Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

After it became obvious that the classic marxist idea of proletariat and bourgeoisie and the practical implementation of ideologies based on this idea led to some of the worst crimes on humanity, marxist academics replaced the whole thing with oppressed and oppressor, which has now become the basis for the ideology these SJWs operate on today. Everyone who belongs to a group that does well for themselves is now an oppressor, while the people belonging to groups that do badly are the oppressed. That's why White people, Asians and Jews (who usally count as White) are the oppressors who need to be diversified to ensure social justice, while women, "Minorities", LGBTQI+ people etc. are the oppressed "diversity". Skill and abilities take a backseat.

Of course these SJW bullies find an easy footing in software development, a discipline that is not exactly known for being pursued by the most assertive and confident males (or women for that matter).

In Europe the problem isn't quite as bad yet, though here in Germany it's getting worse with increasingly more university activites relating to feminism, diversity, history revisionism through marxist lenses etc. popping up. But since (at least in Germany) we don't have the admixture of humanities and STEM many US colleges and universities have, this stuff is mostly contained within the social sciences so far.

The Twitter feeds of some of the people linked in this article read like a Conservative's caricature of an SJW btw.

https://vimeo.com/9270320#t=1525s

And the book recommendation: "Why Aren't More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence". (researchers from either side of the arguments debate each other in the same book.)

The worst thing here is the suggestion that there was 100% turnout, instead it was closer to 30%, so only about 20% voted for it. The amendment was found unconstitutional a short time afterwards anyway, finding that marriage is a fundamental right for everyone.

Let me start by saying that diversity is always important. Without diversity you tend to end up with an echo chamber that produces things that are only worthwhile for the subset of people represented within the group.

However, it is important to think about the cost that diversity targets can have on both the under-represented and over-represented groups within a company. Diversity targets for hiring or promotion will mean the over-represented group(s) will tend to view those who are hired or promoted with disdain. Meanwhile the under-represented group(s) may well doubt their position within the company, worrying that they are in their position only due to belonging to the flavour of the month diversity target. The other part is that members of the under-represented group who were previously employed on their own merits are likely to hold a similar position to that of the majority group(s), for similar reasons.

Now it's time for an anecdote... My girlfriend works as an engineer in an oil and gas company. Her company is fully on board with the current gender diversity push, and has created several new positions at a fairly high level specifically to meet their diversity targets. These are high level positions with no one reporting to them in the current structure (which was defined by the massive restructure following the fall in oil prices). Her issues with the positions and their seniority boils down to education and time in the industry. If they were being filled by candidates based on skill, a large proportion of them would be male (and probably white). This would be because the vast majority of the people with the relevant experience are white males. By pushing the female agenda, she fears that not only will these roles be filled by poor candidates, it will also promote the stereotype that women are unsuitable for the job.

There is room for diversity targets, but they must be mindful of the talent pool available for the specific job. Whilst it hurts at this point, the most reasonable course is to promote equality in education. If your company is hiring on skill, then the equality issues will resolve in time, without making anyone resentful of the first year grad who got promoted to team leader because the company needed to meet a quota.

To derail myself slightly following the above wall of text. Would the current white, male disgruntlement be as bad had there not been the GFC etc, and the subsequent (and continuing layoffs/stagnation of wages?