The individual stories printed in other outlets weren't. What I think is particularly hilarious is all of these #ListenToWomen people shitting all over the woman that came to his defense.
Some of his claims are documented, others aren't. For example he claims there is
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
but doesn't provide specifics at all beyond that bullet point. He also makes complains about conservative views being suppressed but provides no evidence of that at all.
Funny how we pass so many laws to prevent companies from discriminating against employees for religion, skin color, sex/gender, etc. etc, but when it comes to political or personal views people are suddenly okay with a large corporation pushing around the little guy. I personally didn't find anything wrong with the memo. Was he given prior warning? If not then this is pretty ridiculous.
Last edited by Speaker; 2017-08-09 at 04:59 AM.
According to the CEO he wasn't fired for "Improper Conclusions from the data."
Email bits from the CEO
"However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."
"To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK"
"to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
"The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those were the main parts to why the author was fired, and had nothing to do with "conclusions from improper data." Also, to my knowledge, there has not been anything mentioned from anyone at Google that he was fired based solely off of "Conclusions from improper data." Also, the CEO not one time refuted his data outright and went right to the big words of "Code of Conduct."
Source link from the above quotes
http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google...pichai-letter/
Last edited by jibberbox85; 2017-08-09 at 05:02 AM.
This is largely irrelevant. I don't think googles should have a 50-50% gender split if the field they work in is skewed towards males.
- - - Updated - - -
That's the important bit. He reached an improper conclusion from the data he provided to suit his own bias and perpetuate a negative stereotype. He violated their code of conduct and it's not OK because he tried to use false reasoning to do so.
Political opinion isn't the issue here. He wasn't fired for being conservative or voting for a specific person.
I'm not going to argue whether or not what he said was proper. I think people are pretty stuck on that but this thing will probably go to court so we'll see there.
Edit - actually there's a pretty good chance this thing gets settled before it goes that far.
- - - Updated - - -
So what your take on his statement that woman are more prone to anxiety than men? Sure, he provided evidence that this occurs in the general population but is it fair to apply that standard to woman as a whole? I think the individuals should be judged on experiences such as in school, the workplace or the interview process.
Last edited by fengosa; 2017-08-09 at 05:16 AM.
He was fired for having his own opinion and letting others know. His opinion didn't line up with his bosses so they ousted him. It's terrible. I would understand if they told him what to write in the memo and he went against that, or that he had been warned prior. But there isn't any indication of that. The reasons for firing him are extremely shaky, and I don't think they will hold up in court.
Last edited by jibberbox85; 2017-08-09 at 05:46 AM.
That's not what happened. As far as not getting warning he likely signed off or acknowledged the terms of his code of conduct which means he had be been briefed on acceptable behaviour in the workplace. Further, if they are citing workplace discrimination as the reason for firing him than the legal standard is typical whether he reasonable should have known that his comments were decisive and unwelcomed.
Considering how google has been the biggest innovator of technology for the last couple of decades, I find it funny that people are whining that they're hiring certain people "just to fill a quota". Apparently the people they hire for diversity's sake are FAR more qualified than most think.
But I get it, people see diversity pushes and think companies are hiring dunces. It's just that this almost never turns out to be true, and the people they hire are perfectly qualified.
I also get a chuckle from the fact that so many of the people who are bitching about this, are the same people who whenever a business fucks over a customer or employee because they're gay (or whatever other form of discrimination the deplorables think is perfectly fine), are now super dooper pissed. Whatever happened to "the free market will fix it!" I take it that line is only valid when discriminating against gays and minorities?
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Which is meaningless when the pushes have really only been in the last ~5 years. With thing like the $500m they are throwing at 'diversity initiatives'.
Such as? I gotta know if there are some specific hypocrites you have in mind or whether this is just a piss poor attempt to virtue signal/poison the well.I also get a chuckle from the fact that so many of the people who are bitching about this, are the same people who whenever a business fucks over a customer or employee because they're gay (or whatever other form of discrimination the deplorables think is perfectly fine), are now super dooper pissed. Whatever happened to "the free market will fix it!" I take it that line is only valid when discriminating against gays and minorities?