|
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 02:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 02:28 thePunGun wrote: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.
And if there was a contract, it almost certainly would still be at-will for termination on the employer's side and would railroad any lawsuits into binding, non-review-able arbitration before an arbitrator of the employer's choosing who only lets employers win. But hey, the employee needed the money, right?
|
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...
Except, google isn't getting bad PR over this. Conservative radio is gonna try and spin this as some great battle in their precious culture war but most Californians and most people in general are gonna read what this dude wrote and either a: say he's an idiot for posting it and putting his name on it or b: side with google and think his opinion was way out of line.
As for the whole white priviledge thing, Kwark said it best up top, this dude is out of touch but that wasnt even the main reason his opinion was wrong.
|
On August 11 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:25 ticklishmusic 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 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.
Pretty much this.
I have some strong feelings about outsourcing to India for certain IT tasks. I don't go out of my way to let every single person in my company know that I dislike working with the majority of the outsourced workers, and that the quality of their work is subpar.
I'm pretty sure that if I voiced my feelings to everyone in the company, probably a fair amount of people would agree, but it'd also foster a toxic work environment, and pretty harshly ruin relations with the workers.
|
On August 11 2017 02:39 Vindicare605 wrote: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... Except, google isn't getting bad PR over this. Conservative radio is gonna try and spin this as some great battle in their precious culture war but most Californians and most people in general are gonna read what this dude wrote and either a: say he's an idiot for posting it and putting his name on it or b: side with google and think his opinion was way out of line. As for the whole white priviledge thing, Kwark said it best up top, this dude is out of touch but that wasnt even the main reason his opinion was wrong.
No bad PR!? The_Donald is going to destroy Google's profits by boycotting them. Fear the alt-right! Say goodbye to 0.0000000000001% of your revenue, Google!
|
Lots of people have repulsive ideas, but they martyred him and gave fuel to his ideology. This is the exact kind of shit that allows his ideology to spread, I am a former radical, we loved it when we made a significant sacrifice to the cause.
And that is exactly what the MRAs and Red Pill people are fueled on. The entire ideology is built upon the fact that society is controlled by power hungry SJWs who are dismissive of their ideas and will use their power to ruin those with opposing viewpoints. In California, like 95 percent of people would agree that multiculturalism and diversity is a good thing for Silicon Valley and LA, that kind of society is not going to come under threat because of a single looney.
On top of that, in regards to hostile statements, many people in social justice will say that bigotry and hatred are valid when there is a power structure involved and they are right, in Kansas, the racism of a white guy is more powerful than a black nationalist.
But in California and much of the cosmopolitan corporate world, the culture war has been won, diversity is the cultural hegemony and opposing ideas from non-progressive workers have significantly less power than ideological flaws from social justice.
Yes he says that many of his co-workers are naturally due to differences in sex and gender, but 95 percent of people are against his views, people have minds, use them to oppose bad ideas rather than reacting this goddamn irrational. If an ideological dominance within one of the richest companies in the entire world does not create a safe atmosphere for many adherents to social justice, they are overreacting.
|
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. But this dude writes “I will likely be fired for writing this” in more words and people are shocked to discover it happened.
These people are the special snowflakes they rage against constantly.
|
The notion that this is about some politically ideological thing in the first place is ridiculous. That's one point where I definitely disagree/have some problems with that dude.
|
United States42630 Posts
On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens.
You'd be surprised. The guy who spent a few weeks making new accounts to insult tofu was very insistent that his rights to free speech were being suppressed.
|
On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. But this dude writes “I will likely be fired for writing this” in more words and people are shocked to discover it happened.
These people are the special snowflakes they rage against constantly.
Google is not Team Liquid though. If corporations regulated real life shitposting the way TL Mods do, at least 60 percent of people would have been fired at one point.
But let's take a creationist, you don't have to be a scientist to know they are full of shit, but when they spew their garbage, do you put your hands over your hears and shout them down? Or do you refute what they say? Obviously refute them! But if they are indeed that idiotic, then you can simply ignore them for being idiots, but reacting irrationally is a disservice to everyone involved.
|
On August 11 2017 02:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. You'd be surprised. The guy who spent a few weeks making new accounts to insult tofu was very insistent that his rights to free speech were being suppressed.
I would hope we can all agree that person is a moron or doing some high level performance art through the automated ban list. This guy is like the tech version of the shitty musician claiming his work is to advanced for record labels.
On August 11 2017 03:00 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. But this dude writes “I will likely be fired for writing this” in more words and people are shocked to discover it happened.
These people are the special snowflakes they rage against constantly.
Google is not Team Liquid though. If corporations regulated real life shitposting the way TL Mods do, at least 60 percent of people would have been fired at one point. But let's take a creationist, you don't have to be a scientist to know they are full of shit, but when they spew their garbage, do you put your hands over your hears and shout them down? Or do you refute what they say? Obviously refute them! But if they are indeed that idiotic, then you can simply ignore them for being idiots, but reacting irrationally is a disservice to everyone involved.
Where do you work where people are passing out religious documents to other employees? What is wrong with your HR department?
|
United States42630 Posts
You're right, Google is not Team Liquid. Team Liquid is a forum where people come to share their opinions. Banning people for opinions is somewhat contrary to the purpose of the exercise. Google is an employer that pays people to come to work, do their jobs, and keep their shitty opinions to themselves. Firing people for opinions is to be expected. TL is considerably more lax than Google, as it should be.
I wouldn't dream of saying the kind of things I say on TL at work. And I work with SJWs. It's still not worth it.
|
On August 11 2017 03:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 02:57 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. You'd be surprised. The guy who spent a few weeks making new accounts to insult tofu was very insistent that his rights to free speech were being suppressed. I would hope we can all agree that person is a moron or doing some high level performance art through the automated ban list. This guy is like the tech version of the shitty musician claiming his work is to advanced for record labels. Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:00 Shiragaku wrote:On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. But this dude writes “I will likely be fired for writing this” in more words and people are shocked to discover it happened.
These people are the special snowflakes they rage against constantly.
Google is not Team Liquid though. If corporations regulated real life shitposting the way TL Mods do, at least 60 percent of people would have been fired at one point. But let's take a creationist, you don't have to be a scientist to know they are full of shit, but when they spew their garbage, do you put your hands over your hears and shout them down? Or do you refute what they say? Obviously refute them! But if they are indeed that idiotic, then you can simply ignore them for being idiots, but reacting irrationally is a disservice to everyone involved. Where do you work where people are passing out religious documents to other employees? What is wrong with your HR department?
lol I do work in a restaurant, people give out all sorts of stuff but when you have employees coming to work drunk or high and even snorting a line on the clock, the dishwasher spewing conspiracy theories or obnoxious Evangelicals are not that big of a problem.
On August 11 2017 03:04 KwarK wrote:
You're right, Google is not Team Liquid. Team Liquid is a forum where people come to share their opinions. Banning people for opinions is somewhat contrary to the purpose of the exercise. Google is an employer that pays people to come to work, do their jobs, and keep their shitty opinions to themselves. Firing people for opinions is to be expected. TL is considerably more lax than Google, as it should be.
I wouldn't dream of saying the kind of things I say on TL at work.
Google has made it clear as day that it is very much in favor for socially progressive causes and from what I saw from their official YouTube page, it is not hard to see why there is some controversy within the company and people should be able to have a voice regarding many of these issues if they so wish. At my work, using that place to solicit or propagate certain ideas is ridiculous because it's a restaurant where we serve food. But if other people have a different idea about food and how we should serve it and we are punished for saying something in contrast to the current trend, that is excessive.
|
On August 11 2017 03:05 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:00 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 02:57 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. You'd be surprised. The guy who spent a few weeks making new accounts to insult tofu was very insistent that his rights to free speech were being suppressed. I would hope we can all agree that person is a moron or doing some high level performance art through the automated ban list. This guy is like the tech version of the shitty musician claiming his work is to advanced for record labels. On August 11 2017 03:00 Shiragaku wrote:On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. But this dude writes “I will likely be fired for writing this” in more words and people are shocked to discover it happened.
These people are the special snowflakes they rage against constantly.
Google is not Team Liquid though. If corporations regulated real life shitposting the way TL Mods do, at least 60 percent of people would have been fired at one point. But let's take a creationist, you don't have to be a scientist to know they are full of shit, but when they spew their garbage, do you put your hands over your hears and shout them down? Or do you refute what they say? Obviously refute them! But if they are indeed that idiotic, then you can simply ignore them for being idiots, but reacting irrationally is a disservice to everyone involved. Where do you work where people are passing out religious documents to other employees? What is wrong with your HR department? lol I do work in a restaurant, people give out all sorts of stuff but when you have employees coming to work drunk or high and even snorting a line on the clock, the dishwasher spewing conspiracy theories or obnoxious Evangelicals are not that big of a problem.
Well I work for a law firm and someone would get canned for doing that. People can’t handle out bibles to the Jewish and Muslim employees because they might want to read it. That isn't how professional life works.
|
On August 11 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:05 Shiragaku wrote:On August 11 2017 03:00 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 02:57 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. You'd be surprised. The guy who spent a few weeks making new accounts to insult tofu was very insistent that his rights to free speech were being suppressed. I would hope we can all agree that person is a moron or doing some high level performance art through the automated ban list. This guy is like the tech version of the shitty musician claiming his work is to advanced for record labels. On August 11 2017 03:00 Shiragaku wrote:On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. But this dude writes “I will likely be fired for writing this” in more words and people are shocked to discover it happened.
These people are the special snowflakes they rage against constantly.
Google is not Team Liquid though. If corporations regulated real life shitposting the way TL Mods do, at least 60 percent of people would have been fired at one point. But let's take a creationist, you don't have to be a scientist to know they are full of shit, but when they spew their garbage, do you put your hands over your hears and shout them down? Or do you refute what they say? Obviously refute them! But if they are indeed that idiotic, then you can simply ignore them for being idiots, but reacting irrationally is a disservice to everyone involved. Where do you work where people are passing out religious documents to other employees? What is wrong with your HR department? lol I do work in a restaurant, people give out all sorts of stuff but when you have employees coming to work drunk or high and even snorting a line on the clock, the dishwasher spewing conspiracy theories or obnoxious Evangelicals are not that big of a problem. Well I work for a law firm and someone would get canned for doing that. People can’t handle out bibles to the Jewish and Muslim employees because they might want to read it. That isn't how professional life works.
There are probably some different levels of "professional" work. Apparently there are druggy kitchens, which probably have completely different rules than law firms, which have different rules from schools.
The general idea is always the same: Treat others respectful, and tread more careful than you would otherwise. A workplace wants to be about work, and thus it wants to promote a climate which gets work done. So keep your opinions about non-work-related stuff to a minimum.
Obviously there are situations where that is not necessary, but it is generally a good rule to use when dealing with strange people. Maybe don't tell them about the reptilian in a a pyramid that controls humanity with a psychotronic gun and prevents you from reaching your destiny as an aryan masterrace unless they specifically ask for it.
|
On August 11 2017 03:04 KwarK wrote:
You're right, Google is not Team Liquid. Team Liquid is a forum where people come to share their opinions. Banning people for opinions is somewhat contrary to the purpose of the exercise. Google is an employer that pays people to come to work, do their jobs, and keep their shitty opinions to themselves. Firing people for opinions is to be expected. TL is considerably more lax than Google, as it should be.
I wouldn't dream of saying the kind of things I say on TL at work. And I work with SJWs. It's still not worth it.
I've never had a job where my political opinions (were they expressed publicly) wouldn't get me fired. This whole idea that that's not the normal outcome is foreign to me.
|
Well maybe I need to move up in the world to fully understand this, but from what I could gather about Google and much of Silicon Valley's corporate culture is that its very very progressive to the point that it may not be as uncontroversial as many people living there would have assumed. Whenever someone makes a strong social or political statement, it is only natural that there will naturally be a strong response.
|
On August 11 2017 03:16 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:10 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 03:05 Shiragaku wrote:On August 11 2017 03:00 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 02:57 KwarK wrote:On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. You'd be surprised. The guy who spent a few weeks making new accounts to insult tofu was very insistent that his rights to free speech were being suppressed. I would hope we can all agree that person is a moron or doing some high level performance art through the automated ban list. This guy is like the tech version of the shitty musician claiming his work is to advanced for record labels. On August 11 2017 03:00 Shiragaku wrote:On August 11 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
TL has a rule against martyring and none of us are shocked when it happens. But this dude writes “I will likely be fired for writing this” in more words and people are shocked to discover it happened.
These people are the special snowflakes they rage against constantly.
Google is not Team Liquid though. If corporations regulated real life shitposting the way TL Mods do, at least 60 percent of people would have been fired at one point. But let's take a creationist, you don't have to be a scientist to know they are full of shit, but when they spew their garbage, do you put your hands over your hears and shout them down? Or do you refute what they say? Obviously refute them! But if they are indeed that idiotic, then you can simply ignore them for being idiots, but reacting irrationally is a disservice to everyone involved. Where do you work where people are passing out religious documents to other employees? What is wrong with your HR department? lol I do work in a restaurant, people give out all sorts of stuff but when you have employees coming to work drunk or high and even snorting a line on the clock, the dishwasher spewing conspiracy theories or obnoxious Evangelicals are not that big of a problem. Well I work for a law firm and someone would get canned for doing that. People can’t handle out bibles to the Jewish and Muslim employees because they might want to read it. That isn't how professional life works. There are probably some different levels of "professional" work. Apparently there are druggy kitchens, which probably have completely different rules than law firms, which have different rules from schools. The general idea is always the same: Treat others respectful, and tread more careful than you would otherwise. A workplace wants to be about work, and thus it wants to promote a climate which gets work done. So keep your opinions about non-work-related stuff to a minimum. Obviously there are situations where that is not necessary, but it is generally a good rule to use when dealing with strange people. Maybe don't tell them about the reptilian in a a pyramid that controls humanity with a psychotronic gun and prevents you from reaching your destiny as an aryan masterrace unless they specifically ask for it.
I talk about politics with my co-workers that I know well. But we stop when people ask us to and don’t do it with new employees. This guy violated that really basic rule because he posted it on internal servers for people to read and talked about how his views were being oppressed. And much of that violated the contract that he signed with google. I don’t know what isn’t clear about that. And he knew it too. It wasn’t a respectful discussion, he wrote a manifesto and sent it out into the office and waited to be a victim.
|
United States42630 Posts
On August 11 2017 03:22 Shiragaku wrote:
Well maybe I need to move up in the world to fully understand this, but from what I could gather about Google and much of Silicon Valley's corporate culture is that its very very progressive to the point that it may not be as uncontroversial as many people living there would have assumed. Whenever someone makes a strong social or political statement, it is only natural that there will naturally be a strong response.
Corporate progressive isn't real progressive, it's stock price padding. Corporate image matters. A corporation has no values or obligations beyond enriching the stockholders. You can't appeal to their values because their only value is value itself. The worst sin is damaging the company.
The guy damaged company image. There is no defence to that charge.
|
More of this please, Donny. Lol
|
That Google supports "progressive" causes is true, it's also not really related to why this guy got fired. Put him at any other company of Google's status and visibility, even one with more Right-leaning management, the same thing is going to happen. ESPECIALLY if they're under investigation for gender-based pay discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
