I don't understand why the man at Google got fired for saying male and female brain structures are inherently different...

I don't understand why the man at Google got fired for saying male and female brain structures are inherently different. Isn't this a pillar of the trans movement?

Why are you asking here? I doubt any of us work at google and there's only a handful of trannies.

i don't know but if it is then when did the trans movement take over google?

The big question however, is who the fuck cares? SJW types getting people fired are cancer and so is Google

we need to nationalize google already

That isnt the only thing he said. He also blamed everything on "the left" and said all kinds of crazy shit

Liberals cannot admit that capitalism is inconsistent with gender and race equality so they hold the pathological belief that everyone is identical. If it's true (it is) that men are predisposed to be engineers and women are predisposed to be therapists, and we want equality, we should just pay engineers and therapists equally. But that would be… well, illiberal.

It's only a pillar of the trans movement that misunderstands the social construction of gender. Which, unfortunately, can be sizable it seems.

Retard shit where he ate.

he got fired for repeating the cultural marxist meme

not to sound zealous, but it really sounds like a conservative asshole trying to make the most inflammatory manifesto he can while remaining politically correct.

I wonder where the "cultural marxism" crowd gets their sources. Can they point to the precise book or manifesto or literally anything where a marxist says "The time for class war is over, so now let's do identity politics in order to destroy white culture and serves the jews"?

He got fired because Google is a global multi billion dollar company that would rather fire an engineer than continue to suffer the bad PR generated by his "manifesto." Google can get any engineers that it wants. It doesn't want to get a reputation for "brogrammig" like Uber.

not really. it doesn't even make much sense, when the Frankfurt school was created as the Russian Civil War was still going on, the future of communism seemed extremely optimistic to most at that time.

They don't get sources…the "cultural marxist" crowd are just american globalism shills.

No, just the opposite

He didn't get fired because what he said was true or false, or what he said was a "pillar" or not of the trans movement. He got fired because there was a backlash against what he said that made Google look bad. But if you're trying to suggest that it is a pillar of the trans movement, I'd ask what sources you have?I don't know much about what trans people or theorists about transexuality think, but my impression is that the average person's understanding of transexuality who believes in sex change as a treatment has a general idea that there is a certain emotional quality, or quality that relates both to your sexual preferences and your tastes in general (tastes here roughly relating to gender) which defines how much you feel like you "belong" to your sex.

For example, the male body is not just its brain. It is a dick, it's broad shoulders and physical strength, it is a form that fits into certain clothes a way that many women simply can't, and it corresponds to a role in society that represents "the average man". So when a woman says they "feel like a man", or they identify so much as a man that they want to fundamentally change the composition of their body, this likely corresponds to all of those things.

Is it possible that a person's brain, which we believe produces all of these tastes, could simultaneously produce such tastes, but also be capable of the same activities that a male brain is capable of such as programming computers? Do such tastes intersect with computer programming proficiency? That seems to be the question, not whether people think people's brains are different on average.

Furthermore, I'd think if we are talking about transexuality itself and making our own theories, I'd think it could also be suggested that people could want to be women or men without a fundamentally different brain structure from anybody else. I don't know if it is true or not, but it seems possible that a person's experiences could actually drive them to desiring a sex change because they did ultimately end up with the mixture of tastes and sexual preferences that cause them to want to be the opposite sex.

the real question is why do you guy support google ideology.

He got fired because he broke the taboo, offering counter arguments to the hegenomy of corporate America which in order to head off any obstacles just went full on Diversity and sexual politics. When you have that much power the true believers aren't going to accept some guy being naive and thinking he has any voice or ability to think, so the Corporation crushed him and there is no other powerful corporation that will oppose it because they all have the same ideology to protect themselves from any real revolutionary attacks.
The guy should be given a medal for showing the normies a bit more of a peek behind the curtain at what a sham identity politics is and how the one way attacks are permitted only give revolutionary vigour to the right, and are bromide for the left.

Notice he never said anything about widespread surveillance or the Big Brother state.

strange that everyone in idpol have to fit a mold, fucking everyone is different, thats the point

People don't care about surveillance and will never revolt over it. Google aped the Feminist and Diversity mindset to become 'woke' in the eyes of the politically active mongs on social media so they divided any opposition.

I don't understand why Google is still allowed to exist


The petty bourgeoisie used to care about it when the Soviet Union was allegedly doing it.

What obstacles? I honestly don't know why corporate America went full diversity and egalitarianism. I know many Marxists claim it is an attempt to uniformly commodify human beings as labor. The immediate objection I see to this is that if the central claim that groups of people, like the sexes, are on average differently capable of different activities, and if the other claim is true that corporations actually raise people up despite their proficiency at certain tasks, then how is this good for capital? Sure, a wider pool of about equal labor is good for capital, but in a zero-sum game of hiring a certain amount of workers with a certain amount of money for wages, why hire some less skilled women because of "diversity"?

But profits are the overwhelming driver of their decisions. If I were to guess I'd say that this is all a sort of delirious (at this point) child of the neoliberal tactics to destroy the left since the cold war. Diversity is a defense mechanism, a reframing of the conversation which diverts attention away from worker-owner conflicts, and though it may hurt company profits a little bit to put less qualified people into certain roles it also theoretically helps to stop leftists or socdems from getting enough control of the conversation to convince workers to either overthrow capitalism, or raise corporate tax rates to fund huge social programs.

Which is all speculation on my part, but if that is the case I think the google dude is missing the point as well because all he cares about is making Google more efficient. He doesn't realize the role diversity has played politically in defending the rights of Google to its property, and so he is just a bemused technocratic neoliberal angry that he has to work with incompetent women or whatever.