You literally can not refute this

Attached: 1553632108857.jpg (861x895, 105K)

There, I refuted this. What do I win?

Attached: 1550972888671.png (674x70, 20K)

I-it's just an analogy, I don't NEED a citation. Meritocracy is dead anyway. Can someone call the pigs, a known racist refuses to stop harassing me.

this lol

Ha ha anons, don't you see that the word "best" is in quotation marks?

>Studies showing "diversity" as having any inherent benefit are largely flawed.
Can someone share some evidence that supports this? I'd like to learn more.

gtfo white guys are shooting schools daily

Attached: whitecrime.png (1000x743, 55K)

White male privilege:
Walk up and down mainstreet 17 times;
No turbans.
Even distribution of males and females of various ages.
Go to Walmart and look at employees;
17 turbans
8 paki women
10 white women
1 white male under 18
1 white male over 70
1 white male 19-69 (has an MBA)
Fill out application for govt. employment, post office etc.
Name, Sex, Age..
Question 4: Are you a member of a visible minority?

I can't imagine why.

Not being a nigger is a privilege.

Now show the per capita statistic for shootings in general...

Also, this is roughly proportional to population and "mass shootings" are rather irrelevant, compared to crimes were ten of thousand die every year.

So basically, tech companies are looking hard for white people? Because white people are minorities of the world.

I wonder why big tech stopped race/gender-blind hiring trials...

Attached: 1539042948634.gif (256x256, 490K)

Look at all those mass shootings, goy, don't pay attention to dozens of people being shot in inner cities every night,

I got another food analogy:
I have 100 A qulity grapes, but one of them is poisoned and I will instantly die if I eat it. What would you do in this situation if tou valued your life? Exactly you wouldn't eat any grapes, so let's close borders

I would probably cause I'm sick of this life

*inhaling 100 grapes at once*

>Given the above facts, what would you do to make the most "best" coffee?
focus exclusively on gathering and selling the most product i can, the orange beans
then with the profits, buy the requisite number of teal beans from a supplier focused on that

where are these studies demonstrating that the "best" (interesting quotes) coffee is made by intending to hire anyone except white males?

Looks very much like the racial distribution in the US.

This would've been written by some useless blue haired fatty from HR

I hope Google burns.

Attached: 1503001026617.jpg (419x419, 33K)

google will still be here 50 years from now

But the color of the coffee beans does not matter, so it makes no sense to spend time searching for the rare ones.

>white guys are shooting schools daily
while blacks are shooting each other so much that literally their populaiton will freeze at about 15% for the next century

>Given the above facts

Attached: google.png (403x448, 65K)

Why don't we just make crime illegal?

Attached: 1551742193071.png (700x395, 245K)

>10% of coffee beans are teal
And that's exactly how many women/minorites should be in tech, prefereably on janitor positions.

>lets take this assumption for granted
holy shit.

But I won't.
Ha checkmate

mfw

Attached: 1546171549054.jpg (1000x880, 204K)

The initial premise that to make the best coffee you need 50% of each bean is already wrong and is the basis of their entire argument.
Why would code written by a team of 5 whites and 5 non whites be any better than any other ratio? Skin colour isn't an issue.

America has not done anything about mental health at all.
You raise white people telling them they are the fucking devil from a young age and this happens.
Why is it that in Scandinavian countries with the same percentage of guns there are no shootings by whites.

This is the best response I've heard to this so far.
a.uguu.se/IyljZ6xBt2H0_How_is_Diversity_a_Strength.mp4

>tucker

>America has not done anything about mental health at all.
Oh yes it certainly has, just in the wrong direction.

Why focus on who said it rather than what was said? Does it make the question any less valid?

Attached: 1548686194883.jpg (628x640, 36K)

>Why focus on who said it rather than what was said?
How else are you going to avoid the question and problem if you don't focus on something irrelevant to the topic?

hurr

Attached: Inferring-Causation-from-Correlation.jpg (1536x2048, 348K)

Especially, they almost always work in the following way: successful businesses (classically purely white men) are currently hiring more diversity (for brownie points) than startups or early businesses. Therefore, that must mean that diversity leads to success. This is obviously wrong on many levels and the proper interpretation should be that diversity is costly and inefficient given that only massive corporations can even afford it.

GOOGLE BTFO KEK

I believe what they mean is that you need as many of the top 1% developers as possible. You're not going to be able to increase the number of white male 1% programmers, so the only way to hire more of the coveted 1%, in their opinion, is to focus almost exclusively on women and pocs since the men already apply themselves.

Sir, please do the needful and post the infographic on the number of all civilian - civilian shootings by race.

why havent google setup office in the jungles of africa looking for javascript devs? there's plenty of coffee beans there

Reminder that official statistics count suicides as "gun crime".

1. There are more white people, this should be normalized by total number of the shooters race
2. Blacks don't go to school.

>food analogy
holy fuck how do these people even get hired

>blacks dont go to school

Attached: pepelaugh.png (378x357, 81K)

Imagine if niggers knew how to read gun instructions.

well that was hard

Attached: refuted.png (698x128, 40K)

The entire anology is racist. Google is literally saying the skills of people are defined by their skin color.

>extensive studies discovered best coffee is mixed coffee
[CITATION NEEDED]

>1% of each bean is best bean
[CITATION NEEDED]

Imagine [food analogy]

>90% of the word population is right handed
OK.
>10% of the word population is left handed
Duh.
>we should hire both kinds of people
Obviously.
>so we have to spend more time and effort to be sure that half our employees are right handed and the other half are left handed
wat

That's exactly the fallacy that OP's using too you know.

There's no actual study that proves skin deep diversity improves performance.
It's all a matter of "given this state of affairs what is rational to do" and if you start using this argument it's certainly more rational to hire high IQ people than try and be diverse. Because the evidence of the former being good for your productivity is completely overwhelming compared to the evidence for the latter.

The only reason to seek the latter is ideological.

Low IQ makes you black.

>I'm not even going to read it.
This. And please go back to Jow Forums with this. Not for Jow Forums, thanks.

Why are teal beans both 13% and 52%?

Im litteraly so fat i see diversity as food

Seconding

>Mother Jones
I vaguely remember someone debunking this. I think they cooked the numbers by excluding black gang mass shootings, but including things like whites killing people while robbing (not what most people would think of as "mass shootings"). Something like that.

Well technically it's a different kind of fallacy since it's a presumption, but point taken.

LOL this is well documented and reproduced just google it

>work in tech
>work with diversity hires
>get called racist if they suck at their job
>endure the shitty ones while trying to brain-ninja the good ones into mentoring the shitty ones

I did not sign up to be a camp counselor

cannot;
It's a word.

>just google it
Produce evidence or shut up.
If you actually looked at the studies you'd know that this result doesn't actually exist, it's only equivocated to the actual result that different backgrounds in the same field can increase productivity. But that has nothing to do with the race/sex meaning OP's document wants.

open.buffer.com/diversity-benefits/

Ah yes, we need to hire and spend more resources for teal beans because that's good for your company!!!!

Bullshit. You can run a successful and great company with just the top orange beans if you wanted. This entire thing assumes that mixed blends are somehow better.

It's funny because if you click the links enough to get to the actual studies they don't at all say what the articles say they say.

We really live in clickbait culture I swear.

open.buffer.com/diversity-benefits/

Here’s one article with reputable sources you complete brainlet moron arguing from feels who is incapable of even googling

Stop talking out of your ass you stupid bigoted asshole here is one source from that article that is explicit scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/

That's not peer reviewed studies.
Imagine quoting ideologically motivated blogs and thinking that somehow counts as evidence.

its time to dilate

It links to studies that are you fucking idiot

>literally a pop science magazine
>not even a single fucking point of data

Attached: JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.jpg (982x1274, 583K)

I like how their food analogy indirectly admits that they view their labor pool as a fungible asset that is literally meant to be consumed and shit out. Also if diversity is so great how do these trannies explain China? They had a regime whose purpose was to eradicate all diversity and unite under an ideologically and ethnically homogeneous cause and it worked flawlessly. Talk about racism towards asians...

Time to move out of your moms house, stop drinking gamer fuel, and put away the fedora. Maybe one day you’ll kiss a girl!

Prove it then user. Link the studies directly instead of trying to bamboozle people.

Lol didnt read the article

Lol scientific american isnt reputable

Read the article and you’ll get both summaries of the sources and the sources themselves u fucking idiot wow

holy shit I never thought about it that way
top kek

It really isnt.

I'm not that guy but I have to ask, do you really think this Scientific American article is as strong as a peer-reviewed publication?

first assumption is that there is a benefit to mixing the coffee beans. second mistake here is that although they talk about a percent chance of mistaking a bean for a lower grade, they ignore the chance of mistaking a bean for a higher grade. a third mistake in this reasoning is the fact that it's absolute conjecture - even a straight up lie, that each type of beans are proficient at X task equally, and that both have the same ratios of "difficulty to find". HR trannies are really bad min maxers. there's literally no reason to waste resources in "looking for hidden gems" when it's more profitable on average to hire what's best in plain sight. especially so if google trannies believe that all race's brains are equal (on average), which isn't even true so it shits on their whole premise even more.

blog.capterra.com/7-studies-that-prove-the-value-of-diversity-in-the-workplace/

forbes.com/sites/annapowers/2018/06/27/a-study-finds-that-diverse-companies-produce-19-more-revenue/

hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend

ft.com/content/4f4b3c8e-d521-11e3-9187-00144feabdc0

Etc

Every gamer thinks theyre ben sharpiro

>blogs blogs and more blogs
E B I N
B
I
N

Did you read the article? Nope.

Also I provided more sources

People aren't beans. This isn't an analogy it's just misrepresentation. This is the shit dumfuck people make and show to each other thinking they're smart. Diversity hiring is there because given free reign people can't be fucking trusted to not let their prejudices bleed into their hiring practices. It isn't there as some abstract concept. It's a knee jerk reaction to a problem that someone who things it's fine to compare people to beans created in the fucking first place.

They all link to hard data you complete brainlet

I did read the article. Why is it so hard to answer my question? Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal, if that's what you're implying here