Results 1 to 30 of 42

Thread: Guy gets fired for publicly criticizing employer and disrupting his workplace

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    How does that make what you said in this thread particularly intelligent?
    "Don't really belong" is not at all the same things as a biological predisposition to be more inclined/able for a type of work. Averages are just that, averages. One should always hire/promote the best candidate. The issue is if there is an imbalance in gender in a field what do you do? Do you spend a lot of money on diversity programs? Do you weigh women applications higher than male ones? Do you require hours and hours of training to make the place more welcoming? Or do you just say 'hey maybe not as many women want to do this line of work... or on average are as likely to be good at it.'

    Here's the thing though. Even if there ISN'T a biological predisposition to being better/worse at tech jobs doesn't even matter for this story IMO. Merely bringing it up shouldn't mean someone should be canned. It should be discussed openly without anger, vitriol or hyperbole.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    It should be discussed openly without anger, vitriol or hyperbole.
    and when that is attempted we get morons like you who think a line like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    'hey maybe not as many women want to do this line of work... or on average are as likely to be good at it."
    is a perfectly sound position to have and repeat. No matter how many times people point out how wrong it is.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    and when that is attempted we get morons like you who think a line like this:



    is a perfectly sound position to have and repeat. No matter how many times people point out how wrong it is.
    Which part? The part where not as many woman to do this line of work or the part about on average are not as likely to be good at it?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Here's the thing though. Even if there ISN'T a biological predisposition to being better/worse at tech jobs doesn't even matter for this story IMO. Merely bringing it up shouldn't mean someone should be canned. It should be discussed openly without anger, vitriol or hyperbole.
    Tell you what, Lewk, when you get into work tomorrow try circulating a memo saying that a certain proportion of the people you work with a biologically incapable of doing their job and see what it gets you.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Tell you what, Lewk, when you get into work tomorrow try circulating a memo saying that a certain proportion of the people you work with a biologically incapable of doing their job and see what it gets you.
    Again moving goal posts. No one has said 'biologically incapable.'

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •