Never realized how long this article was over “diversity” pandering in technology
An archive for all of you guys out there who are interested:
Discrimination charges at Pinterest reveal a hidden Silicon Valley hiring problem -
- Thread starter albert chan
- Start date
Never realized how long this article was over “diversity” pandering in technology
An archive for all of you guys out there who are interested:
I literally read the first three paragraphs and this woman is shocked that her manager is at a higher level than her.
Isn't Pinterest some white girls only thing?
- Highlight
- #5
'Tis a vicious cycle
1) Small start up becomes successful because of their meritocratic structure, quickly out pacing existing competition
2) Start up expands size to handle new scale of business
3) Inevitably hires so Soc Jus/BLM pieces of shit
4) They complain when they're judge on merit, not on identity politics. Starts a public shit storm which is a PR nightmare.
5) Start up is forced to adopt soc jus policies
6) Start up is out classed by a new start up with a meritocratic structure.
7) Original start up grows broke
Tale as old as time
1) Small start up becomes successful because of their meritocratic structure, quickly out pacing existing competition
2) Start up expands size to handle new scale of business
3) Inevitably hires so Soc Jus/BLM pieces of shit
4) They complain when they're judge on merit, not on identity politics. Starts a public shit storm which is a PR nightmare.
5) Start up is forced to adopt soc jus policies
6) Start up is out classed by a new start up with a meritocratic structure.
7) Original start up grows broke
Tale as old as time
Well let's stop right there at the first sentence, sweetie. Let me mansplain something here: your job is useless. Your position is superfluous. It does nothing. It adds no value. I haven't read the rest of the article, but I'll bet you found out your pay reflected the underlying, fundamental pointlessness of your position.
The fact that you even have a job is indicative of a company that has stopped innovating, and is blowing money on random niche ideas with no payoff. Your employment is an unearned gift. It can and should be revoked at the slightest whiff of an operating loss.
Second sentence, not much hope. You're bouncing from sinecure to sinecure, your absence unnoticed when you leave. You aren't generating code or money; there is no "policy team's work" that couldn't also be generated by a mediocre mad libs script.
On your best day, with best efforts and the most perfect luck, the highest outcome you could ever possibly achieve is "prevent my company from saying something embarrassing". That may have value, but not much. But people like you are the ones who ensure everything they ever say can be criticized and made embarrassing. Your very existence negates the purpose of your job.
Hah, called it. Your function is pointless, and you were being compensated accordingly. (And notice how fast ideologues become liabilities when you hire them!)
Reading between the lines, this looks like an existing manager was given the main job as a payout to a loyal employee, and eventually he asked for some assistants. There wasn't much work to be done, they probably couldn't justify another managerial level position so they added one person (“I’m half of the team, I’m doing half of the work of the team"). And then she got pissy that the new hire wasn't making as much as the original manager.
So she stood on her ground and valiantly convinced them of her own merits, right?
Nope, just like every other grifter, she latched on to a wildly popular movement, for no other reason than the color of her skin.
Sure you were. Two fresh hires years after the company matured, spitting out policy statements and pablum, were doing "the most substantive work" in a software company. You can dismiss the rest of her characterizations as lies based on that one sentence alone.
And nothing of value was lost.
I'm not even going to read the rest of the article. If they led with their strongest case, then they have less than nothing, for women who contributed nothing, in a position that required nothing.
You have nothing, ma'am, good day.
Edit: I kept skimming the article, and found the list of her "most substantive work that most materially benefited the company".
So she was a censor who spoke to the MSM for asspats. Zero value.
"Outpost" is consultant speak for "one person who works from home in a city far away from headquarters". She was their "representative" because she was local, not because she was qualified or good at her job. And I have a hard time believing the junior member of a team was the one shaping the company's strategy in the less than 2 years they put up with her.
The dirty little secret of Silicon Valley is that they don't need to hire a never-ending spiral of new employees. You could lay off 2/3 of the tech workers in the area, and the Internet would continue just fine. The Pareto Principle, where 20% of the workers produce 80% of the work, kicks in once you reach an organization of a certain size. And the IT giants of the Web have clearly soared past that point.
Last edited:
She didn't even last two months before starting to shake down the company, not quite two years before going nuclear on her employer. All for a code of conduct writer job.
I'm really confused how someone can be a manager of two other people but also 'perform essentially the same work' as those same people....
I keep telling people, get you a girl who pinterests. Its like a hidden key to the fucked up mind of women. and you always have birthday gift ideas
Well when one person out of three is the most productive and the two are not quite bad enough to fire and replace you just have someone handle them. This is the least surprising part.
Similar threads
Sex-reassignment surgeon notorious for botched surgeries, constantly suing and being sued
