> Diversity is a smoke screen that sjws use to seize power for themselves and inflict their ideology on the organization with their codes of conduct with prohibitions against microaggressions and unconscious bias like they have at google.
Surely you must agree that any kind of unconscious bias (or conscious, for that matter) is undesirable? How can an organization claim to be a meritocracy if members of marginalized groups are treated unfairly compared to members of the majority group?
At its core, a code of conduct stipulates that the members of a community should try to evaluate the contributions of fellow members in an objective manner, and debate any disagreements respectfully without resorting to personal attacks, stereotypes or bigotry. Why do you see that as a bad thing?
> You're not fooling anyone anymore.
On the contrary, you're resorting to sophistry while I'm trying to bring clarity to the situation by calmly explaining a point of view you disagree with. It would serve you well to assume I'm acting in good faith here.
> The ideology is just marxism with the white male as the new villain instead of the bourgeoisie.
As a white male myself, I have never felt like anyone is trying to typecast me as a "villain". Nor do I feel like my contributions have been marginalized at any point in my career, on the contrary I've been extremely successful so far.
If you genuinely feel otherwise, perhaps some self-reflection is in order, because I think you're having an irrational, emotional reaction that is preventing you from understanding the key issues here. When people talk about diversity (or lack thereof) in tech, it's really not about _you_. Trust me.
Rather, it's about creating communities where the broadest possible cross section of the population can participate in a constructive manner, and be judged on the merits of their contributions alone. We want people who are not white males to also have a voice -- that's completely different from suggesting excluding white males on the basis of their gender or race alone. Why is that a bad thing?
> If you genuinely cared about diversity, James Damore would still be employed by google.
This is a non-sequitor. I myself don't work at Google, nor am I privy to any insider information about the events leading up to the end of his rather short tenure there. All I have to work with are the facts that have been made public.
A most charitable interpretation is that in his actions he demonstrated an amazing lack of self-awareness, something which probably hamstrung his performance as an engineer in other ways.
At worst, he acted in bad faith, precipitating an outcome that would guarantee his while doing maximum damage to the well-being of his coworkers as well as creating bad press for his employer.
Remember, it was recently revealed that he lied about having obtained a PhD from Harward. It is also quite possible he was on some kind of performance improvement plan already due to inadequate technical output or difficulty working with others, and the public events that led to his termination were just the last straw before management decided to terminate him.
That you would elevate him as some kind of hero while having zero knowledge of his actual technical contributions at his former company shows that you, unfortunately, exhibit unconscious bias...