fche

In this case, google is -both- a for-profit corporation AND some leafy liberal arts campus.

Ask average women - those not in tech.

> dozen other people I talked to

That's just like the Pauline Kael apprx-quote about how "no one she knew voted Nixon - how could he possibly win?". IOW, you are already in an echo chamber.

Yes, yes yes, the science is settled (tm), after all 97% of scientists agree. And the case is closed. Yupper.

you underestimate the power of memes

Stop pretending that "comparing" is ipso facto bad.

Some of the later claims of the low-level employee absolutely justify the dumpster-fire: if diversity-related meetings go deliberately unrecorded to stop paper trails, if special second-chance privileges are given to diversity hiring candidates, .... that's pretty rotten stuff.

> It's unbelievable that in 2017, in a field that is vastly dominated by males, someone would have the gall to claim "trying to introduce more diversity is repression."

From the point of view of a young white male fresh out of school, to hold them back for no other reason than a female PoC is deemed more diversically attractive, is indeed repression.

How do you feel when you enter a clearly private space such as a shopping mall, or stadium, and they don't publish a 100%-complete set of rules for you? Is it oppressive?

How do you feel when you enter public (government) property, but they make available for you thousands of pages of by-laws that govern your behaviour? Is it oppressive?

The article is long on words and on Concern, but short on actual compact statement of the problem. Can you help me out here and list some of these problematic private rules?

Yes, it is illuminating when a reductio ad absurdum shows itself in real life.

> and is being sold off by public bodies [...] without any announcement

You don't have public bid rules for government sales / purchases?

Why does it matter to them?

Are you of the impression that women are of a very different culture, come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate? Where is this?

Rereading did not help make the thesis any better founded, or its abuse of the term "open borders" any more acceptable.

If his "open borders"' "free to move" does not include "free to move across borders", then it's a troll piece. If it's "free to move, if immigration law permits", then it's a tautological piece.

FTA:

> open borders

also FTA:

> why not charge them more for visas

Someone forgot what "open borders" means.

> Foreigners never had a voice or a vote

Indeed - and they should not be a beneficiary either. Do you for a moment believe that "New Deal" / "Great Society" laws would ever have passed, if under the understanding that the whole population of the Earth would be entitled to receive it?

> This argument could be made verbatim ... that today are considered bigotry

That does not make the argument erroneous, only un-PC.

> So less than a billion, net, world wide.

So your retort to "if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty" is that it will be "less than a billion", then the article didn't exactly reassure. It's a quibble between basic numbers (population in the third world) vs hypothetical numbers (Gallup's rolodex), not a substantial discussion or disagreement.

Considering mass immigration in terms of increasing worker pools presupposes that the mass immigrants are workers.

> you lose nothing

Right, and if those unskilled immigrants don't all find jobs as nannies and nurses (since I won't be the only one keeping them from the most vulnerable), then I'll be taxed to pay for them anyway. That's not "nothing".

If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.

There's a bit of a chicken & egg problem there - if the immigrants come in a giant burst, they won't have any money to pay for new cities with.

Is this the part you're referring to:

"Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work."

Sorry, no, I don't want migrants deeply afflicted with weird cultures left alone with my baby nor my mother.

Even distribution is not appropriate when work value is so terribly unequal.

Plus there is a delicious delirium of every migrant population being equally capable of or inclined to productive work.

Benefits are already not disbursed equally across populations. (If they were, they'd be pointless.)

> Some people want these differences to be highlighted

Those people are political activists.

> outside the normal rules for fact checking or veracity

When those "normal rules" are (or are perceived as being) enforced by political partisans, no wonder people get rebellious against them.

Maybe they thought they were invulnerable.

> we can't fairly determine the information that is being seeded to all parties

Why do you think anyone should be in the position of "determining" the information that is being seeded? Fight disagreeable speech with agreeable speech, amirite, but don't yearn for a boss to tell which is which.