0
14

[–] thebearfromstartrack 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

This helps explain why I can't get a contract these days after a long SUCCESSFUL career so far. While East Indians are CHOKING all the places I go for interviews (the FEW that I get).

0
2

[–] cantaloupe6 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Get some updated certs in security. Try varying your rez.

0
0

[–] thebearfromstartrack ago 

That's a thing. I don't know what area (other) of comp sci I'd like to get into now. security probably isn't my thing since I'm not a tricky sort, I'm more of an efficiency (better, faster, cheaper) expert. I like tuning and optomizing and am VERY successful (better than most) at it. It's like being better at building dragsters than combat vehicles I'd say. Thought about gaming, but then thought about the sorts of young spuds I'd HAVE to deal with. Wouldn't get along probably. TRIED thinking of an application area I could BREAK into as an owner (company). Nothing that isn't a scam springs to mind. I had GOOD ideas along those lines in the past, but NO reputation or capital. Oh well. Maybe I'm just done. God wants me for the final battle or something. Thanks for the ideas.

0
3

[–] Thuleman 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Have you tried identifying as female, and Indian when you go for your interviews?

0
2

[–] mf1776 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yeah, just wear a wig and call yourself a tranny. You're a guaranteed hire in almost every tech company.

0
3

[–] thebearfromstartrack 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I wonder if I tried something like that how things would change in my job search (until caught) but I was afraid that the experiment would be me even further into some covert black ball hole (I cheated). So I don't. I'm not a good cheater. I'm not tricky. I'm autistic.

0
19

[–] acheron2012 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The program on its face is in direct violation of Federal and (I would be willing to bet A LOT) Washington state laws concerning sexual discrimination in hiring.

The trap the marxists have built for themselves is that a law that says you can't discriminate based on sex means -- you can't discriminate based on sex.

A better law would be one that says "You can't discriminate". But I have no idea how you could ever enforce something like that. Thus we end up back at the only plan that has ever worked: Meritocracy!

Remove federal manipulation of the market through wealth redistribution from tax slaves. Let the free market decide. I am fully in favor of letting businesses destroy their reputation and eventually their existence. Just so long as no taxpayer ever has to carry the burden of their bad management.

Of course the real "problem" they are trying to fix is that they want to gift these jobs to people that have no qualifications to hold them.

0
1

[–] 475677 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The real question that needs answering is how did not being able to discriminate result in equality of outcome? Should it not have resulted in equality of opportunity where an interview is only conducted after an employer has reviewed your resume and determined that you would be suitable for the position and even then only to confirm that you can show up on time, aren't covered in tattoos, etc.? I know that kind of system has been tried and resulted in a huge number of white males being selected by the computers put in charge of selecting people based on merit alone, but is not going against that actual discrimination and a retarded business practice in general as it purposefully selects someone less suitable anyway?

It's a honking mad world we live in.

0
7

[–] StrangeThingsAfoot 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

What they wrote was "you can't discriminate based on sex". What they meant was "you can't discriminate against women".

What they wrote was "you can't discriminate based on race, ethnicity, or national origin". What they meant was "you can't discriminate against niggers".

What they wrote was "you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation". What they meant was "you can't discriminate against faggots".

What they wrote was "you can't discriminate based on religion". What they meant was "you can't discriminate against Jews or Muslims, but fuck Christians. Oh, and especially fuck Buddhists, with all that Oh Ma Ni Pad Me Hum shit".

What they wrote was "you can't discriminate based on veteran status". What they meant was "lol, no one is going to win a lawsuit based on that, so let's toss that in to sell it to the pro-war members of congress".

0
13

[–] Ayemyhippy 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

If they really cared about not discriminating against X demographic, they would’ve just passed a law saying that asking for identifying information such as gender, ethnicity, etc on an application is illegal. Can’t help but wonder if they knew that hiring people based only on their qualifications wouldn’t produce the diversity they were hoping for, and would expose some ugly truths.

0
0

[–] cantaloupe6 ago 

That is exactly what happened.

0
1

[–] WakkoWarner 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Personally i think you should be able to discriminate who to hire in your own business, especially about which employees you want to have around.

Even if they are perfectly capable of doing whatever the job requires them to do, do you really want to hire someone that might, one day, destroy the life of one of your employees with a false rape accusation and with that the reputation of your own business or even cause you legal troubles?

Do you really want to hire someone that you know is genetically more inclined to violence?

Do you really want to hire someone that might turn your business into shit following feminist ideas like they did at Google?

Do you really want to hire someone that might, one day, start demanding equality of outcome instead than equality of opportunity and meritocracy?

Discrimination is a way to protect yourself, your employees and your business. Why aren't you allowed to do so?

0
8

[–] HighEnergyLife 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Yep, the absolutely last thing they want is a blind interview process.

That's why they're pushing the "post meritocracy " narrative. Competency is a male tool of oppression. Therefore we need an actively curated, diversified team. Meaning, not white.

0
20

[–] vastrightwing 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

M$: Tell me about why you're a good fit for the job.

A: I'm a woman and it's time. I'm black so I'm a great affirmative action hire. I also believe I can help make your source code gender neutral.

M$: what technology are you good at?

A: Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram and youtube.

M$: Lol, I thought you were going to say Facebook.

A: Lol, Facebook is for old people. My dad uses that.

M$: Do you know Office or Visual Studio?

A: No.

M$: Suppose I want you to do research?

A: I'll ask Siri. Siri and I will find you all the answers.

0
19

[–] dangerous_ai 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

You've got the job, welcome to Clown World.

0
40

[–] Girthcontrol 0 points 40 points (+40|-0) ago 

The Microsoft author echoes former Google employee James Damore, who in 2017 wrote a memo that went internally viral at Google, leaning on pseudoscience to argue that women aren’t cut out for the tech industry. Damore was fired for breaching the company’s code of conduct amid enormous public and internal controversy, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in a memo that the firing was due to “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

"leaning on pseudoscience"

0
0

[–] Gamio ago 

it never went internally viral, it was left forgotten and unread until someone with a chip on their shoulder leaked it and other internal communications to a journalist who then wrote a hit piece. Damore said it only ever got maybe 20 interactions and was created because the diversity seminar he was compelled to attend explicitly asked for feedback.

0
4

[–] 18128243? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

it most certainly was not pseudoscience. I have yet to see one of the journals retract any of his citations.

0
7

[–] middle_path 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It must have gone viral because no one agreed with it /s.

0
12

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Pseudoscience = something that sounds convincing but with which I disagree on personal grounds

4
-2

[–] Zoldam 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

Pseudo = False

False Science

1 reply

1
53

[–] TheOneTrueGoose 1 point 53 points (+54|-1) ago 

This article accuses James Demore of using psuedoscience. What trash

1
8

[–] Scald85 1 point 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Liberals only like science when they use it to bash religion. What they are actually trying to say is that they see religion as so low that even science is above it, but the emphasis is that science is also very unimportant. James Damore and other autists don't pick up on this, and think they're part of the cool crowd. It never ends well for them, or really for anyone who stays with leftists for too long.

0
29

[–] weezkitty 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago 

Ironic that conservative anti science is demonized but liberal anti science is embraced

0
3

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It's not irony when you realize they only use standards to attack you.

"Ironic they cut steaks but not their wrists"

2
8

[–] Pwning4Ever 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

300,000 years of evolution bigot. Also, there is no evolutionary bioligal difference.

1
106

[–] Patriotic_Legend 1 point 106 points (+107|-1) ago 

Any company that hires to diversify the ethnicity of their staff is moronic. The purpose of interviews is the attempt to hire the best person for the job. If a company hires inferior labor in the quest to become diverse, they will simply become an inferior company.

0
0

[–] nomadriders ago 

I'm pretty sure it's conditional for investment, I noticed this when my company received funding they started pushing diversity and stopped hiring white males.

0
0

[–] kayakbassfisher ago 

Can confirm. Been at 2 I.T. that have done this. One named LaQuanda actually worked out really well. The rest were shit. We couldn't make deadlines, couldn't keep customers happy. Couldn't keep customers. That's not to disparage all minorities. A couple of the black staff were actually hired because they were the best for the job. But once the company found out about tax incentives for diversity, the quality of hires dropped significantly.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

1
-1

[–] Patriotic_Legend 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

unfortunately diversity fags don't understand this.

0
0

[–] nightjar ago 

Yes and no. It depends on the company. Take a company such as Apple for instance, where ~50% of their customers are female. It makes sense to hire a lot of women, it will probably result in better results as they better understand female customers.

In other cases, say engineering where you are just designing a product to client specifications for the lowest price, it makes no sense to hire based off of gender, race, etc.

0
0

[–] Patriotic_Legend ago 

Diversity still ian't a good plan. The marketing dept for Apple wants women and men, but no reason to search for specific ethnicities.

6 replies