Post: #101

(08-07-2017 09:57 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  We all knew this day was coming when Google fired James Damore. Gentlemen, meet the man behind the memo.



Look on the bright side. The guy's extremely smart and not stupid. And I'm pretty sure there are companies (i.e., Gab is one of them) that are interested in hiring him due to his background in software engineering. Wish he'd take the Red Pill to wake the fuck up.

If one of you can get an inside line to him and get him to make an account here, I'd buy him a gold membership.

Post: #102

People complaining about the lack of women in tech and in executive positions in tech makes little sense. Courses like IT, computer science, etc only have something like 25% women studying them on average. In U.S.A. 50-55% of women have children at some point in their lives. Assuming most of these women take significant time off for pregnancy and raising children they then become unsuitable for executive management positions because they did not put in the years and the overtime hours. Also you need to add in that women probably have a higher burnout/dropout rate from tech positions than men. So out of 25% of women who study the tech related degrees only around half of them are even have a possibility of being suitable candidates for possible senior management positions. That is a a 10-15% pool of suitable candidates. Therefore to expect half the senior management team to be women is insane even leaving aside arguments about biological inadequacy.

I am sure if somebody dug even deeper and found out how many women had 10+ years of IT experience (I am going to guess not many) out of the total number of people (men + women) that had 10 years plus IT experience, I suspect it would probably be 5 or 10% if that. You generally need years of experience under your belt before you become a tech executive.

Post: #103

Post: #104

(08-07-2017 10:17 PM)GreenHills Wrote:  Here's a statement from a "true senior" Google engineer. Unlike the memo dude, who's not a "true senior" and overall is aggressively shamed by this guy.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-abo...3773ed1788

Mr. Zunger writes:

Quote:2. What I am is an engineer, and I was rather surprised that anyone has managed to make it this far without understanding some very basic points about what the job is. The manifesto talks about making “software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration” but that this is fundamentally limited by “how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be;” and even more surprisingly, it has an entire section titled “de-emphasize empathy,” as one of the proposed solutions.

People who haven’t done engineering, or people who have done just the basics, sometimes think that what engineering looks like is sitting at your computer and hyper-optimizing an inner loop, or cleaning up a class API. We’ve all done this kind of thing, and for many of us (including me) it’s tremendous fun. And when you’re at the novice stages of engineering, this is the large bulk of your work: something straightforward and bounded which can be done right or wrong, and where you can hone your basic skills.

But it’s not a coincidence that job titles at Google switch from numbers to words at a certain point. That’s precisely the point at which you have, in a way, completed your first apprenticeship: you can operate independently without close supervision. And this is the point where you start doing real engineering.

Engineering is not the art of building devices; it’s the art of fixing problems. Devices are a means, not an end. Fixing problems means first of all understanding them — and since the whole purpose of the things we do is to fix problems in the outside world, problems involving people, that means that understanding people, and the ways in which they will interact with your system, is fundamental to every step of building a system. (This is so key that we have a bunch of entire job ladders — PM’s and UX’ers and so on — who have done nothing but specialize in those problems. But the presence of specialists doesn’t mean engineers are off the hook; far from it. Engineering leaders absolutely need to understand product deeply; it’s a core job requirement.)

And once you’ve understood the system, and worked out what has to be built, do you retreat to a cave and start writing code? If you’re a hobbyist, yes. If you’re a professional, especially one working on systems that can use terms like “planet-scale” and “carrier-class” without the slightest exaggeration, then you’ll quickly find that the large bulk of your job is about coordinating and cooperating with other groups. It’s about making sure you’re all building one system, instead of twenty different ones; about making sure that dependencies and risks are managed, about designing the right modularity boundaries that make it easy to continue to innovate in the future, about preemptively managing the sorts of dangers that teams like SRE, Security, Privacy, and Abuse are the experts in catching before they turn your project into rubble.

Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I’m very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to. Solitary work is something that only happens at the most junior levels, and even then it’s only possible because someone senior to you — most likely your manager — has been putting in long hours to build up the social structures in your group that let you focus on code.

All of these traits which the manifesto described as “female” are the core traits which make someone successful at engineering. Anyone can learn how to write code; hell, by the time someone reaches L7 or so, it’s expected that they have an essentially complete mastery of technique. The truly hard parts about this job are knowing which code to write, building the clear plan of what has to be done in order to achieve which goal, and building the consensus required to make that happen.

All of which is why the conclusions of this manifesto are precisely backwards. It’s true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people’s emotional needs and so on — this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones. It’s a skillset that I did not start out with, and have had to learn through years upon years of grueling work. (And I should add that I’m very much an introvert; if you had asked me twenty years ago if I were suited to dealing with complex interpersonal issues day-to-day, I would have looked at you like you were mad.) But I learned it because it’s the heart of the job, and because it turns out that this is where the most extraordinary challenges and worthwhile results happen.

Alright Mr. Zunger, I have a challenge for you, should you believe a word of what you just wrote:

Quit your job at Google and found a tech startup that only hires female engineers. It's fine if they don't come in with much coding knowledge, because "anyone can learn how to write code." Your employees will possess the social skills that are the true foundation for effective engineering, and therefore outperform their male counterparts at other firms (and for 23% less pay!). Your company will produce superior products at a lower cost and trounce the competition. How often in life do you come across such a clear-cut arbitrage opportunity? You can exploit the irrationality of all the other tech companies out there (including the one you currently work for) who emphasize coding knowledge in their hiring process and end up with a predominantly male staff.

If only they knew what you know.

EDIT: Turns out the guy no longer works at Google, but I think my point still holds.

Post: #105

I checked out twitter to see what was up. The reactions are hilarious.

Just recently, Nassim Taleb's battle with a bullshit artist British "historian" woman blew up and fired off several news articles. This immediately translating to him switching over to shitpost on this.

Tons of people are defending this guy.

However, Hacker News, which has become somewhat of a quagmire of feminism and LGBTism, seems to be loosing their shit. The main page has an article rapidly reaching 1000 comments, which I don't recall seeing before. I saw supposedly intelligent people in previous threads there arguing about chromosomes not defining genders and that whole mess.

Google right now:



Shitlords everywhere:



Me right now:

Post: #106

In the Murdork sphere, Frank Chung, the one designated right winger they keep on against roughly six hundred SJW journalists to be able to say they're "balanced", was let off his chain for this issue. He wrote an opinion piece which very quickly disappeared off the front page.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-w...b622f51a0b

Quote:IF YOU don’t support affirmative action, you’re evil.

That’s the only logical conclusion one can reach, judging by the insane reaction to — and media coverage of — Google employee James Damore’s critique and discussion of the internet giant’s “diversity” policies.

After the memo went viral, Mr Damore was sacked for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”, he confirmed in an email to Bloomberg on Tuesday.

It’s worth reading the entire 10-page document, which was first published by Gizmodo and has been described by most outlets as an “anti-diversity screed” or “manifesto”. And it’s worth reading precisely for that reason — they lie even in their headlines.

“I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more,” Mr Damore writes. “However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices.”

Those include “programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race”, “a high priority queue and special treatment for ‘diversity’ candidates”, and “reconsidering any set of people if it’s not ‘diverse’ enough”.

He points out that there are natural biological differences between men and women which lead to differences in behaviour and personality, which in turn result in differences at a “population level”.

This is not the author’s opinion or some radical ideology. The science on the effects of sex hormones on behaviour, including occupational interests, is very clear.

“Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are ‘just’,” he writes.

“I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

“Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.”

He points out that “if we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem”, urging his employers to “be open about the science of human nature” and warning against “silencing” views to create an “ideological echo chamber”.

“Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems,” he writes.

He even proposes a number of suggestions to improve diversity by addressing aspects of the industry which make it more appealing to men than women — again, on average, at a population level — without resorting to affirmative action or quotas.

In other words, he’s proposing ways to address the cause, not the symptom.
But he argues against “arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women”, saying that for each change, there needs to be a reason why it helps the company.

To sum up, he argues that hiring people solely based on their gender, ethnicity or sexuality is bad, and that there may be reasons, other than “bias”, “discrimination” or “oppression”, which account for differences in career preferences between various groups.

In 2017, these have become reprehensible views.

In a memo to employees, Google’s vice president of diversity, integrity and governance, Danielle Brown, said that “like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender”.

“The doc was a disaster from a truly bad place. Pure toxicity. Be assured we are all with you (and feeling the same),” wrote Google employee Louis Gray.

Fellow employee Andrew Bonventre wrote: “That garbage fire of a document is trash and you are wonderful co-workers who I am extremely lucky to work with.”
Former Google employee Erica Baker warned Google was “not a special case”. “How will your company handle learning of an employees bigoted ideas? Be prepared when it happens,” she tweeted.

Some colleagues began calling Mr Damore, whose identity was soon outed online, a “Nazi”. “Everyone involved in that ‘I’m a pathetic man baby who is unable to deal with the modern world’ needs to get in the bin,” wrote Anthony Baxter.

“I will absolutely go out of my way to make sure I never work near anyone involved with or who endorsed that garbage. Because Nazis. And you should absolutely punch Nazis.”

None of this would matter much if it were not for two things.

Firstly, what’s happening at Google and the reaction both inside and outside the company mirrors what is happening all over the world, where politically correct authoritarianism is creeping into every level of society.

Secondly, with a monopoly on video streaming, Google is a company with terrifying power to censor views it doesn’t like, and has demonstrated a willingness to do so. On that point, it’s pretty obvious Mr Damore is a fan of psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson.

Many of Dr Peterson’s favourite topics, delivered on popular podcasts such as the Joe Rogan Experience and via his YouTube lectures, appear in the Google letter almost verbatim, such as this footnote: “Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure.

“As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their ‘capitalist oppressors’, the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the ‘white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy’.”
So it may or may not be a coincidence that Dr Peterson was locked out of his Gmail and YouTube accounts last week for an unspecified violation of Google’s terms of service, at around the time the “anti-diversity” letter was going viral inside the organisation.

While Google later reinstated his accounts, it’s not hard to see where this is heading.

“Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions,” Ms Brown’s memo to employees read. “But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.”

At Google, all views are equal — but some views are more equal than others.

Now, this is likely to have been just bait advertising to try and get some right wing readers onto Murdork, but the fact this made it onto the front of a leftie MSM webpage is quite something.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #107

You know, all I can say is that I am very glad that I never ended up working for Google. The place is 70% male and is a sausage fest of betas, omegas, and white knights. There's money to be made in Silicon Valley, but it's one of the worst places in the world to try and get pussy. I am very glad I got out of there and traveled to discover myself, and discover how to get a woman to open her legs for me.

In terms of the memo, here's a way for Google to solve the gender gap: Hire a bunch of chicks (18-30, attractive, land whales need not apply) to be eye candy for the guys working there. In Japan they do that a lot, where a company will hire a bunch of "office ladies" for the express purpose to be at the company for working men to date and marry. If Google had the balls to do that, I would consider working there.

Post: #108

(08-08-2017 12:12 AM)placer Wrote:  You know, all I can say is that I am very glad that I never ended up working for Google. The place is 70% male and is a sausage fest of betas, omegas, and white knights. There's money to be made in Silicon Valley, but it's one of the worst places in the world to try and get pussy. I am very glad I got out of there and traveled to discover myself, and discover how to get a woman to open her legs for me.

In terms of the memo, here's a way for Google to solve the gender gap: Hire a bunch of chicks (18-30, attractive, land whales need not apply) to be eye candy for the guys working there. In Japan they do that a lot, where a company will hire a bunch of "office ladies" for the express purpose to be at the company for working men to date and marry. If Google had the balls to do that, I would consider working there.

In a lot of rural heavy manufacturing areas, I've run into a lot of Eastern European women working as support staff. Or genuine, more detailed oriented manufacturing steps.

Like painting special materials onto metallic parts in key areas before being put into an enormous oven.

Some hidden gems. Especially when they have hot college age daughters.

Post: #109

(08-07-2017 11:40 PM)Delta Wrote:  EDIT: Turns out the guy no longer works at Google, but I think my point still holds.

The laughable part is that the main reason the guy left Google was because he didn't like the way they were oriented on results.

And the guy is blue beyond blue pill. He's fucking indigo. He even confirms he is beta in that article:

Quote:, I increasingly believe that Maslow missed something very important: that even below physical survival, there is a deeper need for social acceptance, and it manifests in all of the ways that people would rather die than live.

I can't remember my r/K selection theory off the top of my head, but I think it's pretty apparent which category a guy who ranks social acceptance more highly than physical survival falls into. This is a herd animal to beat all herd animals, one who literally believes the pack, the pack's thoughts and behaviours, are more important than an individual's survival. This guy is the logical endpoint of the consumerist, leftist society.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #110

Another thought- I don't ever want to hear again that political correctness is simply a form of "politeness." This essay is worded in the most meek, uncontroversial, dare I say polite way imaginable without distorting the meaning, and it still managed to whip the PC police into a frenzy. Political correctness is about suppression of ideas, period.

Post: #111

(08-08-2017 01:14 AM)Delta Wrote:  Another thought- I don't ever want to hear again that political correctness is simply a form of "politeness." This essay is worded in the most meek, uncontroversial, dare I say polite way imaginable without distorting the meaning, and it still managed to whip the PC police into a frenzy. Political correctness is about suppression of ideas, period.

As John Adams once said about the need for the presumption of innocence: without it, a virtuous man can only say "It matters not whether I behave well or ill, for virtue is no refuge."

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #112

(08-08-2017 01:14 AM)Delta Wrote:  Another thought- I don't ever want to hear again that political correctness is simply a form of "politeness." This essay is worded in the most meek, uncontroversial, dare I say polite way imaginable without distorting the meaning, and it still managed to whip the PC police into a frenzy. Political correctness is about suppression of ideas, period.

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” - Theodore Dalrymple

Post: #113

(08-07-2017 06:50 PM)Delta Wrote:  Reading through this thing more carefully, I can see how the guy thought it was a good idea to send. Notice all the disclaimers about how people must still be treated as individuals, about how racism and sexism are still legitimate issues, etc., as well as the equivalencies he draws between left-wing and right-wing biases. All in all, the essay is very carefully measured to be inoffensive to anyone who actually takes the time to read and understand every point. So the guy thinks to himself "If I fully explain where I'm coming from, people will see that I'm just a rational truth-seeker rather and not some kind of raving bigot."

Where he goes wrong is in assuming that SJWs themselves are rational truth-seekers. In other words, he gives his colleagues too much credit, believing that those ideologically opposed to him are still mature enough to make a good-faith effort to comprehend and rationally discuss a mildly taboo point of view. And frankly, while I would never believe such a thing about women's studies majors, I could've easily made the same mistake about Google engineers.

This goes to show that even the best and brightest SJWs cannot be reasoned with like adults, which is a bit surprising.

The guy committed the grave error of assuming that Google came up with the SJW policies out of some kind of error or mistake. Google is the IT belly of the beast. It is the modern version of the STASI. You cannot argue with Google just as you could not reason with the STASI. You can only abolish it.

Post: #114

Damn. Could you get a more forced smile? That is the face of a woman that has never known joy. A careerist to the core, doubtlessly lacking any man in her life or children to give her meaning. That smile is so fake and contrived that it is painful to look at that picture. Combined with that huge manjaw, you can just bit she has a dick size clit she enjoys rubbing out thinking of all the male employees she's going to fire or refuse to promote.

More women in the workforce? Hell....freakin'...no!

Roosh, when are you going to bring back "Back to the Kitchen Week"? We need the Traditional General Roles promo again in times like these.

Post: #115

I'm spamming the thread, but anyway. Here's an important thing to understand: just because it's STEM doesn't mean it's results-oriented and therefore a brutally fair place to work.

Google likes to pretend it's an innovative, results-oriented body. It isn't. It is a corporation, and a very large one at that. The moment that a corporation becomes large, the odds of it shifting its focus from results to process escalate to the point of nearly 100%. Beyond a certain point (a very low point, due to the existence of lawyers and the courts willing to entertain them) a corporation simply cannot be fully results-oriented and must become process-oriented, i.e. a bureaucracy. The only difference between your average government bureaucracy and your average corporate bureaucracy is that you can sell your stake in the corporation.

If you want an example of this, consider Apple under Steve Jobs and Apple under the man who stole it from him, John Sculley. Or indeed Apple since Steve Jobs died. Jobs was about as results-oriented as you can get. Didn't give much of a fuck about his employees so long as they produced insanely great products, or at least insanely marketable and desirable products. Apple under anyone else looks like any other large corporation: uninspiring, bureaucratic, more like An Institution than a business.

Google was essentially fated to become a corporate bureaucracy because it had a conscious image of being attentive to its employees' needs and the experience of working there being fantastic. This is not to be confused with it being a fantastic place to work; quite the opposite, Google's meatgrinder reputation is longstanding, and the experience disguises something deeply disturbing:

Quote:Joe Cannella, former senior account manager: 'Basically, you end up spending the majority of your life eating Google food, with Google coworkers, wearing Google gear, talking in Google acronyms, sending Google emails on Google phones, and you eventually start to lose sight of what it's like to be independent of the big G, and every corner of your life is set up to reinforce the idea that you would be absolutely insane to want to be anywhere else.'

'To which the majority of folks will say 'boo-hoo, poor spoiled Googler'. But that's sort of the point. You are given everything you could ever want, but it costs you the only things that actually matter in the end.'

Size has something to do with it:

Quote:Sean Gerrish, Former Software Engineer: 'Google must tread carefully in order to avoid litigation. In general, Google cannot do things like violate copyright laws without immediate, significant effects. This is exacerbated because governments' laws will change to affect Google itself.'

'In contrast, many startups can run circles around Google, not because they are better at execution (although some of them are better at execution), but because they can often get quite far by flouting regulations or civil actions before being discovered.'

But it's also standard corporate incompetence:

Quote:'People are promoted into management positions -- not because they actually know how to lead/manage, but because they happen to be smart or because there is no other path to grow into,' said a former technical program manager. 'So there is a layer of intelligent individuals who are horrible managers and leaders.'

And, being a corporate bureaucracy, they hire people who are exactly like themselves:

Quote:'They hire the same person over and over again,' said an anonymous commenter. 'Same background, same 10 schools, same worldview, same interests. It's no exaggeration to say that I met 100 triathletes in my three years at Google. Only a handful of them were interesting people.'

And a results-oriented body can be changed by one person. That won't happen at Google:

Quote:'I worked at Google for 3 years and it was very difficult to leave but there was one major factor that helped me make the decision -- the impact I could ever have on the business as an individual was minimal. As noted in many answers below, Google is an incredible machine that prints money thanks to AdWords. Unless you are an amazingly talented engineer who gets to create something new, chances are you're simply a guy/girl with an oil can greasing the cogs of that machine.'

Quote:'I'd say the relentless daily mediocre thinking of middle management types who are completely focused on metrics to the exclusion of all other factors. They don't want to rock the boat, they don't know how to inspire their workforce, and they rely far too much on the Google name and reputation to do that for them.'

In other words, Google is a corporate bureaucracy, first cousin to your average DMV. It is not interested in real results anymore.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #116

Update: There's already a fundraiser going for this guy's legal costs to fight the case in court. Anyone with a few extra dimes to spare can chip in here: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/james...fundraiser

Decent summary of who this guy is: http://heavy.com/tech/2017/08/james-damo...sity-memo/

Post: #117

Look - most people know that Google is as close to Darpa and government surveillance as can be.

Even the initial slogan of DO NO EVIL is tantamount to the globalist bullshit like diversity, multiculturalism, bio-diversity, feminism which are not positive terms, but mean something completely different in real life - anti-White, anti-Western, post-modernism, anti-human and anti-male.

Google is evil and it is ever clearer now. Google not only restricts information, but sometimes it even works with governments like Pakistan to give them info of "blasphemers". Facebook does the same.

Those companies are globalist mouthpieces. Whether the workers there have a great time and get paid well - who cares?

It's as if you justify that your average STASI or SS worker had a great time working for the Communists or Nazis.

The stark realization of our system is and what still puzzles so many people is that the MODERN VERSION OF THE SOVIET PRAVDA does not come by a clear state monopoly. The modern Pravda is comprised of 2 news outlets, of countless media channels owned by a handful of people, of countless NGOs and a few major companies like Google or Facebook. The system appears to be liberal, while the modern day Pravda IS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK.

The movers and shakers also control many other venues and are as brutal against dissenters as the communists.

That little IT worker who voiced some opposition to the Communist status quo did not have a chance.

Post: #118

(08-08-2017 01:31 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The guy committed the grave error of assuming that Google came up with the SJW policies out of some kind of error or mistake. Google is the IT belly of the beast. It is the modern version of the STASI. You cannot argue with Google just as you could not reason with the STASI. You can only abolish it.

Well, we did not know the extent of it until his brave step forward.

Post: #119

(08-08-2017 02:45 AM)Kapanda Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:31 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The guy committed the grave error of assuming that Google came up with the SJW policies out of some kind of error or mistake. Google is the IT belly of the beast. It is the modern version of the STASI. You cannot argue with Google just as you could not reason with the STASI. You can only abolish it.

Well, we did not know the extent of it until his brave step forward.

If you mean by "we" everyone who gets his news from CNN and Huffpo, then yes.

Post: #120

(08-08-2017 03:09 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  If you mean by "we" everyone who gets his news from CNN and Huffpo, then yes.

Where else is it explicit that google shuts down opposing views?

Post: #121

This guy needs to get on youtube and do something, should be able to get a good following.

Post: #122

(08-08-2017 03:24 AM)kavi Wrote:  This guy needs to get on youtube and do something, should be able to get a good following.

He needs to get on minds.com, youtube is just a part of google's near monopoly.

Post: #123

Post: #124

Snippet from "James Damore: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know":

Quote:Damore is an Illinois native who graduated from the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy in 2007, according to his Facebook page. As a child, Damore was a chess champion, earning the FIDE Master title, putting him in the >99th percentile, according to his CV. He won regional tournaments in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and finished second in the Nation Youth Action 2003 Chess Tournament. He was also the highest ranked player in the world in the video game Rise of Nations in 2004.

He then went on to the University of Illinois, where he graduated in 2010 in the top 3 percent of his class with a degree in molecular and cellular biology, according to his CV. He graduated as a James Scholar and was given the Bronze Tablet, the highest awards given to graduates, he said.

Damore also pursued his Ph.D. in systems biology from Harvard University in from 2011 to 2013, according to his Linkedin profile. He is listed in the alumni section of the Harvard Systems Biology Ph.D. program, but it is not clear if he completed the degree.

He has often shared his thoughts and philosophies about life on Facebook, with a seemingly sarcastic tone.

...

He published two research papers while working at Jeff Gore’s biophysics laboratory at MIT in 2011 and 2012: “Understanding microbial cooperation” and “A slowly evolving host moves first in symbiotic interactions.”

He says that he has “Senior or graduate level knowledge of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, game theory, and computer programming.”

Not surprised by the guy's background. Google tends to hire smart people.

(08-08-2017 01:46 AM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

Damn. Could you get a more forced smile? That is the face of a woman that has never known joy. A careerist to the core, doubtlessly lacking any man in her life or children to give her meaning. That smile is so fake and contrived that it is painful to look at that picture. Combined with that huge manjaw, you can just bit she has a dick size clit she enjoys rubbing out thinking of all the male employees she's going to fire or refuse to promote.

More women in the workforce? Hell....freakin'...no!

Roosh, when are you going to bring back "Back to the Kitchen Week"? We need the Traditional General Roles promo again in times like these.

Danielle Brow is a pro-Hillary Clinton supporter. I checked her Twitter feed and as expected, she set her account to private.

Post: #125

Quote:It’s true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people’s emotional needs and so on.

I know, it's as if their brains are wired differently!!