|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 11 2017 01:37 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." I live in reality. We don’t live in a perfect world where you are allowed to have debates on company run forums if your co-workers are genetically pre-disposed not do their jobs well. If we replaced “women” with “black” in that little novel he wrote, this wouldn’t even be a debate. And frankly, after that thing gets out there in the world, I don’t know how anyone expects google to keep that guy on their team. They can never put in him a management position and not worry about a discrimination case. The man made himself a liability and a shitty co-worker all on his own. If you replace all mentions of "Whites" in headlines on Salon.com with "Jews", they'd also be considered way out of line without discussion. However, they don't. And he didn't. I guess I've also ruined my chances at ever getting a job like that, then, by posting things in support of his observations. No, wait, there are legal protections in place to prevent me from getting fired without just cause. Land of the free, indeed. Free to oppress if you have wealth and be oppressed if you are poor. Was he a shitty co-worker? Did he interact poorly with women and did they file complaints against him?
You're not posting these thoughts at work.
And yes women complained about him because of his memo, they considered it a poor interaction.
|
As a GenXer, I don't like the millenial way of dismissing any kind of opinion, because of so called white privilege. Guess what that way of thinking is racist, too...
But on topic: The guy was smart enough to get a job at google, so he obviously was smart enough to know that getting fired would be the only possible outcome.
Whether or not that's "fair" is irrelevant, in the "real world" fairness pays no bills, but guess what: lawsuits do! That's all the guy wanted some publicity and ...money, "keep those dollars coming google, I'll show myself out!"
|
On August 11 2017 01:37 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." I live in reality. We don’t live in a perfect world where you are allowed to have debates on company run forums if your co-workers are genetically pre-disposed not do their jobs well. If we replaced “women” with “black” in that little novel he wrote, this wouldn’t even be a debate. And frankly, after that thing gets out there in the world, I don’t know how anyone expects google to keep that guy on their team. They can never put in him a management position and not worry about a discrimination case. The man made himself a liability and a shitty co-worker all on his own. If you replace all mentions of "Whites" in headlines on Salon.com with "Jews", they'd also be considered way out of line without discussion. However, they don't. And he didn't. I guess I've also ruined my chances at ever getting a job like that, then, by posting things in support of his observations. No, wait, there are legal protections in place to prevent me from getting fired without just cause. Land of the free, indeed. Free to oppress if you have wealth and be oppressed if you are poor. Was he a shitty co-worker? Did he interact poorly with women and did they file complaints against him?
He created a hostile work environment. Fired. By publishing that memo and it being leaked afterwards is his own undoing. If you think his science is accurate, that's fine. But there is a time and place for discussions like that. AT WORK is not one of those places. By defending his assertions and in the way he behaved, you make yourself look just as dim as he is. Not everything needs to be said.
On August 11 2017 01:41 thePunGun wrote:
As a GenXer, I don't like the millenial way of dismissing any kind of opinion, because of so called white privilege. Guess what that way of thinking is racist, too...
But on topic: The guy was smart enough to get a job at google, so he obviously was smart enough to know that getting fired would be the only possible outcome.
Whether or not that's "fair" is irrelevant, in the "real world" fairness pays no bills, but guess what: lawsuits do! That's all the guy wanted some publicity and ...money, "keep those dollars coming google, I'll show myself out!"
I doubt google pays him a penny. He was fired for just reasons and any court will side with google on this one.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 11 2017 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that was discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." How dare that man give suggestions, poor Alphabet Inc. AT WILL EMPLOYMENT
This is really all that needs to be said in this specific context. Unless he had some reasonable case for a wrongful termination suit in the pipe, but as the reason for the firing is public and acceptable, this is an open-and-shut at-will employment matter.
|
On August 11 2017 01:41 thePunGun wrote:
As a GenXer, I don't like the millenial way of dismissing any kind of opinion, because of so called white privilege. Guess what that way of thinking is racist, too...
But on topic: The guy was smart enough to get a job at google, so he obviously was smart enough to know that getting fired would be the only possible outcome.
Whether or not that's "fair" is irrelevant, in the "real world" fairness pays no bills, but guess what: lawsuits do! That's all the guy wanted some publicity and ...money, "keep those dollars coming google, I'll show myself out!"
So as a GenXer, you are dismissing millenial’s opinions about discussions of bias and racism?
I am always surprised people have such a problem with discussing racism, because I don’t have any of these issues. And I’m white as the driven snow.
|
On August 11 2017 01:37 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." I live in reality. We don’t live in a perfect world where you are allowed to have debates on company run forums if your co-workers are genetically pre-disposed not do their jobs well. If we replaced “women” with “black” in that little novel he wrote, this wouldn’t even be a debate. And frankly, after that thing gets out there in the world, I don’t know how anyone expects google to keep that guy on their team. They can never put in him a management position and not worry about a discrimination case. The man made himself a liability and a shitty co-worker all on his own. If you replace all mentions of "Whites" in headlines on Salon.com with "Jews", they'd also be considered way out of line without discussion. However, they don't. And he didn't. Some reality you live in. I guess I've also ruined my chances at ever getting a job like that, then, by posting things in support of his observations. No, wait, there are legal protections in place to prevent me from getting fired without just cause. Land of the free, indeed. Free to oppress if you have wealth and be oppressed if you are poor. Was he a shitty co-worker? Did he interact poorly with women and did they file complaints against him?
If you replaced all the shitty headlines (CNN, Gizmodo as examples) that butchered his takeaways with similar substitutions, you could make a racist sexist bigot out of everyone on earth. And from what I've read about the reaction to Damore, you can include psychologists and statisticians in the hateful bunch because a lot of overlapping distributions quoted (and linked in paper) are scientific fact. You're just not supposed to talk about them as hurdles to 50-50 diversity because those are things x-phobes say.
|
On August 11 2017 01:41 thePunGun wrote:
As a GenXer, I don't like the millenial way of dismissing any kind of opinion, because of so called white privilege. Guess what that way of thinking is racist, too...
But on topic: The guy was smart enough to get a job at google, so he obviously was smart enough to know that getting fired would be the only possible outcome.
Whether or not that's "fair" is irrelevant, in the "real world" fairness pays no bills, but guess what: lawsuits do! That's all the guy wanted some publicity and ...money, "keep those dollars coming google, I'll show myself out!"
people can be smart in some ways but remarkably oblivious in others.
though personally, i'd shy away from putting anything controversial in writing/ permanent record on something my company can access. isn't that kind of professionalism 101?
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 11 2017 01:41 thePunGun wrote:
As a GenXer, I don't like the millenial way of dismissing any kind of opinion, because of so called white privilege. Guess what that way of thinking is racist, too...
But on topic: The guy was smart enough to get a job at google, so he obviously was smart enough to know that getting fired would be the only possible outcome.
Whether or not that's "fair" is irrelevant, in the "real world" fairness pays no bills, but guess what: lawsuits do! That's all the guy wanted some publicity and ...money, "keep those dollars coming google, I'll show myself out!"
I'm not dismissing his opinion because of white privilege. His opinion that discrimination against him and his opinion is the most pressing type of discrimination in America today doesn't need white privilege to dismiss, it's frankly laughable.
His opinion isn't wrong because of white privilege. His opinion is just wrong.
His opinion is, however, an example of white privilege. Someone laughed at his political views and suddenly he's a social justice warrior fighting the most important battle in modern America, ending the tyranny of people laughing at political views. It's an example of white privilege because he is unbelievably out of touch with the actual issues people are facing.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If you say things that will piss people off for the purpose of "just a discussion" then you had better not have your real name on it.
|
On August 11 2017 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." I live in reality. We don’t live in a perfect world where you are allowed to have debates on company run forums if your co-workers are genetically pre-disposed not do their jobs well. If we replaced “women” with “black” in that little novel he wrote, this wouldn’t even be a debate. And frankly, after that thing gets out there in the world, I don’t know how anyone expects google to keep that guy on their team. They can never put in him a management position and not worry about a discrimination case. The man made himself a liability and a shitty co-worker all on his own. If you replace all mentions of "Whites" in headlines on Salon.com with "Jews", they'd also be considered way out of line without discussion. However, they don't. And he didn't. I guess I've also ruined my chances at ever getting a job like that, then, by posting things in support of his observations. No, wait, there are legal protections in place to prevent me from getting fired without just cause. Land of the free, indeed. Free to oppress if you have wealth and be oppressed if you are poor. Was he a shitty co-worker? Did he interact poorly with women and did they file complaints against him? He created a hostile work environment. Fired. By publishing that memo and it being leaked afterwards is his own undoing. If you think his science is accurate, that's fine. But there is a time and place for discussions like that. AT WORK is not one of those places. By defending his assertions and in the way he behaved, you make yourself look just as dim as he is. Not everything needs to be said. Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:41 thePunGun wrote:
As a GenXer, I don't like the millenial way of dismissing any kind of opinion, because of so called white privilege. Guess what that way of thinking is racist, too...
But on topic: The guy was smart enough to get a job at google, so he obviously was smart enough to know that getting fired would be the only possible outcome.
Whether or not that's "fair" is irrelevant, in the "real world" fairness pays no bills, but guess what: lawsuits do! That's all the guy wanted some publicity and ...money, "keep those dollars coming google, I'll show myself out!" I doubt google pays him a penny. He was fired for just reasons and any court will side with google on this one.
Trust me google will pay the guy to keep his mouth shut, because nothing's worse than bad PR...
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 11 2017 01:47 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 11 2017 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." I live in reality. We don’t live in a perfect world where you are allowed to have debates on company run forums if your co-workers are genetically pre-disposed not do their jobs well. If we replaced “women” with “black” in that little novel he wrote, this wouldn’t even be a debate. And frankly, after that thing gets out there in the world, I don’t know how anyone expects google to keep that guy on their team. They can never put in him a management position and not worry about a discrimination case. The man made himself a liability and a shitty co-worker all on his own. If you replace all mentions of "Whites" in headlines on Salon.com with "Jews", they'd also be considered way out of line without discussion. However, they don't. And he didn't. I guess I've also ruined my chances at ever getting a job like that, then, by posting things in support of his observations. No, wait, there are legal protections in place to prevent me from getting fired without just cause. Land of the free, indeed. Free to oppress if you have wealth and be oppressed if you are poor. Was he a shitty co-worker? Did he interact poorly with women and did they file complaints against him? He created a hostile work environment. Fired. By publishing that memo and it being leaked afterwards is his own undoing. If you think his science is accurate, that's fine. But there is a time and place for discussions like that. AT WORK is not one of those places. By defending his assertions and in the way he behaved, you make yourself look just as dim as he is. Not everything needs to be said. On August 11 2017 01:41 thePunGun wrote:
As a GenXer, I don't like the millenial way of dismissing any kind of opinion, because of so called white privilege. Guess what that way of thinking is racist, too...
But on topic: The guy was smart enough to get a job at google, so he obviously was smart enough to know that getting fired would be the only possible outcome.
Whether or not that's "fair" is irrelevant, in the "real world" fairness pays no bills, but guess what: lawsuits do! That's all the guy wanted some publicity and ...money, "keep those dollars coming google, I'll show myself out!" I doubt google pays him a penny. He was fired for just reasons and any court will side with google on this one. Trust me google will pay the guy to keep his mouth shut, because nothing's worse than bad PR...
Yeah, I'm not gonna trust you on this.
The altright will set up a gofundme for him but that's about it. As LegalLord said, at will employment. Despite the best efforts of those on the right, political opinions are not yet protected classes.
It always amuses me how the right seems to swing erratically between "nobody should have it" and "we should definitely have the most of it".
|
On August 11 2017 01:47 LegalLord wrote:
If you say things that will piss people off for the purpose of "just a discussion" then you had better not have your real name on it.
I've known of firms that have fired people for posting really sexist garbage on their Facebook page that they didn't make private There is a huge difference between holding an opinion and projecting it out into teh world, directly at some of your co-workers.
On August 11 2017 01:47 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 11 2017 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." I live in reality. We don’t live in a perfect world where you are allowed to have debates on company run forums if your co-workers are genetically pre-disposed not do their jobs well. If we replaced “women” with “black” in that little novel he wrote, this wouldn’t even be a debate. And frankly, after that thing gets out there in the world, I don’t know how anyone expects google to keep that guy on their team. They can never put in him a management position and not worry about a discrimination case. The man made himself a liability and a shitty co-worker all on his own. If you replace all mentions of "Whites" in headlines on Salon.com with "Jews", they'd also be considered way out of line without discussion. However, they don't. And he didn't. I guess I've also ruined my chances at ever getting a job like that, then, by posting things in support of his observations. No, wait, there are legal protections in place to prevent me from getting fired without just cause. Land of the free, indeed. Free to oppress if you have wealth and be oppressed if you are poor. Was he a shitty co-worker? Did he interact poorly with women and did they file complaints against him? He created a hostile work environment. Fired. By publishing that memo and it being leaked afterwards is his own undoing. If you think his science is accurate, that's fine. But there is a time and place for discussions like that. AT WORK is not one of those places. By defending his assertions and in the way he behaved, you make yourself look just as dim as he is. Not everything needs to be said. On August 11 2017 01:41 thePunGun wrote:
As a GenXer, I don't like the millenial way of dismissing any kind of opinion, because of so called white privilege. Guess what that way of thinking is racist, too...
But on topic: The guy was smart enough to get a job at google, so he obviously was smart enough to know that getting fired would be the only possible outcome.
Whether or not that's "fair" is irrelevant, in the "real world" fairness pays no bills, but guess what: lawsuits do! That's all the guy wanted some publicity and ...money, "keep those dollars coming google, I'll show myself out!" I doubt google pays him a penny. He was fired for just reasons and any court will side with google on this one. Trust me google will pay the guy to keep his mouth shut, because nothing's worse than bad PR...
There is bad PR from this?
|
On August 11 2017 01:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:47 LegalLord wrote:
If you say things that will piss people off for the purpose of "just a discussion" then you had better not have your real name on it. I've known of firms that have fired people for posting really sexist garbage on their Facebook page that they didn't make private There is a huge difference between holding an opinion and projecting it out into teh world, directly at some of your co-workers. Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:47 thePunGun wrote:On August 11 2017 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 11 2017 01:37 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." I live in reality. We don’t live in a perfect world where you are allowed to have debates on company run forums if your co-workers are genetically pre-disposed not do their jobs well. If we replaced “women” with “black” in that little novel he wrote, this wouldn’t even be a debate. And frankly, after that thing gets out there in the world, I don’t know how anyone expects google to keep that guy on their team. They can never put in him a management position and not worry about a discrimination case. The man made himself a liability and a shitty co-worker all on his own. If you replace all mentions of "Whites" in headlines on Salon.com with "Jews", they'd also be considered way out of line without discussion. However, they don't. And he didn't. I guess I've also ruined my chances at ever getting a job like that, then, by posting things in support of his observations. No, wait, there are legal protections in place to prevent me from getting fired without just cause. Land of the free, indeed. Free to oppress if you have wealth and be oppressed if you are poor. Was he a shitty co-worker? Did he interact poorly with women and did they file complaints against him? He created a hostile work environment. Fired. By publishing that memo and it being leaked afterwards is his own undoing. If you think his science is accurate, that's fine. But there is a time and place for discussions like that. AT WORK is not one of those places. By defending his assertions and in the way he behaved, you make yourself look just as dim as he is. Not everything needs to be said. On August 11 2017 01:41 thePunGun wrote:
As a GenXer, I don't like the millenial way of dismissing any kind of opinion, because of so called white privilege. Guess what that way of thinking is racist, too...
But on topic: The guy was smart enough to get a job at google, so he obviously was smart enough to know that getting fired would be the only possible outcome.
Whether or not that's "fair" is irrelevant, in the "real world" fairness pays no bills, but guess what: lawsuits do! That's all the guy wanted some publicity and ...money, "keep those dollars coming google, I'll show myself out!" I doubt google pays him a penny. He was fired for just reasons and any court will side with google on this one. Trust me google will pay the guy to keep his mouth shut, because nothing's worse than bad PR... There is bad PR from this?
Oh yeah man, there is tons! head over to T_D and you will see everyone talking about using duckduckgo now for their browsing. Google is going to get soooooo burned from all this bad PR
|
Every side will spin this story to suit their own agenda...the guy will probably be the Mr. September centerfold of Breitbart's After Dark Edition... So why wouldn't google simply give the guy a final paycheck and be done with it?
|
On August 11 2017 02:11 thePunGun wrote:
Every side will spin this story to suit their own agenda...the guy will probably be the Mr. September centerfold of Breitbart's After Dark Edition... So why wouldn't google simply give the guy a final paycheck and be done with it?
Because they don't care about Breitbart at all. But you know what is bad PR? Getting caught paying hush money to someone you fired while being invested by the department of labor.
|
On August 11 2017 01:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. Yeah. At work. In an enormous writing that clearly took an insane amount of effort on his part. At a big tech company known for being progressive. This was an extremely obvious martyr attempt. At. Work. I don't think there is anyone on this board who would feel safe posting something like that at work. That is such an obvious can of worms. So umm maybe exercise a little more charity in who you call a martyr, chief. He went through the effort and got widely positive reception internally at the company. They pride themselves on inclusiveness, even their chief diversity officer VP declares they welcome alternative views. It's a little obvious if you're an ideologue or know really what progressive means (like yourself), but if you're not one and just maybe an engineer and coder, you don't know some thoughts can get you fired. You need way more charity in your life if you think the effort involved and knowledge of "progressive" means he should know they'd be intolerant and fire him. Like seriously, man. You hold his own stupidity as a whip to beat him and call him martyr.
Conservative talk show hosts can't even speak at Berkeley. You think this guy was under the impression his essay wouldn't cause a disturbance? Is your argument that this guy unwittingly caused a huge shit show? Do you or have you ever worked for a large company? I feel like after 6 months of working at a large company, someone would have an extremely clear idea as to how people talk, what they talk about, what is appropriate, what is charged etc. I don't know how long he was at Google, but I really think he had plenty of time to see that what he was doing was extremely abnormal and a lot riskier than what most people choose to do at work. If what you are saying is that he didn't expect to be fired, I can't help but think you haven't worked at a large company. Not that working at a large company is some badge of honor. Pros and cons to both, but my point is that the societal aspect is different.
When you are that big of a company, it is simply not practical for each person to be some flourishing personality of an individual at work. People can't be publishing manifestos. With that many people, there are going to be at least so and so many people who freak out about views x, y or z.
If I may make an analogy: When I was in Korea, I was really surprised by how quiet and considerate people were in Seoul. Especially on public transit. In my city, it is actually pretty loud because everyone feels comfortable just having a full on normal volume conversation where everyone is listening to you. This is possible because this isn't a bus full of people all doing the same thing. My friend explained to me that when there are that many people, it is extremely important that people are considerate of the other people in their surroundings and that it is important to keep a low profile. If everyone was loud and disorderly and whatever, it would be chaos.
Truthfully, I would be TERRIFIED of sending something like he did to a co-worker over direct email. Even if I knew they agreed with me. The rules are a lot more strict when you've got that many people to manage.
|
I feel like the guy was basically highlighting qualities that are more frequent in women than men, and giving some reasons as to why those particular qualities are somewhat incompatible with programming/tech jobs as these jobs exist today. He then gave suggestions how to adjust the jobs in order to take advantage of the particular qualities that are more frequent in women. That, to me, doesn't seem offensive to the point where it justifies firing him. Especially considering the notion that Alphabet Inc basically asked for these kinds of opinions.
Also, I don't care about the legality in slightest, even though I recognize the reality of it. If It was legal for Alphabet Inc to murder people that shared opinions, I would object to that also, even if I recognized that it was legal. Legality is largely irrelevant to my opinions about whether or not I'm OK with the actions that people take. I'm not a lawyer.
|
I can't wait for all of Google-MGTOW guy's Conservative defenders to call for Federally guaranteed Free Speech rights against employers. I actually think political speech should be protected via invasive regulations and that you shouldn't be able to fired for political expression. As it stands, if your boss doesn't like the cut of your jib or some posts on Facebook or that you attended a rally, your ass is shitcanned. That's it. The 1st amendment only protects you from getting jailed by the Federal Government and had to be incorporated against the States. In Google-MGTOW guy's case, he wrote a memo that lambasted company policy and the company decided it liked its policy more than him. His ass is grass. Will any of his defenders call for invasive employment regulation that protects political expression from termination in a similar way we protect from termination on the basis of race?
EDIT: to above, no, the legality matters here. Rights without remedies are not rights at all. As much as we talk about Free Speech in America, your Free Speech rights only go as far as any of the people who could fire you feel like letting it go. That the law at present doesn't protect Free Expression from your boss's opinion, doesn't mean it always has to be that way. We could have a society where bosses had to think before they shitcanned people who crossed over their internal and undisclosed lines of political acceptability. If you take complaining about political corrrectness seriously, then you should be for regulations on employers that prevent them enforcing strict political correctness with the threat of termination.
|
On August 11 2017 02:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 02:11 thePunGun wrote:
Every side will spin this story to suit their own agenda...the guy will probably be the Mr. September centerfold of Breitbart's After Dark Edition... So why wouldn't google simply give the guy a final paycheck and be done with it? Because they don't care about Breitbart at all. But you know what is bad PR? Getting caught paying hush money to someone you fired while being invested by the department of labor.
They'll simply settle the lawsuit and if not, there'll definitely be a book deal and a lifetime movie. 
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 11 2017 02:28 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 02:16 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 02:11 thePunGun wrote:
Every side will spin this story to suit their own agenda...the guy will probably be the Mr. September centerfold of Breitbart's After Dark Edition... So why wouldn't google simply give the guy a final paycheck and be done with it? Because they don't care about Breitbart at all. But you know what is bad PR? Getting caught paying hush money to someone you fired while being invested by the department of labor. They'll simply settle the lawsuit and if not, there'll definitely be a book deal and a lifetime movie.
There isn't a lawsuit to be settled here. That's what you're not getting. Unless he has an employment contract he is at-will and employment can be terminated by either party at any time without notice for any reason except those reasons specifically stated in employment law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
