Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gramarye

Does Google Discriminate Against Conservatives?

Recommended Posts

Damore is only pushing this lawsuit because he realizes he has no future in the tech industry and his only hope is to become a right wing hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legally, my guess is that Damore's lawsuit against Google for discrimination is weak.  But the facts in it are perfect examples of the stifling PC monoculture gripping a lot of the elite tech industry:

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/

 

 

What is more stifling?

 

1 - Having a person who feels that some employees are genetically inferior to him in regards to STEM ability?

 

2 - Getting rid of said individual and creating an environment that welcome even those who have been historically left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legally, my guess is that Damore's lawsuit against Google for discrimination is weak.  But the facts in it are perfect examples of the stifling PC monoculture gripping a lot of the elite tech industry:

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/

 

all He has to do is change his gender identity to transgender and he has a great suit.

 

In all seriousness. At the end of the day, I am sure this does not see the light of day and he gets a big payout. Too much risk for Google to not have that happen both legally and more importantly, damage to the reputation. The link from the Federalist is an example of that reputation damage.

 

Furthermore, much of the illegal hiring practice suggestions by their employees do create a hostile culture at work and can cause the company to become more insular and orthodox in those values which will in effect lead to drive top talent who may not express the same orthodoxy with those opinions to their competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure readers of The Federalist now have such a negative opinion of Google that they will stop using Google search, Gmail, Android, and all other Google/Alphabet products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this just sounds like sour grapes.  This is a product of the free market and Google's moves should be heralded by libertarians everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ it starts there, but that backlash is minimal. The thing about papers like the Federalist is that the goal is to lead itself to being picked up by more mainstream media sources and going viral. Not a good look for Google.

 

The real issue is if Google starts eating their own because they are not willing to walk lockstep in the corporate culture that is being pushed on them by some.  If you are not deemed "progressive" enough, this can pose problems because it promotes groupthink and they can miss the latest trend or start missing out on top talent who can make the company stronger based on their lack of liberal views. The worst thing that can happen to an organization and what will be the kiss of death is if they allow their social culture to cause it to miss out on top talent who can drive their innovation in the future and it goes to competitors or new startups.

 

On top of this, it does appear that he does have legitimate claims for a hostile workplace based on this discovery. The legal issue though would be the smallest part of the problem as Google could pay off any loss in court or settlement rather easily. 

 

It is definitely an issue they should not take lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are not deemed "progressive" enough

 

Google is not going around firing conservatives. Google is only firing conservatives who publish outrageous "memos" explaining that there are fewer women in tech because "men and women biologically differ", in part due to their exposure to "prenatal testosterone", and because "women on average are more prone to anxiety", blah blah blah blah blah.

 

Again, free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. If you say or write something that creates a hostile work environment because you just told all of your female coworkers that they are inferior to you and were only hired due to affirmative action, that will have a negative impact on your ability to work with those coworkers, and your employer has a right to fire you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legally, my guess is that Damore's lawsuit against Google for discrimination is weak.  But the facts in it are perfect examples of the stifling PC monoculture gripping a lot of the elite tech industry:

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/

 

His suit based on his 1st Amendment rights is weak. His employment discrimination portion is strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not deemed "progressive" enough

 

Google is not going around firing conservatives. Google is only firing conservatives who publish outrageous "memos" explaining that there are fewer women in tech because "men and women biologically differ", in part due to their exposure to "prenatal testosterone", and because "women on average are more prone to anxiety", blah blah blah blah blah.

 

Again, free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. If you say or write something that creates a hostile work environment because you just told all of your female coworkers that they are inferior to you and were only hired due to affirmative action, that will have a negative impact on your ability to work with those coworkers, and your employer has a right to fire you.

 

 

No, that is not at all of what is happening. If you read the complaints in the link cited, what appears to be going on is a culture that is hostile to dissenting opinions on how they feel social culture should be. While not from management, the comments ranging from we need to ban hiring of all white cis-male hetrosexuals for a year to achieve our diversity goals and comments about blacklisting people from moving departments for political reasons are very short sited (not to mention legally dubois) because it is evaluating the employee for things other than their work performance.

 

Now, companies and work groups all the time create a culture and often promote people whom they like. THat is the way things work, and if you do not get along with your manager on a personal level, or connect with them personally, it will be dangerous for your career. However, what Google appears to be doing through its employees (not corporate written policy) is trying to purify their group based on ideological beliefs and that will hurt them long term more than any law suit could ever hurt them.

 

WHen you need top talent to create that next innovation, you don't care what their political beliefs are. At the end of the day you want that result. The worst thing that could happen is there are 2-3 hotshot engineers that choose not to work at Google because they are not 100% pure and go start their own company and change the world there, or they go work for Yahoo or Amazon instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual complaint:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/368692388/James-Damore-Lawsuit

 

The most telling parts are the email screenshots and other references into Google's internal discussions - they really give you a window into the bizarre and frightening mindset many people at Google seem to have. It's like an Orwellian corporate dystopia - people making strange and unbelievable claims, and others seemingly agreeing or at best ignoring them, knowing that if they speak up like Damore they're lose their livelihood.

 

Anyway, here are some of my favorite parts of the lawsuit:

 

Google shouldn't link to scientific evidence that doesn't conform to this employee's worldview:

 

PiiEMxZ.jpg

 

No comment on this one:

 

2NM49yB.png

 

Systematic oppression:

 

PfIsW0k.jpg

 

And on a more lighter note, this one is hilarious - I can't even take it seriously, it's too literal a version of the meme/insult:

 

rgql6jdz82901.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not deemed "progressive" enough

 

Google is not going around firing conservatives. Google is only firing conservatives who publish outrageous "memos" explaining that there are fewer women in tech because "men and women biologically differ", in part due to their exposure to "prenatal testosterone", and because "women on average are more prone to anxiety", blah blah blah blah blah.

 

What is particularly outrageous about the claim that men and women biologically differ?

 

What is particularly outrageous about the claim that such biological differences could impact career outcomes or even academic interests?

 

Again, free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. If you say or write something that creates a hostile work environment because you just told all of your female coworkers that they are inferior to you and were only hired due to affirmative action ...

 

That might be outrageous, but I did not read that anywhere in the Damore memo.

 

The memo is here; it deserves to be linked again:

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

 

Frankly, I don't know why Google did not instead discipline the snowflakes who demanded that it be treated as a firing offense.  The tone was measured, the author took pains to balance his language with disclaimers against the more extreme conclusions that people might draw from it (and then they went ahead and drew them anyway and demanded that he be fired on that basis), and the science ought to at least be strong enough for internal company message board material (it's not like he was trying to get tenure at Stanford with this).  Certainly people say things on these boards with far less rigorous citations of sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not deemed "progressive" enough

 

Google is not going around firing conservatives. Google is only firing conservatives who publish outrageous "memos" explaining that there are fewer women in tech because "men and women biologically differ", in part due to their exposure to "prenatal testosterone", and because "women on average are more prone to anxiety", blah blah blah blah blah.

 

What is particularly outrageous about the claim that men and women biologically differ?

 

What is particularly outrageous about the claim that such biological differences could impact career outcomes or even academic interests?

Claiming that men and women biologically differ is not outrageous at all, but those men who want to constantly bring it up typically have axes to grind RE: alt-right, redpill, "men's rights," whatever you want to call it, and typically are frankly not very well adjusted people. If you have a job at a company and they sometimes float around ideas like bringing more women into the fold or whatever, and that offends you and makes you want to bring up all those claims (which in some contexts aren't outrageous), it's usually a red flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not deemed "progressive" enough

 

Google is not going around firing conservatives. Google is only firing conservatives who publish outrageous "memos" explaining that there are fewer women in tech because "men and women biologically differ", in part due to their exposure to "prenatal testosterone", and because "women on average are more prone to anxiety", blah blah blah blah blah.

 

What is particularly outrageous about the claim that men and women biologically differ?

 

What is particularly outrageous about the claim that such biological differences could impact career outcomes or even academic interests?

Claiming that men and women biologically differ is not outrageous at all, but those men who want to constantly bring it up typically have axes to grind RE: alt-right, redpill, "men's rights," whatever you want to call it, and typically are frankly not very well adjusted people. If you have a job at a company and they sometimes float around ideas like bringing more women into the fold or whatever, and that offends you and makes you want to bring up all those claims (which in some contexts aren't outrageous), it's usually a red flag.

 

If I run a business and someone wants to keep circulating the same memo that goes counter to the type of culture I am trying to foster, I would fire him.  Conservatives used to tell us that this is the beauty of the free market system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Google firing him is not nearly as egregious as the hostile environment and threats he faced by the internal mob. If you ran a company and wanted to fire someone for their political beliefs, that is completely your prerogative as the owner, however, fostering a culture where you create what essentially amounts to the Google Gestapo who threatens employees who get out of line would be the bigger concern.  Especially, if those employees on the message boards faced no discipline for inappropriate behavior themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that is Google's prerogative.  He is basically stating that women working for Google are genetically inferior or at least not equal in regards to technical ability.  Good riddance snowflake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not from management, the comments ranging from we need to ban hiring of all white cis-male hetrosexuals for a year to achieve our diversity goals

 

So what? A random Google employee made a wacky comment that did not result in any actual HR policy changes. If Google actually implemented a ban on hiring cis white males for a year, then you would have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that is Google's prerogative.  He is basically stating that women working for Google are genetically inferior or at least not equal in regards to technical ability.  Good riddance snowflake.

 

Where do you read that?  I read that as saying that the fact that Google's workforce is predominantly male can be attributed to factors other than invidious gender discrimination.  That is why this belongs on the PC thread.  In PC thought police terms, the only explanation for gender imbalance in any sector of the economy (possibly outside things like professional sports) that can even be considered is invidious gender discrimination and related manifestations of insensitivity showing implict bias against the underrepresented demographic.  That is not an accusation against the women who actually got into Google.  It is not even an accusation against any particular female job applicant who did not get in.

 

I'm getting the sense that not only have you not even read the memo, you haven't even read any summary of the memo other than cursory ones from sources that completely and reflexively validate your PC ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the memo and the entire history of how he distributed it.  This sounds like a lot of conservative snowflake crying to me.  The fact that he has the opinions he does really describes why their aren't more women in tech.

 

I wonder if you've actually read the memo if you don't think he specifies the ways in which women are inferior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not from management, the comments ranging from we need to ban hiring of all white cis-male hetrosexuals for a year to achieve our diversity goals

 

So what? A random Google employee made a wacky comment that did not result in any actual HR policy changes. If Google actually implemented a ban on hiring cis white males for a year, then you would have a point.

 

A key point I think people are missing is that Google employees make all sorts of wacky, seemingly unacceptable comments regularly (see the Appendix of the lawsuit). Yet this guy was fired for his, which in comparison seems extremely tame and reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not from management, the comments ranging from we need to ban hiring of all white cis-male hetrosexuals for a year to achieve our diversity goals

 

So what? A random Google employee made a wacky comment that did not result in any actual HR policy changes. If Google actually implemented a ban on hiring cis white males for a year, then you would have a point.

 

A key point I think people are missing is that Google employees make all sorts of wacky, seemingly unacceptable comments regularly (see the Appendix of the lawsuit). Yet this guy was fired for his, which in comparison seems extremely tame and reasonable.

 

There is a big difference between making a random comment like "Google should stop hiring white guys for a year lol" and publishing a multi-page document laying out your case why Google should end affirmative action hiring practices including multiple charts and graphs and footnotes explaining that the female brain is on average less well suited to the job. The later obviously made many of his fellow employees uncomfortable, and Google utilized their right as an at-will employer to fire the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not from management, the comments ranging from we need to ban hiring of all white cis-male hetrosexuals for a year to achieve our diversity goals

 

So what? A random Google employee made a wacky comment that did not result in any actual HR policy changes. If Google actually implemented a ban on hiring cis white males for a year, then you would have a point.

 

It does not have to be an HR policy. There can be unwritten rules or codes of conduct that can attribute to a hostile work environment. Even if Google would not create written policies saying no white hetero males because that is a patent violation of employment laws, allowing employees on company owned message boards to express such thoughts freely without any punishment and even being praised by their peers or even forum moderators (who are essentially sanctioned by the company) can create a hostile work environment for those who may not agree with the majority viewpoint.  This is really not any different from a group of guys sitting around a cubicle looking at and laughing at a bunch of bikini photos within earshot of a female employee at the office, or a group playing "f*ck, marry or die" openly about the females in the office. While there is no company policy either way on that issue, it creates a hostile environment which creates liability for Google.

 

As I mentioned before, the legal issue is minimal as they can easily just pay to make it go away. Fighting this and letting it drag on can hurt their reputation much more than just paying the guy off quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the memo and the entire history of how he distributed it.  This sounds like a lot of conservative snowflake crying to me.  The fact that he has the opinions he does really describes why their aren't more women in tech.

 

There were a lot more women involved with the early days of computing. Early computer people were way more like hippies than neckbeards. But around the late '80s the neckbeards and later brogrammers ran all the women off by bullying them. I don't get it... who wants there to be no girls around? I've got women changing 72-pin connectors, soldering, changing lasers and all sorts of other technical tasks at my business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in general, I highly doubt working for google is anything like working for Oberlin. The attempts to paint it as such by the Federalist et al are ridiculous. Tech people aren't like that, many of them are quite apolitical or libertarian. I'm sure they have their diversity department which is probably this Busselle guy. But overall this is just like the effort to paint "college students" in a certain light when really that is only a small sliver of them. The Federalist has a vested interest in turning conservatives against California tech corporations because it helps them push their coastal elite narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not from management, the comments ranging from we need to ban hiring of all white cis-male hetrosexuals for a year to achieve our diversity goals

 

So what? A random Google employee made a wacky comment that did not result in any actual HR policy changes. If Google actually implemented a ban on hiring cis white males for a year, then you would have a point.

 

A key point I think people are missing is that Google employees make all sorts of wacky, seemingly unacceptable comments regularly (see the Appendix of the lawsuit). Yet this guy was fired for his, which in comparison seems extremely tame and reasonable.

 

There is a big difference between making a random comment like "Google should stop hiring white guys for a year lol" and publishing a multi-page document laying out your case why Google should end affirmative action hiring practices including multiple charts and graphs and footnotes explaining that the female brain is on average less well suited to the job. The later obviously made many of his fellow employees uncomfortable, and Google utilized their right as an at-will employer to fire the guy.

 

The guy circulated the memo multiple times.  He obviously doesn't like the culture there and wants to create trouble.  Conservatives embrace at-will employment until it affects them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the memo and the entire history of how he distributed it.  This sounds like a lot of conservative snowflake crying to me.  The fact that he has the opinions he does really describes why their aren't more women in tech.

 

There were a lot more women involved with the early days of computing. Early computer people were way more like hippies than neckbeards. But around the late '80s the neckbeards and later brogrammers ran all the women off by bullying them. I don't get it... who wants there to be no girls around?

 

Anti_PC can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that this guy's memo and attitude to women in the workplace sort of prove why there aren't a lot of women in tech, hence proving implicit biases in the industry.  It seems pretty obvious to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between making a random comment like "Google should stop hiring white guys for a year lol" and publishing a multi-page document laying out your case why Google should end affirmative action hiring practices including multiple charts and graphs and footnotes explaining that the female brain is on average less well suited to the job. The later obviously made many of his fellow employees uncomfortable, and Google utilized their right as an at-will employer to fire the guy.

 

There is a big difference, I'd say the first is far more suspect and subject to disciplinary action. As for the memo making people comparatively more uncomfortable, it's pretty telling to me that the typical Google employee is comfortable casually telling his coworkers that he sleeps at the office because his wife doesn't want him around when she's railing her boyfriend all night, but has his safe space threatened by a data driven analysis of gender based hiring practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between making a random comment like "Google should stop hiring white guys for a year lol" and publishing a multi-page document laying out your case why Google should end affirmative action hiring practices including multiple charts and graphs and footnotes explaining that the female brain is on average less well suited to the job. The later obviously made many of his fellow employees uncomfortable, and Google utilized their right as an at-will employer to fire the guy.

 

The guy circulated the memo multiple times.  He obviously doesn't like the culture there and wants to create trouble.  Conservatives embrace at-will employment until it affects them.

 

In addition to the fact that I still have trouble believing you read the memo, you also appear to have not read my earlier post where I said the legal merits of his lawsuit didn't seem that strong to me.  Moreover, I could add that to the extent that they have any merit, it would be because of laws that I would repeal if I could.  I have no problems with at-will employment.  I could just as easily turn this around on you and say that progressives love their race/sex/age/etc. etc. etc. discrimination laws and hate at-will employment until they want to fire a conservative.  You have continuously tried to deflect this back to the law.  PC is first and foremost a cultural phenomenon.  That culture may cause people to break laws but it is a problem even when it does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other discussion of PC, my opinion gets shot down because the law is the law.  But in the typical fashion of people trying to pretend something exists, we now turn it into a cultural phenomenon but then next it will be something else.  Make the idea of PC vague enough to prove it exists make any defense fall into some narrow constructs. 

 

This story is about a guy who was butt hurt that Google wants to hire icky girls.  Google decided it was easier to fire him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They haven't violated any employment laws.

 

Creating and fostering a hostile work environment. That is a violation of employment laws. Just because they do not have a written policy promoting this culture, they have a legal duty to prevent such behavior from creating a hostile environment to those who may not 100% agree with them.  This is what liberals fought for as work place rights and they are bound by them too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other discussion of PC, my opinion gets shot down because the law is the law.  But in the typical fashion of people trying to pretend something exists, we now turn it into a cultural phenomenon but then next it will be something else.  Make the idea of PC vague enough to prove it exists make any defense fall into some narrow constructs. 

 

This story is about a guy who was butt hurt that Google wants to hire icky girls.  Google decided it was easier to fire him. 

 

In all seriousness, he does have a very legitimate case here. As YABO713[/member] it is not very strong on the free speech/expression issue, but very strong on the harassment hostile workplace issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who created the hoistile work environment.  Those who want diversity and inclusion or those pretending that they are superiorly suited to the job than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ what is your point. Just because the rule was created around a class fighting for diversity does not mean it does not apply equally to all.  The trend I see in your posts is that ultimately the end justifies the means if the end result is the beneficial result for society. Is that ultimately what you are arguing here?  If those who are morally right should be able to circumvent the rules for the greater good?

 

If so, that is very troubling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between making a random comment like "Google should stop hiring white guys for a year lol" and publishing a multi-page document laying out your case why Google should end affirmative action hiring practices including multiple charts and graphs and footnotes explaining that the female brain is on average less well suited to the job. The later obviously made many of his fellow employees uncomfortable, and Google utilized their right as an at-will employer to fire the guy.

 

There is a big difference, I'd say the first is far more suspect and subject to disciplinary action. As for the memo making people comparatively more uncomfortable, it's pretty telling to me that the typical Google employee is comfortable casually telling his coworkers that he sleeps at the office because his wife doesn't want him around when she's railing her boyfriend all night, but has his safe space threatened by a data driven analysis of gender based hiring practices.

 

The memo makes people more uncomfortable because it reveals that James Damore actually believes what he is saying. He actually believes that women are less well suited to the job, and Google should therefore end its efforts to hire more women.

 

An offhand comment that Google should stop hiring straight white males for a year in order to accelerate diversity hiring is clearly not a serious proposal and therefore doesn't make anybody uncomfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, Google determined that Damore's memo made people uncomfortable and create a hostile work environment, and executed their right as an at-will employer to fire him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, Google determined that Damore's memo made people uncomfortable and create a hostile work environment, and executed their right as an at-will employer to fire him.

 

I think you are conflating 2 separate things here. Google most likely, was within their rights to fire him for the memo, because he was an at will employee, and essentially put out a memo that offended the overall corporate culture of the organization and ran afoul to how the company held itself out as an employer.  I do not think that is an issue, and if this were the crux of his case, he will lose.

 

The second issue here is whether the culture at Google created an environment that was hostile to a particular group of people, in this case white hetero men,  or conservative leaning men. Now political affiliation on the federal level is not a protected class but it is in California. Secondly, if he can show that the culture of the employees and the emails created a hostile environment for him and that he felt threatened, he has a decently strong case there. In this case, the emails and the message boards that were company sponsored can create that hostile environment. This is a separate issue from whether or not Google had the right to fire him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only created a hostile environment for white hetero men if we are to believe that all white hetero men believe that women are not suited for tech work and that such believe constitutes a basis for a legitimate political belief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ not based on some of the snippets from the Federalist link and some of the other emails here. They may be a minority, but they are indirectly sanctioned by the company, and if the company is not disciplining the employees who posted those, then there is a major problem.

 

Say what you want about those posts, but some of them amount to actual threats against anyone who does not agree with them and even advocates for violence. Even if the sender had no intention of carrying them out, it can certainly create a hostile environment in the workplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ you have to read the paper and overlook the bias. Just because it gets reported in Daily Caller or Think Progress does not mean the story is meritless, you have to read into the bias.

 

In this case, it is a little concerning based on the discovery about the hostile environment that exists there. I am sure there is more to the story, but no matter who is doing the reporting, that discovery is real and part of the legal record, despite the spin that the Federalist has put on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I don't use liberal sources as proof of anything.  Anyone who bases their opinions solely on heavily biased sources is doing themselves a huge disservice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second issue here is whether the culture at Google created an environment that was hostile to a particular group of people, in this case white hetero men,  or conservative leaning men. Now political affiliation on the federal level is not a protected class but it is in California. Secondly, if he can show that the culture of the employees and the emails created a hostile environment for him and that he felt threatened, he has a decently strong case there. In this case, the emails and the message boards that were company sponsored can create that hostile environment. This is a separate issue from whether or not Google had the right to fire him.

 

What do you think is an adequate punishment for employers that create a work environment that is hostile to an entire class of people, whether it's race, gender, or political beliefs (in California)?

 

Do you believe that if Damore's lawsuit is successful, Google should be required to ... hire 50% conservatives? ban all political speech within company message boards? or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hostile work environment" might work if you quit and allege constructive termination, but it's no excuse for behavior that got you fired.  And if he's at will, they could fire him without having a reason. 

 

I'm not familiar with California's "political beliefs" protection.  Sounds difficult to adjudicate.  What if you're in the KKK, what if you believe every authority figure should be shot?  Or is protection limited to the approved platforms of the two major parties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who created the hoistile work environment.  Those who want diversity and inclusion or those pretending that they are superiorly suited to the job than others.

 

Those who claim to want diversity and inclusion, regardless of what their actions suggest about whether they'd ever actually tolerate the "inclusion" of someone genuinely "diverse" from themselves in a way that actually matters in the real world, you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...