|
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 12 2017 09:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 09:04 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 12 2017 08:55 m4ini wrote:
So by the looks Trump is now "threatening" military actions in Venezuela as well?
Allegedly the WH hasn't gotten any orders in that direction (they were quick to react on that one) - i find it interesting though that it was constantly brought up that Hillary is the warmongering hawk, and Trump less so.
Starting to wonder now. Anyone who thought Trump was less of a warmonger than Hillary is either crazy or a fool. Trump had us going to war with like 9 countries during the Republican Primary debates. All the candidates, Trump included, were clamoring over each other to see who could star the most wars with the most people to prove some sort of machismo. "Bomb the shit out of them" Trump was the peaceful one? Oh that wasn't my opinion, while i do agree that Hillary is a hawk, Trump would start wars based on his ego alone - we had many people here, including most of the usual suspects, arguing that Trump would in fact not be as bad in that regard.
Sorry, Not saying it was yours, just saying the people who were spouting that lie are the dumbest people ever lol. It never made a lick of sense if you actually followed the election at all. Shockingly low information people are low information people.
|
On August 12 2017 08:55 m4ini wrote:
So by the looks Trump is now "threatening" military actions in Venezuela as well?
Allegedly the WH hasn't gotten any orders in that direction (they were quick to react on that one) - i find it interesting though that it was constantly brought up that Hillary is the warmongering hawk, and Trump less so.
Starting to wonder now.
Hillary also said Trump was too soft on N. Korea (during the campaign), and she wants to escalate more than Trump has in Syria, they were both going to be hawks and both probably get us into wars (whatever that word means anymore).
|
On August 12 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 08:55 m4ini wrote:
So by the looks Trump is now "threatening" military actions in Venezuela as well?
Allegedly the WH hasn't gotten any orders in that direction (they were quick to react on that one) - i find it interesting though that it was constantly brought up that Hillary is the warmongering hawk, and Trump less so.
Starting to wonder now. Hillary also said Trump was too soft on N. Korea (during the campaign), and she wants to escalate more than Trump has in Syria, they were both going to be hawks and both probably get us into wars (whatever that word means anymore).
Hear hear. She only looks good because she's fallen out of the limelight and people have short memories.
|
Canada11349 Posts
@Ouchy- it's not like he's talking politics just for the hell of it. It's not even clear that his memo is politics, except that everything is political these days. Google sees a specific problem and is actively trying different methods- he was a part of some of those methods/ was explained a great deal more of their methods. He saw a problem not only with their methods, but also how a different problem was being created to try and fix the other.
He's not trying to be difficult or cantankerous 'just for the sake of an argument' as some in my family used to say. He was trying to either help the company or else correct his own thinking if turned out he was wrong.
You can shut those sorts of people out, but that sounds like a move to metastasize your idea generation and create a culture of yes. . . men? Yes women? Yes people? I don't know. Well, and ?Plansix? is right in that you speak your piece and if things don't change, you have to move on... but this was his first go. One and done? It's not like he's been railing against the system and he's being released for not 'getting with the program' and not being a 'teamplayer'. He made one carefully worded memo. And then people go off as though it is a manifesto because of its length, but it's lengthy because he's trying to be careful and source his claims.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Hillary was more likely to explicitly push for war, Trump was more likely to inadvertently start one by being stupid. That's how it was framed before the election, that's how it played out.
He cancelled the TPP, which Hillary would never have done, so I'm still ok.
|
On August 12 2017 10:01 LegalLord wrote:
Hillary was more likely to explicitly push for war, Trump was more likely to inadvertently start one by being stupid. That's how it was framed before the election, that's how it played out.
He cancelled the TPP, which Hillary would never have done, so I'm still ok.
largrely agree, except for on TPP; TPP was dead in the water and he put it out of its misery. (I personally favor TPP but recognize it had very little chance of passage)
|
On August 12 2017 10:01 LegalLord wrote:
Hillary was more likely to explicitly push for war, Trump was more likely to inadvertently start one by being stupid. That's how it was framed before the election, that's how it played out.
He cancelled the TPP, which Hillary would never have done, so I'm still ok.
Trump explicitly pushed for war far more than Hillary did. You can't just erase his words. However Hillary isn't dumb enough to pop off like Trump, would surround herself with much smarter people than the circus Trump has, and understands on some level there are consequences for actions.
On August 12 2017 09:54 Falling wrote:
@Ouchy- it's not like he's talking politics just for the hell of it. It's not even clear that his memo is politics, except that everything is political these days. Google sees a specific problem and is actively trying different methods- he was a part of some of those methods/ was explained a great deal more of their methods. He saw a problem not only with their methods, but also how a different problem was being created to try and fix the other.
He's not trying to be difficult or cantankerous 'just for the sake of an argument' as some in my family used to say. He was trying to either help the company or else correct his own thinking if turned out he was wrong.
You can shut those sorts of people out, but that sounds like a move to metastasize your idea generation and create a culture of yes. . . men? Yes women? Yes people? I don't know. Well, and ?Plansix? is right in that you speak your piece and if things don't change, you have to move on... but this was his first go. One and done? It's not like he's been railing against the system and he's being released for not 'getting with the program' and not being a 'teamplayer'. He made one carefully worded memo. And then people go off as though it is a manifesto because of its length, but it's lengthy because he's trying to be careful and source his claims.
Of course the memo is political. By not going through the proper channels and just dropping a turd in the pool you're being difficult. You're trying to go around the rules. Yes, if you don't use the proper channels and bring bad PR to the company it's 1 and done. If you don't like the rules go start your own google.
|
He cancelled the TPP, which Hillary would never have done, so I'm still ok.
That's a really low counterbalance to having a president that could get baited into a nuclear war via Twitter.
edit: or bait someone else.
Like, idiotically low.
|
On August 12 2017 09:54 Falling wrote:
@Ouchy- it's not like he's talking politics just for the hell of it. It's not even clear that his memo is politics, except that everything is political these days. Google sees a specific problem and is actively trying different methods- he was a part of some of those methods/ was explained a great deal more of their methods. He saw a problem not only with their methods, but also how a different problem was being created to try and fix the other.
He's not trying to be difficult or cantankerous 'just for the sake of an argument' as some in my family used to say. He was trying to either help the company or else correct his own thinking if turned out he was wrong.
You can shut those sorts of people out, but that sounds like a move to metastasize your idea generation and create a culture of yes. . . men? Yes women? Yes people? I don't know. Well, and ?Plansix? is right in that you speak your piece and if things don't change, you have to move on... but this was his first go. One and done? It's not like he's been railing against the system and he's being released for not 'getting with the program' and not being a 'teamplayer'. He made one carefully worded memo. And then people go off as though it is a manifesto because of its length, but it's lengthy because he's trying to be careful and source his claims.
He didn't get fired for the memo when it was submitted through appropriate channels, though. He even says in that interview he quoted that he uploaded it, people looked at it, but nobody commented! In the website feedback it wasn't a manifesto, it was feedback.
Only once he spread it outside those channels to this "Skeptics" group at Google who I can't find any trace of on the Internet but who are definitely not part of the correct power structure at Google and it exploded outside the company did he face censure. At that point, it's not feedback, it's complaining and trying to push your agenda, which is basically the definition of railing at the system! Because this Skeptic group is probably related to the ongoing gender pay gap kerfluffle going on at Google, sending it to them seems like quite the way to fan the flames.
|
On August 12 2017 09:12 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 08:50 Plansix wrote:
Falling: I don't think anyone is happy with the divisions in our country or that it is so hard to talk about these issues. But we confuse talking at people with talking to people. People treat these discussions like battles, including here. The manifesto said "fight me and my views" to a lot of people, even if that wasn't the intent. But we can't even put that single point to bed. That it might have had the wrong tone and delivery. And if we can't be critical of the tone and how a message delivered, we are not prepared for the deeper discussions. Do you have a problem with the tone? Because to me, he was trying really, really hard not go all in on one side- there's a portion talking about right wing biases, there's a portion looking at how the right can be anti-science, etc. To me, it seemed a fairly carefully worded document that at least an attempt to support it's claims. And then delivery- as far as I can tell, the method of delivery was actually taken out of his hands. Show nested quote +
Peterson: "So you went to this diversity meeting and you weren't happy with the sorts of things you were being told and with the practices. Is that both correct?"
My note: (A meeting, which unlike all the other ones, which are open and recorded- no recordings were allowed. "They don't want any paper trail for these things" Damore from just earlier.)
...
Peterson: "It's certainly also distressing to hear that there is acceptance to the idea that diversity is can be mapped onto race and gender, especially with regards to performance because there's no evidence for that whatsoever. So okay, you went to this meeting and you decided to write this document, and how long had you been working on it before you released it?"
Damore: "I had been working on it on my free time. I wanted to clarify my thoughts on this. I really just wanted to be proven wrong because if what I was saying was right then something bad was happening. And so about a month ago, I submitted to feedback, to that program and I saw that people had looked at it, but no one actually said anything.
...
It was only after it got viral and then leaked to the news that Google started caring"
Peterson: So how did it go viral and do you know how it was leaked.
Damore: So yeah, so there was a group at Google called Skeptics. And so I thought maybe they'd be able to prove me wrong, like they're skeptical about things, right? I was naive, I guess. I sent them a message, like okay, what do you think about this? Is Google in some sort of echo chamber or am I in an echo chamber? And then it just exploded after that. And you know and our internal- it was spread throughout all of Google.
Peterson: Do you know was it the Skeptics group that started to spread it around?
Damore: Yeah and then there was a lot of upper management that specifically called it out, saying how harmful it is and how it is unacceptable. That this sort of viewpoint is not allowed at Google.
+ Show Spoiler +So then it seems like it was intended for a fairly small audience- there was some poll where there was actually a decent number that was supportive of his views, but then someone else blasted it much farther than he had intended. I mean, maybe he didn't go through exactly the right channel, but it seems that this wasn't intended to be blasted out as ultimatum to all of google, but to see if a certain group within Google felt the same way.
I mean, I completely disagree in their theory of color/gender blind diversity. That topic is well worn through in most circles that discuss diversity and racism. Not seeing color and gender is something that is not afforded to women and minorities because of systematic racism and sexism. And when someone says they are gender/color blind, they also are saying that they don't see racism or sexism. Race and gender are not factors, despite clearly existing in reality, so the person chooses not to be aware facing people of that race or the opposite gender. And this is just the surface of the specific topic, which I am sure the two of them would completely disagree with. But I doubt they are even aware of it, because when their views were challenged they also ran to their own echo chamber for fear that their views might change. Their tone isn't the problem, it's that they flock to that which they claim to rage against.
|
Google's CEO doesn't seem to think that the memo was disseminated through "inappropriate channels", which aligns with my understanding of how these tech companies usually tend to operate.
Technology companies such as Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and Google parent Alphabet Inc. encourage employees to speak up, providing internal message boards, town halls and other forums for them to voice their opinions.
But what happens when a worker expresses a wildly unpopular—or even offensive—viewpoint?
That is one of the questions Google must now grapple with after an employee wrote an internal memo positing that women’s biological attributes such as being prone to “higher anxiety,” not sexism, contribute to the company’s gender gap. The missive set off a firestorm within the search giant and the broader tech community.
While many tech companies provide workers with the digital forums to discuss topics including press coverage, the ways consumers use their products and critiques of management, the uproar at Google highlights the risks that come with open discussion of contentious issues.
Companies can prohibit some speech and behaviors that discriminate against or harass members of staff, and may terminate those who violate the employer’s values and mission, attorneys said.
“There’s no unfettered right for employees to say whatever they want without facing repercussions from their company,” said Daniel A. Schwartz, employment law partner at Shipman & Goodwin LLP. “The question for companies like Google is, are you going to discipline employees for speaking their minds, when you’ve created a platform that encourages it?”
The Google employee argued that company initiatives to increase diversity discriminate against some workers, and that a liberal bias among executives and many employees makes it difficult to discuss the issue at the company, according to a version of the memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and verified by Google employees.
The memo has gone viral since it was initially published internally late last week, then leaked to the press over the weekend. The incident is the latest to underscore the notion that the tech industry is unwelcoming to women and minorities.
Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai tried to strike a balance in a message sent to employees Monday. “We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace,” Mr. Pichai wrote. Google hasn’t publicly named the memo’s author.
Software engineer James Damore, who wrote in an email that he was the author of the memo and had been fired for it, said he has complained to federal labor officials about executives’ efforts to silence him.
Workplace-harassment laws give employers latitude to police digital message boards in the same way they monitor the photos and messages workers hang in their physical workplaces, said Mr. Schwartz. Companies restrict the posting of violent and pornographic material for those reasons.
Experts said moderating digital discussions requires clear guidelines for how employees should participate and proper internal coordination to manage responses to messages that violate norms.
Victoria Plaut, a law professor and the director of the culture, diversity and intergroup relations lab at the University of California, Berkeley, suggested that companies can enhance their internal message boards with more-structured environments where difficult conversations can take place. That might include soliciting employees’ opinions through focus groups and surveys, she said.
Google could use this as a learning opportunity—both to reflect on how the climate is experienced by all employees and to pinpoint sources of resistance to its initiatives,” said Ms. Plaut.
Mr. Damore’s termination could create more complications for Google. Valerie Frederickson, CEO and managing partner at Frederickson Pribula Li, an executive search firm specializing in human resources, said firing an employee on such grounds could alienate others at the company who quietly agree with the memo’s author.
“Yes, maybe there are 10,000 who want him fired but maybe there are 30 or 40 people who feel he should be allowed to speak his mind,” said Ms. Frederickson.
Yonatan Zunger, an engineer who recently left Google, wrote in an email that if the memo’s author had been on his team he would have pushed for termination because of the hostile work environment the document had created.
“It’s very important to have a free, and respectful, discussion of ideas in a company. But there isn’t really a respectful way to say, ‘I think you, and people like you, are inherently less suited to do this job than people like me,’ because the idea itself is disrespectful,” said Mr. Zunger.
Source
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 12 2017 09:12 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 08:50 Plansix wrote:
Falling: I don't think anyone is happy with the divisions in our country or that it is so hard to talk about these issues. But we confuse talking at people with talking to people. People treat these discussions like battles, including here. The manifesto said "fight me and my views" to a lot of people, even if that wasn't the intent. But we can't even put that single point to bed. That it might have had the wrong tone and delivery. And if we can't be critical of the tone and how a message delivered, we are not prepared for the deeper discussions. Do you have a problem with the tone? Because to me, he was trying really, really hard not go all in on one side- there's a portion talking about right wing biases, there's a portion looking at how the right can be anti-science, etc. To me, it seemed a fairly carefully worded document that at least an attempt to support it's claims. And then delivery- as far as I can tell, the method of delivery was actually taken out of his hands. Show nested quote +
Peterson: "So you went to this diversity meeting and you weren't happy with the sorts of things you were being told and with the practices. Is that both correct?"
My note: (A meeting, which unlike all the other ones, which are open and recorded- no recordings were allowed. "They don't want any paper trail for these things" Damore from just earlier.)
...
Peterson: "It's certainly also distressing to hear that there is acceptance to the idea that diversity is can be mapped onto race and gender, especially with regards to performance because there's no evidence for that whatsoever. So okay, you went to this meeting and you decided to write this document, and how long had you been working on it before you released it?"
Damore: "I had been working on it on my free time. I wanted to clarify my thoughts on this. I really just wanted to be proven wrong because if what I was saying was right then something bad was happening. And so about a month ago, I submitted to feedback, to that program and I saw that people had looked at it, but no one actually said anything.
...
It was only after it got viral and then leaked to the news that Google started caring"
Peterson: So how did it go viral and do you know how it was leaked.
Damore: So yeah, so there was a group at Google called Skeptics. And so I thought maybe they'd be able to prove me wrong, like they're skeptical about things, right? I was naive, I guess. I sent them a message, like okay, what do you think about this? Is Google in some sort of echo chamber or am I in an echo chamber? And then it just exploded after that. And you know and our internal- it was spread throughout all of Google.
Peterson: Do you know was it the Skeptics group that started to spread it around?
Damore: Yeah and then there was a lot of upper management that specifically called it out, saying how harmful it is and how it is unacceptable. That this sort of viewpoint is not allowed at Google.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU So then it seems like it was intended for a fairly small audience- there was some poll where there was actually a decent number that was supportive of his views, but then someone else blasted it much farther than he had intended. I mean, maybe he didn't go through exactly the right channel, but it seems that this wasn't intended to be blasted out as ultimatum to all of google, but to see if a certain group within Google felt the same way.
Given what "Skeptic" means when used as a label on the internet, that was not a good choice :/
I guess I don't blame him for being naive about that tho, I feel like it was only a few years ago that the word skeptic was associated more so with the James Randi type of anti-pseudoscience and less with the more embarrassing parts of youtube.
Or are they the same group of people just more outspoken now than in the past?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 12 2017 13:48 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 09:12 Falling wrote:On August 12 2017 08:50 Plansix wrote:
Falling: I don't think anyone is happy with the divisions in our country or that it is so hard to talk about these issues. But we confuse talking at people with talking to people. People treat these discussions like battles, including here. The manifesto said "fight me and my views" to a lot of people, even if that wasn't the intent. But we can't even put that single point to bed. That it might have had the wrong tone and delivery. And if we can't be critical of the tone and how a message delivered, we are not prepared for the deeper discussions. Do you have a problem with the tone? Because to me, he was trying really, really hard not go all in on one side- there's a portion talking about right wing biases, there's a portion looking at how the right can be anti-science, etc. To me, it seemed a fairly carefully worded document that at least an attempt to support it's claims. And then delivery- as far as I can tell, the method of delivery was actually taken out of his hands.
Peterson: "So you went to this diversity meeting and you weren't happy with the sorts of things you were being told and with the practices. Is that both correct?"
My note: (A meeting, which unlike all the other ones, which are open and recorded- no recordings were allowed. "They don't want any paper trail for these things" Damore from just earlier.)
...
Peterson: "It's certainly also distressing to hear that there is acceptance to the idea that diversity is can be mapped onto race and gender, especially with regards to performance because there's no evidence for that whatsoever. So okay, you went to this meeting and you decided to write this document, and how long had you been working on it before you released it?"
Damore: "I had been working on it on my free time. I wanted to clarify my thoughts on this. I really just wanted to be proven wrong because if what I was saying was right then something bad was happening. And so about a month ago, I submitted to feedback, to that program and I saw that people had looked at it, but no one actually said anything.
...
It was only after it got viral and then leaked to the news that Google started caring"
Peterson: So how did it go viral and do you know how it was leaked.
Damore: So yeah, so there was a group at Google called Skeptics. And so I thought maybe they'd be able to prove me wrong, like they're skeptical about things, right? I was naive, I guess. I sent them a message, like okay, what do you think about this? Is Google in some sort of echo chamber or am I in an echo chamber? And then it just exploded after that. And you know and our internal- it was spread throughout all of Google.
Peterson: Do you know was it the Skeptics group that started to spread it around?
Damore: Yeah and then there was a lot of upper management that specifically called it out, saying how harmful it is and how it is unacceptable. That this sort of viewpoint is not allowed at Google.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU So then it seems like it was intended for a fairly small audience- there was some poll where there was actually a decent number that was supportive of his views, but then someone else blasted it much farther than he had intended. I mean, maybe he didn't go through exactly the right channel, but it seems that this wasn't intended to be blasted out as ultimatum to all of google, but to see if a certain group within Google felt the same way. Given what "Skeptic" means when used as a label on the internet, that was not a good choice :/ I guess I don't blame him for being naive about that tho, I feel like it was only a few years ago that the word skeptic was associated more so with the James Randi type of anti-pseudoscience and less with the more embarrassing parts of youtube.
I think I saw that transition happen when Youtube feminism started to take off. Was definitely just a few years ago.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I had this Breitbart piece recommended by an ex-Googler I know. Documents a lot of the stupid shit that happens on their internal social media network.
Numerous individuals alleged to be members of Google’s management team have been caught bragging about forming blacklists to impact the careers of colleagues with different political beliefs.
In a series of screenshots from 2015 onwards provided to Breitbart News by a verified Google employee, individuals described as left-wing Google management employees can be seen discussing the ways they punish their colleagues both inside and out of the company.
Of course, being foolish enough to be documented having a controversial opinion is a great way to screw yourself over.
|
On August 12 2017 13:48 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 09:12 Falling wrote:On August 12 2017 08:50 Plansix wrote:
Falling: I don't think anyone is happy with the divisions in our country or that it is so hard to talk about these issues. But we confuse talking at people with talking to people. People treat these discussions like battles, including here. The manifesto said "fight me and my views" to a lot of people, even if that wasn't the intent. But we can't even put that single point to bed. That it might have had the wrong tone and delivery. And if we can't be critical of the tone and how a message delivered, we are not prepared for the deeper discussions. Do you have a problem with the tone? Because to me, he was trying really, really hard not go all in on one side- there's a portion talking about right wing biases, there's a portion looking at how the right can be anti-science, etc. To me, it seemed a fairly carefully worded document that at least an attempt to support it's claims. And then delivery- as far as I can tell, the method of delivery was actually taken out of his hands.
Peterson: "So you went to this diversity meeting and you weren't happy with the sorts of things you were being told and with the practices. Is that both correct?"
My note: (A meeting, which unlike all the other ones, which are open and recorded- no recordings were allowed. "They don't want any paper trail for these things" Damore from just earlier.)
...
Peterson: "It's certainly also distressing to hear that there is acceptance to the idea that diversity is can be mapped onto race and gender, especially with regards to performance because there's no evidence for that whatsoever. So okay, you went to this meeting and you decided to write this document, and how long had you been working on it before you released it?"
Damore: "I had been working on it on my free time. I wanted to clarify my thoughts on this. I really just wanted to be proven wrong because if what I was saying was right then something bad was happening. And so about a month ago, I submitted to feedback, to that program and I saw that people had looked at it, but no one actually said anything.
...
It was only after it got viral and then leaked to the news that Google started caring"
Peterson: So how did it go viral and do you know how it was leaked.
Damore: So yeah, so there was a group at Google called Skeptics. And so I thought maybe they'd be able to prove me wrong, like they're skeptical about things, right? I was naive, I guess. I sent them a message, like okay, what do you think about this? Is Google in some sort of echo chamber or am I in an echo chamber? And then it just exploded after that. And you know and our internal- it was spread throughout all of Google.
Peterson: Do you know was it the Skeptics group that started to spread it around?
Damore: Yeah and then there was a lot of upper management that specifically called it out, saying how harmful it is and how it is unacceptable. That this sort of viewpoint is not allowed at Google.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU So then it seems like it was intended for a fairly small audience- there was some poll where there was actually a decent number that was supportive of his views, but then someone else blasted it much farther than he had intended. I mean, maybe he didn't go through exactly the right channel, but it seems that this wasn't intended to be blasted out as ultimatum to all of google, but to see if a certain group within Google felt the same way. Given what "Skeptic" means when used as a label on the internet, that was not a good choice :/ I guess I don't blame him for being naive about that tho, I feel like it was only a few years ago that the word skeptic was associated more so with the James Randi type of anti-pseudoscience and less with the more embarrassing parts of youtube. Or are they the same group of people just more outspoken now than in the past?
Well, he says he's naive about it anyway. I am a little skeptical (dohoho) that someone who would write that 10 page memo would both not read up about who he was sending it to and not know what's associated with the term, but maybe he's telling the truth.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I really think he just didn't know any better. Most of us would say, what exactly did you think would happen when you write a manifesto like that at work? Whether or not we agree with its contents. But he doesn't seem to get it.
|
You can't go on a Ted Kaczynski like bender on your internal company's mailing list, especially if you know that you're going to cause a shitstorm of epic proportions. That was never okay, it will never be okay. The guy should have just gone out and have a few drinks instead of written that manifesto, it would have saved everybody a lot of trouble
|
If I have a management group who likes Trump I sure as hell am not going to tell that group that I think Trump is a moron who set the country's recovery back years. It just isn't something you really do with coworkers or management unless you have a good personal friendship with them (even then its a risk).
|
On August 12 2017 15:45 Slaughter wrote:
If I have a management group who likes Trump I sure as hell am not going to tell that group that I think Trump is a moron who set the country's recovery back years. It just isn't something you really do with coworkers or management unless you have a good personal friendship with them (even then its a risk).
The only difference is that he considered what he was writing as important to his company. It wasn't just a random political pamphlet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
