back to article Assange offers job to sacked Google diversity manifestbro

In his latest attempt to further the global alliance of weapons-grade bellends*, noted troll Julian Assange has offered a job at WikiLeaks to the Google staffer apparently fired for writing a wobbly diversity manifesto. Assange tweeted: "Censorship is for losers. @WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't hold back.

    Tell us what you really think.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Don't hold back.

      Well sounds like he went to a secret google diversity event and came out deciding what google was doing was likely illegal.

      I look forward to nothing being covered.

  2. Lysenko

    Forage, the Orange Menace and Gorgeous George?! The man in committing credibility seppuku. He must be setting up an insanity defence in case the colonials finally get their hands on him.

    1. Just Enough
      Alien

      All that's missing is David Icke's support and he has an unbeatable four of a kind.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Do you really need to ask whether David Icke supports Wikileaks?

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Thumb Up

        "All that's missing is David Icke's support and he has an unbeatable four of a kind."

        True.

        "Weapons grade bell ends."

        Sub head of the years so far.

        I see El Reg has taken something of a dislike to this young man.

        Then again his views do seem pretty dislikeable.

    2. macjules

      He must be setting up an insanity defence in case the colonials finally get their hands on him.

      Not soon enough.

  3. streaky

    Well..

    One of the few areas Assange and I agree - if he's right or not is moot. He was talking about having the debate and he was fired for this.

    It's made worse by the fact he is right: hiring policy shouldn't be a forum for resolving society's ills. He's wrong in saying it's biological though - the disparity is caused by upbringing, the way children play. If a girl shows interest in "boy things" like say Mecano or computers she's a tomboy and should be shunned. I have no doubt these attitudes are working their way out in western society but they are the root cause; and will take generations to resolve.

    Any attempts to force feed a "correction" into the employment market as discussed in this chap's paper will cause companies to not always be hiring the best person for the job which will cause companies to not perform at their peak efficiency - doubly so because it will sow resentment (and a culture of fear if people are fired for bringing it up for debate) amongst employees. Why companies aim for this to fit in some false model of what the employment market should look like (why aren't men given priority in nursing if this is a thing?) is precisely why people like Trump get elected, the population will always push back at what it views as top-down unfairness when given a chance.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: Well..

      I don't believe the chap in question was claiming it was biological, I think he was pointing out the various studies that showed that it was based on biology.

      These days you don't seem to be able to bring up a controversial topic for discussion without being immediately pigeon-holed as being associated with the very worst of whatever the topic was you brought up.

      Discernment and critical thinking appears to have been pressed out of people's brains by MSM/TV (a bit like apple juice is squeezed out of apples to make cider I reckon).

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Well..

        "Discernment and critical thinking appears to have been pressed out of people's brains by MSM/TV (a bit like apple juice is squeezed out of apples to make cider I reckon)."

        No, your apple juice simile has a positive outcome.

        It's cider -->

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Well..

        Now the question is - if this was an employer firing an employee for trying to form a union - where would your outrage be?

      3. veti Silver badge

        @Sir Runcible Spoon Re: Well..

        Thing is, he absolutely did use the word "biological".

        That was what struck me about the whole episode: he made some points, which a lot of people would consider valid, and then also threw in a lot of speculation/personal judgment that can't be substantiated in any way. Then he mixed them all up, so it was next to impossible to separate the substantive points from the ranting.

        This basically guaranteed that sympathetic readers would say he was right, and unsympathetic ones would say he was bullshitting, and they'd both be right, within the studiously-ignored limits of what aspects each side was focusing on.

        It was masterful, almost Trumpian level trolling. And it worked. Just look at all this publicity.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Biology is a thing.

      >He's wrong in saying it's biological though - the disparity is caused by upbringing, the way children play.

      Have a look at the classic sex difference play/toy studies when they're replicated in monkeys - almost all the males take the wheeled toys - same as with human children.

      eg http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08000949

      (I picked this example as the researchers are female - the study and similar are widely replicated)

      Anyone who works with animals will talk in detail and at length about sex differences - but there's a weird belief that humans have 'evolved' beyond them in some way.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Biology is a thing.

        If there's one thing we learned from Trump, rebutting someone with facts never works.

        1. streaky

          Re: Biology is a thing.

          The thing (I hope) we've learned from Trump is wasting political capital on things that don't mean anything in the long run is a bad idea.

          Not for nothing but if you fail to acknowledge that people are left out by societal changes those people who are left out and actively harmed will fight back - you'll do more harm than good - see also the Brexit vote. That's how something like Brexit splits London v rest of the country; nobody has any problem believing immigration helps London but it causes a race to the bottom in the rest of the country and where there is more low skilled jobs. Ignoring those people who suffer under that regime and not making any effort to help them makes them come back at you the first change they get; even if they acknowledge that it might even potentially hurt them. Again, same as per Trump.

          You state that as if it is an accepted fact

          I did nothing of the sort. It's what I believe to be the case; if it was established fact I could cite references - it certainly causes a lot of the disparity we see for sure, or more accurately the gap.

          I know enough extremely competent female software developers to say women don't write code well is bullshit, but what we're talking about is the idea that there should be a 50:50 split in females in the workforce - in all areas. If you don't believe that makes any sense you're a white software bro. All that needs to fuck right off.

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon

            Re: Biology is a thing.

            "I know enough extremely competent female software developers to say women don't write code well is bullshit"

            The writer of the memo never claimed that afaik, in fact I believe he said the exact opposite. What he *did* say was that differences in the way the sexes think might account for the lack of women joining the ranks of programmers in the first place - that they are simply drawn to other things, things that involve relating to people more.

            For example, we never really speak about how under-represented males are in HR departments do we?

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: Biology is a thing.

              >>What he *did* say was that differences in the way the sexes think might account for the lack of women joining the ranks of programmers in the first place - that they are simply drawn to other things, things that involve relating to people more.

              If so then it's likely more a pressure towards IT for many males. Girls mature more quickly than boys (probably to do with cave people not having a word for 'jailbait'). Consequently a girl at school is usually more capable socially on average than a boy at the same age. Perhaps it's as simple as IT appealing to those who seek subjects dependent on simple, learnable rules. As career paths start as young as fourteen / fifteen (choosing GCSEs), perhaps if career paths settled in later in life you'd see, not more women taking IT, but fewer men.

              It's a hypothesis only, but it's one I could entertain. Essentially that IT is a career perceived as not depending on social success and girls acquiring social adeptness and team mentality earlier than (not more than) boys.

      2. a_yank_lurker

        Re: Biology is a thing.

        One basic trait of all placental mammals, the females carry the develop young inside them for varying lengths of time (humans happens to be 9 months). The males do not. Also, in most (probably all) placental mammals, the females nurse the new born and are primary care givers until the young are old enough to fend for themselves (both time periods being variable). With some mammals, the males have little or no role in the rearing of the young. Since humans are placental mammals it is rather likely that a good bit of human behavior will have strong parallels to other placental mammals, particularly other primates.

    3. Cynic_999

      Re: Well..

      "

      the disparity is caused by upbringing, the way children play.

      "

      You state that as if it is an accepted fact. Far from it - there are almost certainly innate differences as well as environmental factors at play. I do not believe, for example, that if it were not for their upbringing, everyone would have an equal sexual attraction toward both males and females (i.e. we would all be bisexual). Lots of behavioural traits are due to hormonal factors, and many hormones are in turn dictated by gender - certainly post-puberty at any rate.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well..

      Having a debate with some of your workmates is one thing. Sending out a widely-distributed memo attacking your employer's policies is quite another. The latter is always going to get you fired. I have some sympathy with some of the things he said in that memo, but I'd still have fired him just as quick if I was his CEO.

      1. streaky

        Re: Well..

        The latter is always going to get you fired. I have some sympathy with some of the things he said in that memo, but I'd still have fired him just as quick if I was his CEO.

        "At google we value lively but respectful debate on a wide variety of subjects".

        The end. So easy to solve. Firing people because you don't want feminists to rant about you is silly, from Google of all companies. Literally impervious to any sort of PR.

        a widely-distributed memo attacking your employer's policies

        My understanding is it was posted to an internal message board where one assumes subjects of debate come up regularly. Also anybody who has read it clearly can't possibly judge it as an attack; it's essentially an opinion piece with many points, some have which have been validated by the guy being fired.

    5. Warm Braw

      Re: Well..

      He was talking about having the debate and he was fired for this

      While it was as wrong to sack him as it would be wrong to sack a woman complaining of sexual harassment, the knee jerk reaction of corporations faced with embarrassment is often to get rid of the source rather than deal with the cause.

      However, it's simply wrong to say that he was looking for a debate.

      For a start, Google's hiring policy is their business, not his, so it's not quite clear why he feels it should be subject to his political views. If you circulate a memo around your peers questioning the company's investment policy or campaigning for projects to be canned you wouldn't be looking for a debate, but a disciplinary hearing and the same applies to the company's choice of who they want to employ.

      But more seriously, his logic is simply flawed. He's saying that fewer women get hired because of certain, supposedly biologically-determined traits, but he offers no evidence that those traits are relevant to the job (it's merely his assertion that "bro" traits and IT competency are highly correlated), no evidence that women who get through the employment process perform less well at their jobs than their male colleagues and no evidence that the selection process is the blind optimal process he assumes. In fact his entire argument amounts to "women are more touchy-feely and therefore can't do IT and it oppresses me to say otherwise". That's not a debate, it's a tantrum.

      Which is no doubt what appealed to Julian of Knightsbridge.

      1. Tim Seventh

        Re: Well..

        @ Warm Braw, Please Read the memo.

        1."But more seriously, his logic is simply flawed. He's saying that fewer women get hired because of certain, supposedly biologically-determined traits, "

        He didn't say fewer women get hired, but he say "the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain"

        2."no evidence that women who get through the employment process perform less well"

        He didn't say women perform less well, but he did say "Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate"

        3."no evidence that the selection process is the blind optimal process he assumes."

        He didn't assume this is the blind optimal process, but he did say "Why we’re blind" for "We all have biases" and stated "I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that [the existing] diversity [process] is bad"

        4."In fact his entire argument amounts to "women are more touchy-feely and therefore can't do IT"

        He didn't say women are more touchy-feely and therefore can't do IT, but he did say "Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things"

        Disclaimer: I'm NOT supporting all of his points, but I dislike the news media for putting words into his mouth when it clearly is different.

    6. Paul 135

      Re: Well..

      You would think people involved in technology would have a brain and not fall for this nonsense you have just came out with. OF COURSE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ARE BIOLOGICAL!!!

      1. streaky

        Re: Well..

        There are differences between men and women, the key question is if the differences are the root cause of the number disparity (which obviously does exist). Basically my position is this isn't actually a problem and people saying it is are full of it.

        Google have gone out of their way to set their company up like a university campus and as a result they're turned it into safe space central rather than fostering debate and people's freedom to speak (again this should be respectful at all times, but people should be able to state their views).

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: Well..

          @veti, fair point - I didn't read the whole thing. The impression I had was that he was raising these points to describe why there weren't more women in technical roles and that it was down to their *choice* (which was based on biological differences - something I happen to agree with - as do ALL of the women I know).

          However, if he was also claiming that they couldn't do their jobs because of those differences, well that's a different kettle of sea monkeys.

          Most of the 'awkward' personalities in IT that present me with the most challenges are blokes - they don't listen to reason, but they are very prone to ego-boosting. Women aren't as daft, but if you tell them you respect their point of view (yet still disagree) you tend to get a lot more respect in return.

          As someone said in another thread - it's horses for courses and we're all individuals (yes Brian, I'm looking at you!).

          1. DropBear
            WTF?

            Re: Well..

            "For a start, Google's hiring policy is their business"

            You don't say... oh, wait, you do! So if they were to decide to have a "hiring policy" of white males (or African-american females or Thai ladyboys or blonde, blue-eyed Germans) exclusively - that would be "their business" too, and we should let them carry on with it...?

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: Well..

              Hiring should be about ability to do the job well. Nothing else. By all means identify why there is a lack of candidates in a particular demographic - for example girls in school being discouraged from IT - and address it. By all means deal with cases where prejudice is preventing the hiring of qualified candidates - for example, racism. But the goal is to make hiring about the ability to contribute the most, not ham-fistedly treat a symptom rather than a cause.

              Google's culture is worrying to me because they have massive influence on what people can say. Their ability to supress a view, an idea or even just a funny video, is greater than a lot of governments. Someone sent me a funny clip of Harry Potter dropping the dragon egg from one of the films and it exploding terrorist-style. Fairly dumb, quite funny. Half an hour later it was removed as "Hate Speech". Not that this is hugely consequential, but just observing that unlike governments, Google can do what it likes. Including shutting down debates. Honestly, if this person wants to discuss male vs. female careers, I'd far rather him do so openly so I can engage and challenge his views than for him to go away with them unexamined and many others to wonder if his views have to be censored that there must be something to them.

              All great ideas challenge the status quo. That doesn't mean that everything which does is a great idea, but it does mean you can't institutionalise the suppression of anything that challenges your views because inevitably a few of those things will be something you were wrong about.

        2. h4rm0ny

          Re: Well..

          Even if there are biological predispositions to certain careers, it's meaningless as a guide to who you should hire unless the disparity is, to use a statistical term, fucking enormous.

          If women were - very hypothetically - 5% less capable of higher mathematics on average, it would still be insanity to use male / female as a determinant in hiring policy. And 5% is actually pretty high, if there were a difference of that much, it would have been easy to prove by this point.

          Biology primarily influences women's careers by the fact women often take career breaks to have children and men seldom do. Everything other than that has always seemed to be cultural rather than biological in my experience. Certainly I have known innumerable very talented engineers who were women. I have also, from personal experience, known many girls who got put off "boy's subjects" at school. IF (and I'm breaking out the capital letters here), there is a biological difference in ability, it's so small as to be utterly inappropriate to make judgements about individuals based on it. And if there's a biological difference that inclines men and women to be interested in different careers independent of ability, then I would stake everything I own on it being far, far less a determinant than cultural factors because I have seen the latter in action repeatedly at school and at university.

      2. h4rm0ny

        Re: Well..

        >>"OF COURSE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ARE BIOLOGICAL!!!"

        Not if the differences you're referring to are roles in society. There culture, history and prejudice apply. And this discussion was about women's roles in society - specifically a career. And you cannot make a supported case that roles in society are solely down to biological differences.

    7. Mad Mike

      Re: Well..

      @streaky

      "He's wrong in saying it's biological though "

      Unfortunately, numerous peer reviewed university studies have shown that men and women DO think differently and DO have ability differences in various areas. Of course, this is all an average and is not specific to any specific person.

      However, the Google chap was simply saying that because of the above, not all jobs will split 50/50. He wasn't saying you shouln't employ a woman coder or a male nurse or whatever. He was just saying that biologically, the sexes natural traits (as shown in studies) indicate abilities and desires will tend to push them towards certain jobs, hence the split will naturally vary from 50/50.

      Of course, society does push and enhance this effect enourmously, but saying it isn't at least in part caused by biology is rather going against the science and studies showing differences do exist.

      1. Jeremy Puddleduck

        Re: Well..

        You're conflating "thinking differently" with "the sexes natural traits", as did the idiot author of the brofesto. Your thoughts are a result of nurture and nature, that's the issue. And there biological differences in brains between genders have been shown to have a tiny impact compared with the nurture element.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: Well..

          " biological differences in brains between genders have been shown to have a tiny impact compared with the nurture element."

          Citation?

        2. DropBear

          Re: Well..

          @mr. Puddleduck: [Citation needed (BADLY)]

        3. Mad Mike

          Re: Well..

          @Jeremy Puddleduck.

          "You're conflating "thinking differently" with "the sexes natural traits", as did the idiot author of the brofesto. Your thoughts are a result of nurture and nature, that's the issue. And there biological differences in brains between genders have been shown to have a tiny impact compared with the nurture element."

          Yes, I am, because one of the sexes natural traits is different ways of thinking. My thoughts are from many published studies in this area and nothing to do with nurture. I don't deny that nurture affects things as well, but the differences naturally present have been found to be quite large in studies. Women think slightly differently to men (google it....many studies etc.), which is actually a good thing. Whilst it may make the sexes slightly more adept at some jobs than others (in many it may not make the slightest difference), it is also useful in that men and women will often look at things very differently and from different angles, which in many case, is very useful.

          The desire to make everyone equal (whether social standing, sex, race, religion etc.etc.) is actually very anti-nature and if successful, would produce a mindless soup of identical individuals. To succeed as a species, we need to utilise the differences rather than try and remove them and deny they exist. At the moment, schools are very bad at playing to the strengths of individual children and instead generally try and produce a standard child at the end. This leads to many going onto careers that do not get the best out of them or offer them the best opportunities. Of course, society doesn't help by valuing academic more than vocational etc., which needs to be stamped out.

    8. Potemkine! Silver badge

      Re: Well..

      He was talking about having the debate and he was fired for this.

      A company is no democracy, never was and never will be. That guy used company's board to publish an opinion contrary to the company policy, being fired for that is logical. Firing him would have been scandalous if he had posted his pamphlet on a public board and be fired for that, but it is not the case.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: Well..

        @Potemkine!

        "A company is no democracy, never was and never will be. That guy used company's board to publish an opinion contrary to the company policy, being fired for that is logical. Firing him would have been scandalous if he had posted his pamphlet on a public board and be fired for that, but it is not the case."

        That would be fine if the company didn't actively ask for opinion and discussion, which it does. So, effectively what they've done now, is ask for opinion and discussion provided it doesn't disagree with their thinking. They are actively discouraging different thinking and opinions (which in most good businesses are considered a good thing) and acting against their own supposed policies.

    9. Rob Gr

      Re: Well..

      "why aren't men given priority in nursing if this is a thing?"

      Because they're too busy being disproportionately employed at higher positions as doctors and specialists, which pay a shit load more, in spite of similar outcomes from medical qualifications.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: Well..

        @Rob Gr

        ""why aren't men given priority in nursing if this is a thing?"

        Because they're too busy being disproportionately employed at higher positions as doctors and specialists, which pay a shit load more, in spite of similar outcomes from medical qualifications."

        In spite of similar outcomes from medical qualifications? This simply isn't true. The entry criteria for nurse training and medical school are vastly different. Also, the qualifications at the end are significantly different. Although there are some nurses who can add Dr to the name (in the sense of having a doctorate), there aren't that many. You're trying to suggest that a man with a given qualification is more likely to become a doctor than a nurse and vice versa for a woman. I'm sure there are some that have the qualifications to be a doctor, but choose to become a nurse, but they're very few.

        In fact, your reply is completely wrong on representation as well.

        http://www.gmc-uk.org/information_for_you/23490.asp

        57% men, 43% women. Yes, a small bias towards men. But, also note that the above link says many more women are training to be doctors than men, so in a short while, there are likely to be more women doctors than men!!

  4. GrumpenKraut
    Thumb Down

    OT: Ad "sponsored article": "...is in the maths"

    Sends me to https://thereglabs.com/endpoint_security/article/article2

    ... where I get a German text that looks like a poor machine translation of a poor text. It starts "Die Grundlage der Technologie-Branche ist Disruption." and doesn't get better from there. Can anybody who sees the English version check whether the text is really that sad?

    Near the end: "Der neue Ansatz ist dabei, die bisherigen Ansätze in der Cybersicherheit durcheinander zu rütteln.", seriously non-convincing.

  5. Adam 52 Silver badge

    "In his latest attempt to further the global alliance of weapons-grade bellends*"

    I reckon James can make a small fortune suing news publishers who have misrepresented him.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well...

    ...we already know what Assange's attitude towards women is (ie "I'm famous, so I don't need to listen to your opinion about wether I can have sex with you or not") so I can well understand why he feels he may have found a kindred spirit.

    By the way, when WAS the last time Assange showed up at work?

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: Well...

      This morning. He works from the embassy.

  7. zebthecat

    Obligatory xkcd

    https://xkcd.com/1357/

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: Obligatory xkcd

      That is a bigoted US-only legal definition of free speech.

      Most of us are not in the USA.

      1. Chemical Bob

        Re: Obligatory xkcd

        Since this happened inside the borders of the United States, the US definition of free speech would be applicable.

        Whether or not it is a good definition is another matter.

        1. DropBear

          Re: Obligatory xkcd

          "Whether or not it is a good definition is another matter."

          Any definition that disagrees with people not having to listen to your speech if they don't want to would be a _bad_ definition though. What the exact practical ramifications should be can always be debated further, but the idea is sound. That said, whether you should be able to fire someone solely based on what he thinks or says in a non-person-to-person manner* is certainly in need if some debate, even if I happen to think hell no you should NOT.

          *Let's not go slicing and dicing the details for hate speech and such right now. No, I don't like that either. But one should be very careful in how one defines what exactly that is.

        2. h4rm0ny

          Re: Obligatory xkcd

          It's a bad definition. It presumes the thing you have to fear when speaking out is the government supressing your voice. That may have been true once but these days there are companies more powerful than many governments. And unlike governments which could only deprive you of printing presses, companies like Facebook and Google can deprive you of talking to your community. Because they believe they own it rather than the people it is made up of.

          1. Chemical Bob

            Re: Obligatory xkcd

            Exactly - the law we have now is not the law we need now.

  8. Admiral Grace Hopper

    Is there room for anyone else

    In the cupboard he's hiding in?

  9. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Not related to article ...

    but since Assange has managed to get his name on air again ...

    Is there any appetite amongst commentards for a "Tell us the story about YOUR worst houseguest ..." type thread ? Primarily based on overstays, but I'm sure there's scope for other behaviour.

    Might lighten the summer break ?

    1. DavCrav

      Re: Not related to article ...

      "Is there any appetite amongst commentards for a "Tell us the story about YOUR worst houseguest ..." type thread ?"

      One accidentally stabbed me.

      You mean like that?

      1. DropBear
        Joke

        Re: Not related to article ...

        "You mean like that?"

        That is only a "story" in the sense "For sale: baby shoes, never worn" is. You... hipster!

  10. Simon Harris

    I had to re-read the footnote.

    The first time I thought George Galloway had engaged in "bad sexual etiquette" with Julian Assange.

    (Apologies for that unseemly mental image to anyone currently partaking of afternoon tea, or indeed, a Morrisons 12" sausage roll).

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: I had to re-read the footnote.

      Is that where he pretends to be a cat licking cream off people?

      Oh, that mental image has put me right off my dinner next 100 meals.

  11. PghMike

    A job in the Ecuadorian embassy?

    I'm just curious where this cool job is :-)

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: A job in the Ecuadorian embassy?

      2nd broom cupboard along, behind the toilet on the left.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: A job in the Ecuadorian embassy?

      Maybe he's looking for a decoy. Someone leaves embassy disguised as Assange whilst Assagne leaves by back door disguised as....well, disguised.

      1. Nick Kew

        Re: A job in the Ecuadorian embassy?

        Maybe he's looking for a decoy. Someone leaves embassy disguised as Assange whilst Assagne leaves by back door disguised as....well, disguised.

        Been done. See for instance Dickens: "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."

    3. WatAWorld

      Re: A job in the Ecuadorian embassy?

      It is at this place:

      WikiLeaks, its publisher and its journalists have won many awards, including:

      The Economist New Media Award (2008)

      The Amnesty New Media Award (2009)

      TIME Magazine Person of the Year, People’s Choice (highest global vote) (2010)

      The Sam Adams Award for Integrity (2010)

      The National Union of Journalists Journalist of the Year (Hrafnsson) (2011)

      The Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal (2011)

      The Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011)

      The Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator (2011)

      The Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011)

      The Voltaire Award for Free Speech (2011)

      The International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists (2011)

      The Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (2011)

      The Privacy International Hero of Privacy (2012)

      The Global Exchange Human Rights People’s Choice Award (2013)

      The Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts (2013)

      The Brazillian Press Association Human Rights Award (2013)

      The Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize (2014)

      As well as nominations for the UN Mandela Prize (2015) and nominations in six consecutive years for the Nobel Peace Prize (2010-2015)

      https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A job in the Ecuadorian embassy?

        Ever such a long time ago before they started playing geopolitics

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A job in the Ecuadorian embassy?

        >WikiLeaks, its publisher and its journalists have won many awards, including:

        Honours which trail off in importance over time due to the ass clown running it.....

        > nominations in six consecutive years for the Nobel Peace Prize (2010-2015)

        Anyone can nominate, but it still doesn't seem to have made the 2017 list - 318 others have and one of them is Donald Trump (really).

      3. Potemkine! Silver badge

        Re: A job in the Ecuadorian embassy?

        he Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize

        Ah, Kazakhstan, this hotbed for democracy and human rights!

        Did you notice all the "relevant" prizes were awarded before 2011? This list shows very well how Wikileaks went wrong in the last years.

  12. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge
    WTF?

    Assange shouts at world to stop forgetting him

    Use your workplace as your personal soapbox for a disruptive and controversial topic, make sure your employer's name is all over your topics when it hits the press, and then call it censorship as you're led out the door.

    1. Mike Moyle

      Re: Assange shouts at world to stop forgetting him

      ^^^ -- This.

    2. Infernoz Bronze badge
      Pirate

      Re: Assange shouts at world to stop forgetting him

      @ Kevin McMurtrie

      What the Google employee wrote was polite and well reasoned, which should not be disruptive or controversial at all. It was the irrational SJWs who made Dialectic argument controversial, because it doesn't fit their fantasy "narratives", so they spew loads of Rhetorical noise, use implicit/policy censorship, and some "moderates" even lazily side with the SJWs!

      He was probably trying to gather support inside, obviously SJW infested, Google to challenge unfair SJW policy and discrimination, because he was aware of the damage it was causing inside Google, but may not have realised that HR is a common SJW target and stronghold, specifically to corrupt the rules and policies of an organisation, to hijack it!

      He should have read the book "SJWs always lie" for how SJWs can be defeated.

      1. Citizens untied

        Re: Assange shouts at world to stop forgetting him

        I think the problem for the employee is that Google has no ability to distinguish itself from his position, so their only option is to fire him to assert their own difference, since, they, by their own machinery, will now be forever linked with his views (it was referred to as "The Google Memo"). Whether any of his observations or assertions were valid is beside the point, the most important thing to Google is not the truth, no matter what it may be, but their ability to manage perceptions, regardless of the validity. I would presume Mr. Assange is in the same business as Google in this respect.

      2. AdamWill

        Re: Assange shouts at world to stop forgetting him

        You realize peppering your post with 'SJW' has the same effect on its credibility as doing the same thing with 'Micro$oft', right?

        And no, he wasn't 'polite'. It's fundamentally not polite to question whether your female colleagues are biologically capable of doing their jobs.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. h4rm0ny

          Re: Assange shouts at world to stop forgetting him

          >>And no, he wasn't 'polite'. It's fundamentally not polite to question whether your female colleagues are biologically capable of doing their jobs.

          Another poster linked to it elsewhere so I've just read through it in his entirety. The person you are replying to is correct - his piece was very polite. You are very wrong - nowhere in it is he suggesting that female colleagues are biologically not capable of doing their jobs. I'll link it again here.

          You plainly have not read the piece or else have a tremendous determination to misinterpret it. Therefore you have no business telling the poster who has that they're wrong. It's actually a very interesting read and does attempt to support its points.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Assange shouts at world to stop forgetting him

            Hush now don't let facts get in the way of regurgitating dogma force fed through failed liberal arts students blogs like el'reg. If people were to actually read things and acquire first-hand information they'd have to think for themselves, and we can't have that now can we?

    3. Paul 135

      Re: Assange shouts at world to stop forgetting him

      Rubbish. Google IS pushing destructive politics detrimental to western Civilization. If his company is pushing politics then he has a right to challenge them.

  13. Arthur the cat Silver badge
    Mushroom

    the global alliance of weapons-grade bellends

    Sadly it's probably even harder to get an international treaty banning bellends than it is to get one banning nukes. Even if we did, North Korea would insist on producing their own(*).

    (*) One could argue they already have done, code named "Fat Boy with weird haircut".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: the global alliance of weapons-grade bellends

      Which fat boy with a weird haircut, North Korea's or America's?

  14. Cynic_999

    Double standards

    What has always struck me about the anti-discrimination lobby is that while they are against discriminating against a person because of skin colour or gender, they have no problem with discriminating against a person due to the geographic location of the place they happened to have been born. In fact it is illegal NOT to discriminate against a person because of their place of birth (unless they have applied for and been graciously granted permission to be treated equally).

    If it is forbidden to turn away a job applicant because they have black skin, how come it is forbidden to employ someone because they were born in Uganda (unless they have been given explicit permission by our government to work in the UK)?

    After all, a person has no more control over the place they were born than they have about their skin colour. And if you demand that a person born in Uganda may only seek work in Uganda, why is it so much worse to demand that anyone born with a black skin may only seek work with a black employer? Both appear to me to be equally discriminatory.

    1. kain preacher

      Re: Double standards

      Don't know were you live, but in the US you can not discriminate based these criteria .

      race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, military service, or disability.

      1. Cynic_999

        Re: Double standards

        @kain preacher Are you saying that if I went to the U.S. as a UK national and applied for a job, they could not refuse me on the grounds that I don't have a work permit? Because if I have to have a work permit but a person born in the US does not need to have a work permit, that would be discrimination based upon national origin, wouldn't it?

        1. kain preacher

          Re: Double standards

          If you have a green you dont need a work permit.

          Since when is checking to make sure some complies with the law or is here legally discrimination ?

          1. Cynic_999

            Re: Double standards

            "

            If you have a green you dont need a work permit.

            "

            The fact that a person born outside the US would need a "green" but a person born inside the US does not is obviously discrimination based upon birth location.

            "

            Since when is checking to make sure some complies with the law or is here legally discrimination ?

            "

            Since when the law itself is discriminatory. When it was illegal for blacks to own property, would you argue that it was not discriminatory to refuse to sell to a black because it was the law?

        2. Eddy Ito

          Re: Double standards

          It's simple, permits and licenses promote law and order! Or they're used to bully kids and as politically connected protectionism that protects the guild more than it does the consumer. Seriously, in many professions you aren't even allowed to work for just anybody by law but I don't want to get started on the whole ITAR and EAR intact male Bos taurus excreta.

          1. Cynic_999

            Re: Double standards

            "

            It's simple, permits and licenses promote law and order!

            "

            I see. So if blacks needed a licence to own a knife, but whites did not need a licence, you would not regard that as being discrimination?

            1. Eddy Ito

              Re: Double standards

              Sorry, I'll include a #sarcasm hashtag next time.

  15. WatAWorld

    OED definition of bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

    OED definition of bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bigot

    MWD definition of bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    Note that in the definition, race and ethnic group are listed as examples. There is no exception that permits mistreating ethnic groups because you "don't like them" or you think "your prejudices are based in science and everyone else's prejudices are based in pseudo science."

    1. Cynic_999

      Re: OED definition of bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

      "

      OED definition of bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

      "

      I have the opinion that women should not be raped or beaten because of how they dress, and I am intolerant of people who have the opinion that it is perfectly OK to rape or commit GBH on some women. I have the opinion that it is abhorrent to put people to death because they have a different religious belief or are homosexual, and I am intolerant toward people who believe it is OK to kill people for those reasons.

      If that makes me a bigot, I will wear the label with pride.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: OED definition of bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

        When someone compares an opposing political view with a violent crime it's usually because they accept that their political beliefs don't stand on their own merits and they need to argue in favour of something else instead.

        Just throwing that out there.

        1. Cynic_999

          Re: OED definition of bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

          "

          When someone compares an opposing political view with a violent crime

          "

          The belief that a woman should be stoned to death for wearing the wrong type of clothes (as is the law in some countries) *is* a political view.

      2. DropBear

        Re: OED definition of bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

        "If that makes me a bigot, I will wear the label with pride."

        Same here - I don't feel the need to personally conduct an endless and laborious debate all over again with every single supporter of a known discredited topic (see anti-vaxxers for an example if you really must have one - my list is much, much longer) before I'm allowed to consider them an idiot. Call me whatever you feel like for it, it won't make me feel ashamed. I might still be up for a debate if I'm in a good mood and you seem courteous and showing signs of critical thinking, but I make no promises...

    2. Infernoz Bronze badge
      Mushroom

      Re: OED definition of bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

      @WhatAWorld

      I don't trust all dictionary definitions anymore because some original definitions have been subtly/ grossly altered and/or extended for overtly political reasons, including the dishonest extension of the word Pirate (violent boarding and theft from a ship) to apply to non-violent, copying of IP, with only fictional damage.

      Not all arguments are worth considering, some debaters are idiots, sophists (including out-of-context usage) or liars when they accuse others of being a bigot, and the targets may not trust the other parties to argue honestly. Most people are probably not aware of the books "Influence" and "Pre-influence", and how people can be manipulated.

      The words/concepts Fascist and Nazi have also been abused, and don't mean what a lot of people think they mean, due to selfish Zionist propaganda and lazy over use, thus Godwin's Law.

      I would not consider anyone a Bigot for rejecting false-choice Hegelian-Dialectics, or any of the Cultural-Marxism cultural-sabotage-weapons of the Frankfurt School's, and it's disciple's, including political correctness, feminism, post-modernism, victim culture, and Marxist invented concepts like Racialism etc.; all to prepare the way for dictatorship, where all the useful Marxist idiot activists, including SJWs, will be tragically and mercilessly executed, as previously demonstrated by USSR policy and actions!

  16. WatAWorld

    Real journalists meet and question those they disagree with.

    Journalists have to meet a higher standard than the regular public. Journalists are not merely supposed to avoid being bigots by respecting contrary opinion. Journalists are supposed to seek out contrary opinion.

    Real journalists meet and question those they disagree with. So Assange is a real journalist, whereas your editors and publisher wouldn't know a real journalist if they saw one.

    "*Assange recently met Nigel Farage, has offered tentative praise of Donald Trump, and was defended by George Galloway as having merely engaged in "bad sexual etiquette" in relation to the allegations of sexual assault against Assange, which the WikiLeaker has always denied."

    Trump is going to get impeached, hopefully for improper things he did that no other president before him did. But that doesn't mean he has had no good ideas. Even the devil has an occasional good idea.

  17. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    Grab them by the Pussy

    That's still fine - I'm surprised that our lad hasn't been offered a job in Washington.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Headmaster

    Hm.

    Seems the author made the same common mistake as other parts of the media, by accidentally labeling the memo "anti-diversity". The Atlantic have a good piece on it, here:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/

    Also, if anyone wants to read the actual memo, it's up at https://diversitymemo.com/

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hm.

      Don't confuse people with facts, dear. The trolls are enjoying their rampage.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Noted troll Julian Assange?

    "In his latest attempt to further the global alliance of weapons-grade bellends*, noted troll Julian Assange"

    The man had sacrificed a great deal in opposing the state security apparatus, what have you done? Would you mind preserving these kind of character assassinations for the likes of Breitbart. But do tell us your opinion on the current illegal and immoral war being prosecuted on the people of Syria by the US military industrial complex?

    1. Frumious Bandersnatch

      Re: Noted troll Julian Assange?

      The man had sacrificed a great deal...

      The man sacrificed Chelsea Manning, IIRC. Any updates on this article?

      https://www.wired.com/2010/12/manning-defens/

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Big Brother

        Re: Noted troll Julian Assange?

        "The man sacrificed Chelsea Manning, IIRC. Any updates on this article?"

        No, it was FBI snitch Adrian Lamo who betrayed Manning. Lamo also turned in his pal Sabu. The public arrest of both Sabu and Lamo was to disguise the fact they were long time FBI informants. Sabu or Lamo having accidentally doxxing themselves while on IRC. Lamo being drawn to the attention of the FBI while engaged in a little CC fraud to fund his pharmaceuticals.

        Hey, elREg, how about an article on the stated aims of the US security apparatus to destroy and discredit Wikileaks and Assange through planting fake news articles in the media.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Noted troll Julian Assange?

          I remember when Assange was the poster child of the Regressives along with Richard Dawkins, oh how the times change.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps the memo should be read, before commenting?

    The argument laid out (whether you ultimately agree or not) was well reasoned.

    Perhaps the bias meter within some heads needs revisited.

    Posting A/C in case my boss sees this!

    1. kraphaus
      Stop

      The argument laid out was NOT well reasoned, for many reasons.

      One that stands out - discussions of the "average woman" vs the "average man" in the workplace and inherent traits etc etc etc and forces the acceptance of that premise to then prescribe hiring practices (which have absolutely nothing to do with him) at Google.

      He's already failed at the first step - it's basic logic. What he is saying is the equivalent of:

      1. Many horses are blue.

      2. Blue horses tend to lose footraces.

      3. We should never race blue horses.

      Since it appears that person hasn't moved beyond the 1890's, replace "horses" with people, "blue" with women, "lose footraces" with "have emotions" and "race" with "hire". Can nobody else see the gaping hole in his logic?

      Accepting that his argument is well reasoned - yeah, better leave that one anonymous.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "He's already failed at the first step - it's basic logic. What he is saying is the equivalent of:

        1. Many horses are blue."

        Here's a counter example, 70% of patients with Ebola die from Ebola. This isn't logic, it's facts. For the 'average women' and 'average men', he was trying to point out facts, not basic logic.

        At most, his mistake was not putting reference or stating reference to the studies and not putting disclaimers on his points being interpretation, assumption or studies result. Also, he probably should have considered the reaction the memo has on female staffs and change it to avoid misunderstanding.

      2. Trilkhai
        Holmes

        @kraphus

        I'm baffled as to why so many people don't see it ­— but then again, my traits are pretty close to the polar-opposite of a stereotypical woman, so it'd be hard for me to overlook how silly it is to lump together people by gender...

      3. The Mole

        Actually what I believe he actually said (using your paraphrasing) was:

        1. 50% of horses are blue.

        2. But Blue horses on average are not as likely to win footraces than pink horses, (though not many pink horses are good at footraces either).

        3. We therefore shouldn't expect that 50% of horses entered into footraces will be blue.

        4. There are many good blue horses which do exceedingly well in footraces and having that diversity is a very good things as it makes the footraces better.

      4. h4rm0ny

        You appear not to have actually read his argument. He didn't say, to use your analogy, that blue horses were worse at foot races. He argued that blue horses were less interested in average in footraces. He argued that if blue horses tended to choose to go into show-jumping then holding back pink horses, or preferentially promoting blue horses in an effort to make sure a race was fifty:fifty between colours was misguided. You can agree or disagree with him but you have heavily misrepresented his argument.

        Also, why are we using analogies here, anyway? Surely men and women are concepts we're all familiar with?

  21. Frumious Bandersnatch

    In the USA

    "censorship" is only "censorship" when the government does it. What is it? The first amendment, I think.

    A company that fires a guy for saying something (possibly detrimental to their organisation) does not fall under the 1st amendment.

    Assange is a knob.

  22. samzeman
    Thumb Up

    Yeah, you'd know

    I didn't know so many evolutionary biologists were on here.

  23. Anonymous Cowerd
    Thumb Down

    There's nothing like a bit of impartial journalism...

    ...and this is nothing like a bit of impartial journalism.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well the chap involved apparently had a phd in biology so probably knows more about the subject than most people talking about it.

    1. Sinick
      FAIL

      Just as well you added the "apparently", because he was bald-faced LYING about that Ph.D.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-removes-phd-studies-linkedin-2017-8

      Which just goes to show his honesty and ethics are about on a par with his grasp of logic and biology.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Apparently he has a Masters in Biology and is part way through his Phd.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like