Google fires diversity critic

[Very Tired]

This has really been a growing trend I've been seeing lately.

Having anti-diversity/anti-AA stances are perfectly acceptable views to have. In any case of politics though, if you find someone with differing viewpoints you DEBATE and attempt to reason or change their minds on said issue. Ideally, whoever has the facts on their side will prevail yadda yadda...

However, simply firing said person, or in other cases ignoring them or etc, do not make your side look like the morally just one. It just makes you look like a echo-chamber that can't deal with outside opinions that could very well be harming your company and the people who work for it.

In short, stop trying to silence those with differing political stances than yours, or treating them as though they should be ashamed for having such views.

[Endus]

It was an internal document, his intention wasn't to publicly shame his employer. That the document was leaked makes him the victim. And Google destroys their credibility by immediately firing him without the discourse they proclaim they want to promote.

It doesn't matter if it's internal. If it's not privileged information, it isn't private, in any appreciable respect, and there's nothing wrong with the journalist getting a copy. And he wouldn't have any authority to make that declaration, so claiming he's a "victim" because more people heard his already-public message is just crazypants.

Google isn't looking to allow all possible subjects of discourse. Some points, like many of this guy's, are direct violations of their policies. If he'd said "look, blacks are just inferior to real people", he'd get fired for that, too; Google is under zero obligation to grant that kind of hatefulness any form of "discourse". If the subject was "Google's executives all gargle cocks for breakfast and should go die in a fire somewhere", that's not something you have a discussion about; you fire the problem employee who's the only problem in that situation.

[spanishninja]

You tell me, all the articles say is "biological diffences" is why women are lacking in leadership and various other roles.

More accurately, the author offers up these biological differences as POSSIBLE non-bias reasons that contribute to the overall gender disparity in tech.

Exact text:

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."

[Musta]

Honestly though, do you really think white people would still want to come here from other countries? The US has gone downhill for the last 10-15 years now. If we were from a European country, we'd probably have stayed put and be better off no?

Sure, but theres white people everywhere, I couldnt assume you were from europe. But again, it matters not. IM pretty sure you know what is like then.

[Vyuvarax]

This has really been a growing trend I've been seeing lately.

Having anti-diversity/anti-AA stances are perfectly acceptable views to have. In any case of politics though, if you find someone with differing viewpoints you DEBATE and attempt to reason or change their minds on said issue. Ideally, whoever has the facts on their side will prevail yadda yadda...

However, simply firing said person, or in other cases ignoring them or etc, do not make your side look like the morally just one. It just makes you look like a echo-chamber that can't deal with outside opinions that could very well be harming your company and the people who work for it.

In short, stop trying to silence those with differing political stances than yours, or treating them as though they should be ashamed for having such views.

So you'd be comfortable allowing for an employee to ask for debate over whether Jews or blacks are people? You'd stand up for a company to keep them on and debate, as a company, that employees insane views? I mean come on.

[spanishninja]

Sure, but theres white people everywhere, I couldnt assume you were from europe. But again, it matters not. IM pretty sure you know what is like then.

Yes, although I don't think it's relevant whether I had to directly grow up facing racism or sexism to understand the impacts of these, or to empathize with them. The merit of arguments should be based on the truth, not on the qualifications of the people stating the arguments. After all, there are a lot of wealthy white male liberals out there!

- - - Updated - - -

So you'd be comfortable allowing for an employee to ask for debate over whether Jews or blacks are people? You'd stand up for a company to keep them on and debate, as a company, that employees insane views? I mean come on.

comparing social norms of men and women and relating them in a biological context is not the same thing as debating about whether Jews or blacks are people, and you know this.

[purebalance]

You talk shit about your company in public and let yourself get caught, you get fired. That's the way it has always been.

And please read up what "freedom of speech" means and what it protects you from.

If you talk shit and use liberal progressive buzzwords you don't. "Oh no I felt all these microagressions because they didn't let me be a catman!" wouldn't get fired.

[Very Tired]

So you'd be comfortable allowing for an employee to ask for debate over whether Jews or blacks are people? You'd stand up for a company to keep them on and debate, as a company, that employees insane views? I mean come on.

I can't really help you if you think having a legitimate stance on the hundreds of flaws diversity/affirmative action policies have is the equivalent to that.

[Freighter]

well, I incorrectly assumed that I did not feel I needed to spell it out for you when I said "immigrant", but at the same time, you were also incorrect in assuming I was white regardless!

So now that we've concluded that personal attacks against me won't work, did you want to discuss the actual topic or what?

Immigrant doesn't mean you're not white though...

[purebalance]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-0...88?pfmredir=sm
S H O C K I N G

Basically proof of institutional sexism/racism towards whites and men.

[Vyuvarax]

Yes, although I don't think it's relevant whether I had to directly grow up facing racism or sexism to understand the impacts of these, or to empathize with them. The merit of arguments should be based on the truth, not on the qualifications of the people stating the arguments. After all, there are a lot of wealthy white male liberals out there!

- - - Updated - - -



comparing social norms of men and women and relating them in a biological context is not the same thing as debating about whether Jews or blacks are people, and you know this.

You're talking female and male stereotypes. Social norms is a bunch of coded bs. And that's no different from what I said previously. I'd say you should know that, but based on how you talk about gender I doubt you do.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't really help you if you think having a legitimate stance on the hundreds of flaws diversity/affirmative action policies have is the equivalent to that.

The memo wants to open discussion to the sort of things I said. Sorry logic has failed you.

[jibberbox85]

Not even a little. Publicly shaming your employer is grounds for summary dismissal pretty much everywhere, regardless of whether there's merit to the claim (and there really wasn't, in this case). The only time you should be doing that kind of shit is if you've already pursued it through proper channels and gotten nowhere, and you're going to quit anyway because you can't keep working in a place like that.

This is kind of a grey area. Google has been one of those companies looking to be on the cutting edge, and has/had an open free speech environment. Now, with that said, Google does have their Code of Conduct , but something like that along with this free speech, and open environment can lead to interpretation of what is right, and or what is wrong. This could also come across to make Google look like they are potentially censoring specific opinions that don't agree with their culture.

[spanishninja]

You're talking female and male stereotypes. Social norms is a bunch of coded bs. And that's no different from what I said previously. I'd say you should know that, but based on how you talk about gender I doubt you do.

like I said, certain bits of the memo are obviously ridiciulous (women are more prone to anxiety), but can you really argue that women are more prone to seeking more work-life balance on average compared to men? And again, the gender differences that the author cited are proposed as just possible reasons that may partly contribute to the gender disparity. He is still not saying sexism doesn't exist. In fact, his exact text:

" Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story."

[Torto]

It doesn't matter if it's internal. If it's not privileged information, it isn't private, in any appreciable respect, and there's nothing wrong with the journalist getting a copy. And he wouldn't have any authority to make that declaration, so claiming he's a "victim" because more people heard his already-public message is just crazypants.

Google isn't looking to allow all possible subjects of discourse. Some points, like many of this guy's, are direct violations of their policies. If he'd said "look, blacks are just inferior to real people", he'd get fired for that, too; Google is under zero obligation to grant that kind of hatefulness any form of "discourse". If the subject was "Google's executives all gargle cocks for breakfast and should go die in a fire somewhere", that's not something you have a discussion about; you fire the problem employee who's the only problem in that situation.

It does matter. He didn't write the manifesto for fun, his sole purpose was to (in his eyes) improve the company. He identifies issues he believes is bad for business.

So he says XYZ. Now if the document stays internal, Google says to him we agree with X, we disagree with Y and your opinions on Z are counter to our policies so we are sending you off for re-education.

But because the document finds itself in the public domain, Google gets weak kneed and fires him. Two standards here.

[spanishninja]

You're talking female and male stereotypes. Social norms is a bunch of coded bs. And that's no different from what I said previously. I'd say you should know that, but based on how you talk about gender I doubt you do.

- - - Updated - - -



The memo wants to open discussion to the sort of things I said. Sorry logic has failed you.

So if you recognize that the memo was meant to open discussion about important topics such as affirmative action and gender disparity in tech, tell me why this guy deserved the backlash?

[Very Tired]

You're talking female and male stereotypes. Social norms is a bunch of coded bs. And that's no different from what I said previously. I'd say you should know that, but based on how you talk about gender I doubt you do.

- - - Updated - - -



The memo wants to open discussion to the sort of things I said. Sorry logic has failed you.

Ah... good to see you are growing more aggressive. Always a good sign that I'm on the right side here.

[spanishninja]

It does matter. He didn't write the manifesto for fun, his sole purpose was to (in his eyes) improve the company. He identifies issues he believes is bad for business.

So he says XYZ. Now if the document stays internal, Google says to him we agree with X, we disagree with Y and your opinions on Z are counter to our policies so we are sending you off for re-education.

But because the document finds itself in the public domain, Google gets weak kneed and fires him. Two standards here.

It kind of depends on who leaked it. If the author himself was the one who made this public, then you can't really argue that his SOLE purpose was to improve the company. From my point of view, there is no way this series of events occurred the way it did if this guy wanted to keep his job. He was either looking to get fired or he was willing to sacrifice his job for his beliefs. Perhaps he has quite a nest egg saved up over the years?

[Torto]

This is kind of a grey area. Google has been one of those companies looking to be on the cutting edge, and has/had an open free speech environment. Now, with that said, Google does have their Code of Conduct , but something like that along with this free speech, and open environment can lead to interpretation of what is right, and or what is wrong. This could also come across to make Google look like they are potentially censoring specific opinions that don't agree with their culture.

yes I wonder how many Google employees would be brave enough to speak their mind now. Instead of promoting diversity of discourse they have just entrenched groupthink.

[Vyuvarax]

So if you recognize that the memo was meant to open discussion about important topics such as affirmative action and gender disparity in tech, tell me why this guy deserved the backlash?

It's not arguing to open discussion on any of those topics to improve diversity and you know it. Your defense is disingenuous.

[Very Tired]

It does matter. He didn't write the manifesto for fun, his sole purpose was to (in his eyes) improve the company. He identifies issues he believes is bad for business.

So he says XYZ. Now if the document stays internal, Google says to him we agree with X, we disagree with Y and your opinions on Z are counter to our policies so we are sending you off for re-education.

But because the document finds itself in the public domain, Google gets weak kneed and fires him. Two standards here.

That's quite right. As I said in my last post, it's a sad day when your company can't improve because you don't want to listen to other points of views.