart enough to keep up. He subsequently tries to flame people, but it turns out that he isn’t so good at flaming, either. He ends up getting flamed more effectively in return. And as if that isn’t bad enough, it turns out that SirHamster can’t take it. He gets back what he tried to dish out, and the moron loses his cool and starts throwing around threats and unhinged accusations. It doesn’t impress anyone, it just confirms what a dull jackass he is.
Given that Toad is capable of both arguing and flamecraft, SirHamster deludes himself with the idea that we’re in cahoots. This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. There’s no one I have historically disagreed with more consistently (and more vigorously) than The Notorious T.O.A.D.. That both I and Toad are men, who can argue without getting all weepy and upset, is what truly flummoxes this pathetic fake christian. It is beyond his ken to understand that arguing well is a masculine virtue, or that one can learn something from an ideological opponent.
Having been thoroughly humiliated, SirHamster began begging for help from similar simpletons, none of whom wanted to get into his hole. He then began accusing all his critics of high crimes and misdemeanors. His last attempt at justification was to advance the strange theory that his self-imposed humiliation was somehow akin to the martyrdom of a Christian saint.
He is called to indulge in this sort of self-abasement, because it might lead to the “repentance” of his critics.
I’m always amused by squalling idiots who bawl out, “BOXER you meany! You’re a bully! Stop flaming me!” These same people are invariably the ones who started the shit in the first, but when they get overwhelmed, they want out.
Here’s a clue for halfwits everywhere: I’m a fairly easy guy to get along with. If you leave me alone, I will generally extend you the same courtesy. Even if you behave like a raving nutcase, or a slopeheaded moron, I will usually ignore you. There are, in fact, a great number of people in the ‘sphere that I regard as chuckleheads, but because they leave me alone, I respect their boundaries the same way. Once you come at me, you need to be prepared to be reduced to my own private plaything, until I get the impression that you’ve learned your lesson.
Don’t whine to your mommy and daddy, bawling about how mean I am. If you can’t take it, don’t start it.
I just can’t make it any simpler.
Without further comment, I reproduce here the complete memo, published anonymously, by a software engineer at Google’s campus in Mountain View, California.
Reply to public response and misrepresentation
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. 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. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document. Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.
Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech 
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
They’re universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
Women, on average, have more:
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.
Men’s higher drive for status
We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.
Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Women on average are more cooperative
Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
The male gender role is currently inflexible
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.
The Harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination 
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.
The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google’s biases.
I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.
Be open about the science of human nature.
Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).
 This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.
 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
 Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.
 For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.
 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.
 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”
 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.