Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on August 10, 2017, 05:04:08 AM
-
Most offensive thing he said was that Biology limits how many and how high women can jump in tech industry
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4772960/amp/KATIE-HOPKINS-trust-Google-free-speech.html
-
You can be sure he is a racist too. The way a turd almost always follows a fart in the bathroom.
-
vooke has no reference of racism or what it takes for a man like this to have the guts to put that into pen and paper and share widely in corporate gig.. This is a man who cannot control his impulse. Like when Bill O'reilly see a shiny thigh
-
This idiot should be refired again.if you cannot understand how long historical discrimination or favor s can create unfair competition that can only be bridge d by dolling out favors for equally long time then you're a fool.I mean woman in us started working n voting last century.
-
Bloomberg reckons he has next to zero chances at any avenue of legal redress he pursues
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/fired-googler-faces-headwinds-making-legal-case-he-s-the-victim
-
WOW!!..and I guess tribalism is Ok.
This idiot should be refired again.if you cannot understand how long historical discrimination or favor s can create unfair competition that can only be bridge d by dolling out favors for equally long time then you're a fool.I mean woman in us started working n voting last century.
-
Freedom of speech I think is the 1st Amendment to the US constitution. I hope Google is fined heavy($10M) for violating this guy's right of expression. Tree-hugging liberals here should save us the screeches.
-
Tribalism is an issue and we have diversity programs for minority tribes.
-
So should we fire people - say Kikuyus or Kalenjins - who dare to question those divesity programs?
Tribalism is an issue and we have diversity programs for minority tribes.
-
Each company has their values n code of conduct.A woman right ngo will definitely fire you if you express sexist views against women.Outside work you can express anything.A company is legal person...I can kick you out of my house for good reason.
-
Google is not analogous to your house - it is a public company - a multinational to boot - which has been heavily fined left, right and center for its moronic practices. Including recently €2B[?] by EU. As for codes of ethics - you are right - but courts exist for this very reason and others. Codes of ethics must be legal i.e. consistent with the law and the constitution. This guy has not fired or assaulted anyone let alone a woman. He has simply expressed his opinion on Google's and the tech industry's diversity policies. Firing him is violating his freedom of expression which is in the US constitution.
On this one Pundit you can't catch your tail. Google and most MNCs are notoriously liberal and totalitarian. They are backed of course by media outlets like CNN. This suppression of freedom to express anything that offends the western Left is what has emerged as political correctness - a political monster the backlash to which propelled Donald Trump to the White House. Trump could not say Islam promotes terror without liberal vultures baying for his blood.
Well -political correctness - it is the same kind of nonsense in kenya - where TIFA or Ipsos cannot factor tribe in opinion polls - cause it offends sensitivities. Diversity programs are great... to correct past injustices... but you can't fire or jail people for questioning or discussing them. Under Google moronic "ethics"... Pundit would promptly be shown the door for discussing tribe... or claiming Luos have a chip on the shoulder. It's an affront to freedom itself.
Each company has their values n code of conduct.A woman right ngo will definitely fire you if you express sexist views against women.Outside work you can express anything.A company is legal person...I can kick you out of my house for good reason.
-
I think Google will score hugely by sacking him.
Robina, what I'm learning is private companies enjoy more latitude in restricting freedom of expression.
Googl has a policy, he knew it probably by heart...activism from inside is not IT
-
I think Google will score hugely by sacking him.
Robina, what I'm learning is private companies enjoy more latitude in restricting freedom of expression.
Googl has a policy, he knew it probably by heart...activism from inside is not IT
-
I think Google will score hugely by sacking him.
Robina, what I'm learning is private companies enjoy more latitude in restricting freedom of expression.
Googl has a policy, he knew it probably by heart...activism from inside is not IT
Yes Robina, private as in not government. He has his rights but Google does not have to give him a podium. He spread misogyny and Google will claim it was defending its employees from his bile.
Now that he's jobless, he's free to do a book and give lectures on his ideals
-
I think Google will score hugely by sacking him.
Robina, what I'm learning is private companies enjoy more latitude in restricting freedom of expression.
Googl has a policy, he knew it probably by heart...activism from inside is not IT
Yes Robina, private as in not government. He has his rights but Google does not have to give him a podium. He spread misogyny and Google will claim it was defending its employees from his bile.
Now that he's jobless, he's free to do a book and give lectures on his ideals
Yeah right. All James Damore needs is to show others who have drafted similar memos - critical of other groups that Google holds as less important - but Google happily gave them a podium or looked the other way. Such policies would have to be consistent and not only applied to white people or men. It is simple discrimination. One reason I like the Trump victory is giving political correctness a bloody nose - by appointing conservative judges.
-
Pastor vooke - here is an opinion I agree with on Google's BS - not all you see on CNN is gospel.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/why-you-should-read-the-whole-google-memo/news-story/1d900d80d9bc1b6a9185acb622f51a0b
-
Robina,
First amendment protects your free speech from infringement by the government. It doesn't protect you from socioeconomic consequences of the same.
He can't be arrested and prosecuted for what says. But he sure as hell can be booed and even booted out of a job for it. Google, a private institution, is not obligated to provide him a platform for his views by the first amendment.
In America, the latitude for a boss to fire you is almost limitless. This guy stands no chance in court.
-
The document
-
Robina,
First amendment protects your free speech from infringement by the government. It doesn't protect you from socioeconomic consequences of the same.
He can't be arrested and prosecuted for what says. But he sure as hell can be booed and even booted out a job for it. Google, a private institution, is not obligated to provide him a platform for his views by the first amendment.
Really? -so companies are free to suppress freedom of speech because they are "private"? - we shall see. I hope James Damore is suing for a $100M in damages - he may end up with a good fraction.
In America, the latitude for a boss to fire you is almost limitless. This guy stands no chance in court.
That is debatable especially where politics is involved. On competence/performance yes. Damore has been fired for his views on a political issue that has made its way to Supreme Court - affirmative action. Here's some news that fly in our faces.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/walmart-subsidiary-discriminated-against-transgender-worker-eeoc-finds-n790696
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/10/cargill-meatpacking-teamsters-local-union-455-muslim-workers-civil-rights-prayer/
Here Google is accused by DoJ of totalitarian policies -
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/19/google-confidentiality-wage-gap-us-investigation
-
I think Google will score hugely by sacking him.
Robina, what I'm learning is private companies enjoy more latitude in restricting freedom of expression.
Googl has a policy, he knew it probably by heart...activism from inside is not IT
Yes Robina, private as in not government. He has his rights but Google does not have to give him a podium. He spread misogyny and Google will claim it was defending its employees from his bile.
Now that he's jobless, he's free to do a book and give lectures on his ideals
Yeah right. All James Damore needs is to show others who have drafted similar memos - critical of other groups that Google holds as less important - but Google happily gave them a podium or looked the other way. Such policies would have to be consistent and not only applied to white people or men. It is simple discrimination. One reason I like the Trump victory is giving political correctness a bloody nose - by appointing conservative judges.
Yes,
He can sue for unlawful dismissal, discrimination....but I doubt Google would have gone all the way had there been a culture of such memos.
I think his views are extreme but that's my opinion. Google has every right to inculcate a culture of its choice and enforce it. Disseminating views contrary to Google culture using their resources (computers and time) would attract sacking.
Try replacing his views with the idea that Africans are intellectually inferior and tell me whether his right to those views would go unchallenged
-
Robina,
First amendment protects your free speech from infringement by the government. It doesn't protect you from socioeconomic consequences of the same.
He can't be arrested and prosecuted for what says. But he sure as hell can be booed and even booted out a job for it. Google, a private institution, is not obligated to provide him a platform for his views by the first amendment.
Really? -so companies are free to suppress freedom of speech because they are "private"? - we shall see. I hope James Damore is suing for a $100M in damages - he may end up with a good fraction.
In America, the latitude for a boss to fire you is almost limitless. This guy stands no chance in court.
That is debatable especially where politics is involved. On competence/performance yes. Damore has been fired for his views on a political issue that has made its way to Supreme Court - affirmative action. Here's some news that fly in our faces.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/walmart-subsidiary-discriminated-against-transgender-worker-eeoc-finds-n790696
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/10/cargill-meatpacking-teamsters-local-union-455-muslim-workers-civil-rights-prayer/
Here Google is accused by DoJ of totalitarian policies -
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/19/google-confidentiality-wage-gap-us-investigation
I think he was fired for disseminating these views, not necessarily harboring them. So all Google need to prove is that whatever he penned and spread was contrary to their policies.
-
Robina,
They don't suppress freedom of speech. They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to. They don't owe him a job. They can fire him for being rude to other employees.
On a separate note, are you okay with living in a society where people have no qualms about calling you nigger, faggot, porch monkey? I sure as hell am glad it's a hostile environment for such people. First amendment does not protect you from hostility.
-
That is debatable especially where politics is involved. On competence/performance yes. Damore has been fired for his views on a political issue that has made its way to Supreme Court - affirmative action. Here's some news that fly in our faces.
I think he was fired for disseminating these views, not necessarily harboring them. So all Google need to prove is that whatever he penned and spread was contrary to their policies.
Ohh vooke - views can only be expressed not harbored. It is freedom of speech, not freedom of harboring.
-
In America, the latitude for a boss to fire you is almost limitless. This guy stands no chance in court.
That is debatable especially where politics is involved. On competence/performance yes. Damore has been fired for his views on a political issue that has made its way to Supreme Court - affirmative action. Here's some news that fly in our faces.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/walmart-subsidiary-discriminated-against-transgender-worker-eeoc-finds-n790696
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/10/cargill-meatpacking-teamsters-local-union-455-muslim-workers-civil-rights-prayer/
Here Google is accused by DoJ of totalitarian policies -
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/19/google-confidentiality-wage-gap-us-investigation
Discrimination law has a clearly defined set of protected classes. None of them includes being a jerk.
I think in this one, Google is in good standing.
-
That is debatable especially where politics is involved. On competence/performance yes. Damore has been fired for his views on a political issue that has made its way to Supreme Court - affirmative action. Here's some news that fly in our faces.
I think he was fired for disseminating these views, not necessarily harboring them. So all Google need to prove is that whatever he penned and spread was contrary to their policies.
Ohh vooke - views can only be expressed not harbored. It is not freedom of speech, not freedom of harboring.
i mean the point is it's not the validity of his views in question but widely disseminating them inside a private company, and the consequences.
-
Robina,
They don't suppress freedom of speech. They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to. They don't owe him a job. They can fire him for being rude to other employees.
Hm. Define "private entity". Google is a publicly traded multinational by the way. I wonder: can they have a policy on not hiring albinos, or whites, or such? - since they are a "private entity"? You seem to suggest private entities are not subject to laws and the constitution.
On a separate note, are you okay with living in a society where people have no qualms about calling you nigger, faggot, porch monkey? I sure as hell am glad it's a hostile environment for such people. First amendment does not protect you from hostility.
Good question - thank you for this "separate" note :D
Seriously you should know me by now. It is not white men's fault that we blacks or women may be worse off in some way and better off in others - it is nature's fault - this is my view. Pragmatic, I believe. Years of affirmative action for minorities and women have not resulted in any meaningful advancement - surely there must be a better way to address the lagging behind. Every time you survey say Silicon Valley - you will find only white men own 99% of companies - and are the newly minted billionaires. Affirmative action cannot help us bro.
Here is a question to you: why can't blacks or minorities or women start their own companies - and practice "inclusion" there? Uh? -include whites in the black company 8) It is not that I oppose diversity & inclusion - it is that I recognize rights don't drop from the sky - they are created by the white men people to seem to hate so dubiously. There would be no resources to "diversify" without their creators - white men.
Now - on a separate note - you seem to agree with me that Kenya (and Sub Sahara) should outsource governance to Caucasians - I wonder why?
-
Oh and the USA does not. It is so hypocritical to go on a tirade against fellow Kenyan tribes and then complain about a white dudes racism as if it is ok to be a tribalist as opposed to being a racist. What is the difference. Some white people think they are superior just like you go on and on about Kalenjin or kipsigis superiority.
Tribalism is an issue and we have diversity programs for minority tribes.
-
This may help for general knowledge about 1st amendment in private sector issues in the USA.
No Constitutional Freedom of Speech in the Private Sector
Employees in the public sector – who work for governmental entities – have First Amendment rights in the workplace, subject to certain restrictions. The case law that has developed over time regarding First Amendment rights in the workplace has come from the public sector, as the government is directly affecting employees in public sector cases. There are no Washington cases that this author is aware of where freedom of speech has been protected under the First Amendment in private sector workplaces.
Other Freedom of Speech Issues in the Private Sector
On one level, a private sector employer could take the absence of a direct First Amendment right as providing free rein to discipline, terminate or retaliate against employees for their speech in the workplace. Before doing so, however, the private sector employer should take into account the effect of the anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. These laws provide a level of protection for certain types of expression in the workplace, and thus should be considered even if the right of speech associated with these laws is not a “First Amendment” right per se. For example, punishing an employee because of his religion is not technically a First Amendment violation in the private sector, but it would be a violation of the anti-discrimination laws. Conversely, the anti-discrimination laws prohibit certain types of expression on the part of employers, such as comments that constitute sexual or racial harassment, thereby putting a limit on “free speech” in the workplace.
The Bottom Line
Even though the First Amendment free speech criteria do not apply to private employers, determine if there is some other interest that governs the employee’s ability top speak freely. The following are some examples:
?Is this employee’s speech being restricted or punished because the employee is expressing religious or other beliefs that are different from the employer’s or from co-workers?
?Are employees of some religions or national origins allowed to express themselves regarding religion or national origin, but not others?
?Is the employee being punished for speaking a different language during lunch or breaks?
?Are the employee’s rights to share information protected by some other right, e.g. union regulations under the NLRB or PERC that allow employees to share salary information?
Additionally, determine whether the employer has a duty to restrict the employee’s speech. For example:
?Does the employee’s speech violate the anti-harassment or anti-discrimination laws, including local ordinances?
?Are other employees using speech or expression to retaliate against an employee for exercising his or her legal rights?
?Is the employee entitled to whistleblower protection?
By addressing the above questions, you should begin to develop a sense of whether the employee’s freedom of speech has been violated.
Robina,
They don't suppress freedom of speech. They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to. They don't owe him a job. They can fire him for being rude to other employees.
Hm. Define "private entity". Google is a publicly traded multinational by the way. I wonder: can they have a policy on not hiring albinos, or whites, or such? - since they are a "private entity"? You seem to suggest private entities are not subject to laws and the constitution.
On a separate note, are you okay with living in a society where people have no qualms about calling you nigger, faggot, porch monkey? I sure as hell am glad it's a hostile environment for such people. First amendment does not protect you from hostility.
Good question - thank you for this "separate" note :D
Seriously you should know me by now. It is not white men's fault that we blacks or women may be worse off in some way and better off in others - it is nature's fault - this is my view. Pragmatic, I believe. Years of affirmative action for minorities and women have not resulted in any meaningful advancement - surely there must be a better way to address the lagging behind. Every time you survey say Silicon Valley - you will find only white men own 99% of companies - and are the newly minted billionaires. Affirmative action cannot help us bro.
Here is a question to you: why can't blacks or minorities or women start their own companies - and practice "inclusion" there? Uh? -include whites in the black company 8) It is not that I oppose diversity & inclusion - it is that I recognize rights don't drop from the sky - they are created by the white men people to seem to hate so dubiously. There would be no resources to "diversify" without their creators - white men.
Now - on a separate note - you seem to agree with me that Kenya (and Sub Sahara) should outsource governance to Caucasians - I wonder why?
-
Kichwa you sound like the election observers.
-
Kichwa you sound like the election observers.
But he is right. :D
-
Robina. I Know but I wish there was a clear cut answer.
Kichwa you sound like the election observers.
-
Robina,
They don't suppress freedom of speech. They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to. They don't owe him a job. They can fire him for being rude to other employees.
Hm. Define "private entity". Google is a publicly traded multinational by the way. I wonder: can they have a policy on not hiring albinos, or whites, or such? - since they are a "private entity"? You seem to suggest private entities are not subject to laws and the constitution.
Kichwa has answered this I think.
On a separate note, are you okay with living in a society where people have no qualms about calling you nigger, faggot, porch monkey? I sure as hell am glad it's a hostile environment for such people. First amendment does not protect you from hostility.
Good question - thank you for this "separate" note :D
And you completely avoided addressing it.
Seriously you should know me by now. It is not white men's fault that we blacks or women may be worse off in some way and better off in others - it is nature's fault - this is my view. Pragmatic, I believe. Years of affirmative action for minorities and women have not resulted in any meaningful advancement - surely there must be a better way to address the lagging behind. Every time you survey say Silicon Valley - you will find only white men own 99% of companies - and are the newly minted billionaires. Affirmative action cannot help us bro.
Here is a question to you: why can't blacks or minorities or women start their own companies - and practice "inclusion" there? Uh? -include whites in the black company 8) It is not that I oppose diversity & inclusion - it is that I recognize rights don't drop from the sky - they are created by the white men people to seem to hate so dubiously. There would be no resources to "diversify" without their creators - white men.
Affirmative action is an entirely different question. In my opinion, it has "failed" to help those that it should help, but for completely the opposite reason that you may suggest. I don't know if I have ever worked with an affirmative action hire. But over years of experience in IT, every single black person I ever worked with has generally been head and shoulders above the other guys, especially whites. It simply reflects the fact that white people are given more opportunities to try, fail and try again. Companies are not taking chances on mediocre blacks. For some of these exceptional blacks to be employed, it still takes affirmative action. The dumbest people I have worked with have always been white. It's not biology. It's institutional racism.
A convicted white felon, still has better job prospects than a similarly skilled black person. Digest that for a moment. Racism is real and impacts negatively even those chances you talk of setting up their own companies and practicing inclusion when they can barely keep their head above water. I think you seriously underplay the legacy of disenfranchisement the African American has endured, and continues to endure even in 2017.
Of course white people were the first to institutionalize so-called Western values. That does not mean it is a white concept. Anybody can adopt them. Same thing with science. Yes, the Euros have trailblazed. But they do not own science.
Now - on a separate note - you seem to agree with me that Kenya (and Sub Sahara) should outsource governance to Caucasians - I wonder why?
But not because Caucasians are superior. If I wanted it purely based on race, I would suggest we outsource the governance to Russia, which in my opinion would be even worse, even though Russia is a very white country.
-
Windy - I did not evade the point - I answered it in many words: I prefer to be insulted than mollycoddled.
-
Windy - I did not evade the point - I answered it in many words: I prefer to be insulted than mollycoddled.
Ok dok bitch.
Robina, you are far from being a bitch. You are the opposite in fact. Still I can't believe this is the kind of environment you would prefer to live in.
-
Windy - I did not evade the point - I answered it in many words: I prefer to be insulted than mollycoddled.
Ok dok bitch.
Robina, you are far from being a bitch. You are the opposite in fact. Still I can't believe this is the kind of environment you would prefer to live in.
Point taken 8) See I do want you to respect me - I just don't want some law to coerce you. Paternalism is an oxymoron.
-
Windy - I did not evade the point - I answered it in many words: I prefer to be insulted than mollycoddled.
Ok dok bitch.
Robina, you are far from being a bitch. You are the opposite in fact. Still I can't believe this is the kind of environment you would prefer to live in.
Point taken 8) See I do want you to respect me - I just don't want some law to coerce you. Paternalism is an oxymoron.
For me, I am good with ceding some of my "freedoms to be an asshole". I think I can live with it.
-
Robina,
They don't suppress freedom of speech. They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to. They don't owe him a job. They can fire him for being rude to other employees.
Yep. Freedom of Speech does not mean that one is free to say whatever one wishes, however one wishes, whenever one wishes ... For example, even the strongest advocates of the right will not do this: walk into the office of the head of the employing organization and engage in an hour-long abusive rant. Why? Firing is likely to be swift and without much of a legal leg to stand on. The guy is free to say whatever he likes in the privacy and comfort of his own home, or in a pub with friends, but care should always be taken in the workplace.
It seems most likely that the guy does not belong to a union, which typically would have an agreement with the employer to the effect that firing must be based on "just cause". If so, then his employment was "at will", which means that Google is free to fire him at any time, without warning, and with no obligation to give a reason. The only exception would be if his civil rights were violated, and I don't think even the guy is claiming that.
Most important: Regardless of how he views his rights and what sorts of claims he might bring forth on that basis, large companies like Google will have a Code or Ethics/Conduct that employees sign up to, and, in so doing might well waive certain legal rights. Some employers will even go beyond the workplace in such matters. Looking at Google's Code of Conduct, it appears that the guy violated certain parts, and that pretty much finishes his case (if he even had one to start with).
In my opinion, Google was absolutely right to kick out the fellow. Perhaps those who consider him a hero will offer him suitable and equivalent alternative employment, although my guess is that major employers will treat him with caution.
-
I think our differences here are more political/ideological than legal. Modern liberalism is the antipathy of freedom - so I loathe it. But I have been accused of confusing my wishes for reality right here... what do I know? You find those unhappy with Kaparo's hate speech policies in Kenya support them here in the US 8) {Sorry couldn't resist that under-the-belt}
-
I think our differences here are more political/ideological than legal. Modern liberalism is the antipathy of freedom - so I loathe it. But I have been accused of confusing my wishes for reality right here... what do I know? You find those unhappy with Kaparo's hate speech policies in Kenya support them here in the US 8) {Sorry couldn't resist that under-the-belt}
I don't see it as a "political/ideological vs legal issue". As far as I can tell, the fellow did not break any law. He did, however, behave badly, while working for an employer that---quite rightly---takes a dim view of certain types of bad behaviour. (And, since people may run to the courts, such an employer generally ensures that its legal bases are covered.)
I don't quite get the bit about Kaparo. RE Kenya: I have heard a great deal of what I consider "hate speech", but I do not recall anyone being penalized for it. Same with "integrity": Kenya is a real den of iniquity, but how many have been barred from elections on the basis of "integrity"? These things are largely meaningless in Kenya, even when the law says otherwise.
Regardless of where one is, there is nothing like "freedom without limitations", nor should there be any such thing. Nothing to do with liberalism or whatever.
-
Point taken 8) See I do want you to respect me - I just don't want some law to coerce you. Paternalism is an oxymoron.
The relevant laws are never about forcing (or even encouraging) people to respect others, or like others, or whatever. Rather the idea is that while people may disrespect or dislike or even hate others, they should be constrained when it comes to acting on such feelings victimizing those others. Most affected people are not seeking love or respect or whatever; they simply do not care to be victimized on the basis or race, gender, religion, etc.
-
Point taken 8) See I do want you to respect me - I just don't want some law to coerce you. Paternalism is an oxymoron.
The relevant laws are never about forcing (or even encouraging) people to respect others, or like others, or whatever. Rather the idea is that while people may disrespect or dislike or even hate others, they should be constrained when it comes to acting on such feelings victimizing those others. Most affected people are not seeking love or respect or whatever; they simply do not care to be victimized on the basis or race, gender, religion, etc.
I also suspect Robina is conflating social ostracism, with legal penalties. I am also not for anyone to be punished by law for being a jerk. But I fully approve society making it hell for them to be jerks.
-
Windy & MOON Ki,
I see your points. Honestly I don't know so much about the law... am concerned about the politics which I find affects and determines the law.
My vitriol on liberalism - and why its ghosts obsessively haunt me - is the double standards. You're hard-pressed to find Google or the media or bloggers - or "society" - imposing any penalty on one who expresses worse tirade on social groups liberals do not favor. Invariably this is the white male group. Catch anyone dead defending them for the worst of abuses. It's like they are so blessed or strong to dominate leadership, industry and the economy - so hating them is fairgame.
I can find proof of the double standards if you want. They go unpunished and uncorrected - and unnoticed - because their sufferers are white & male. Their grandpas had it easy and hurt others - somebody's gotta pay.
-
As a woman of color am the most pampered and mollycoddled definitely - it's a peevish irony for me - don't like it one bit!
-
This is one of those horrible dilemmas for me. Here comes an insha!
On one hand, I do find something totalitarian in the Western left, a self righteousness that tells everyone including other nations (except Saudi Arabia of course where women cant drive in 2017 :D) whats right or not by force which I instinctively reject like Robina. And like her I think it ends up creating conditions for Brexits and Donald Trumps.
To that point I also happen to think there are differences between the genders which lead to a life time of different choices made that end up being reflected in a wage "gap" or failure of some industries like IT and sciences to take in women (which I dont believe in either. I read the gap is done by getting an average of mens income vs an average of womens income without accounting for the different career choices women make right from high school to university and beyond: whether/when to go to college, which subjects to pursue etc).
Again to that point, Having lived in the West for a very short while, as a woman AND a black person AND from Africa, I can say with complete confidence that I feel mistreated as an African first and foremost, THEN as a black and NEVER as a woman. Sexism is non existent. I have never even caught a whiff of it anywhere. The direct opposite of home where Im a thousand times mire likely to experience sexism than even ethnic discrimination which is reaaaaaly saying something, lol!
On the opposite end, I do see a place for hate speech restriction: The ugliest parts of PEV were due to hate speech booming from radios in mashinani. The same thing happened in Rwanda.
And like Termi says, especially after experiencing and witnessing unstated racism, I am sure glad these folk dont feel free to shout that I am a monkey at work or any of that stupid s***.
Also have gay friends who have made me rethink quite a bit. In a place like Kenya, they would be treated at best like mad people which they are not, or fired at will for flimsy reasons or inundated with matusi so much that theyd have to quit to keep a sane mind. I dont want an environment that would make it ok to put them through that. But neither do i want the most obnoxious aming them them harrassing old christian ladies in an environment where they could get their cakes in a thousand other locations.
So there is my dilemma. Like most things its a balance thats difficult to get right. How to prevent the most obnoxious behaviour from any demographic while not roping in nirmal disagreements in the process.
-
Google in trouble... this bus stop is a block away from the Google office in Venice.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG9IrfLUwAINYpo.jpg)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG-U0WTXYAEFSuh.jpg)
-
Calls for
Google CEO Goolag Ayatollah Sundar Pichai to resign
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/346267-wrath-of-right-falls-on-google (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/346267-wrath-of-right-falls-on-google)