Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper Obtains James Damore's Complaint Against Google (siliconbeat.com)
A Silicon Valley newspaper brings this update on fired Google engineer James Damore:
California law allows employers to fire workers for virtually any reason -- and the Constitutional protection of free speech doesn't apply to private company workplaces. Until now it was unclear how Damore might fight back against Google over his termination. Now, this news organization has obtained the U.S. National Labor Relations Board charge sheet that reveals the basis for Damore's battle. His argument hinges on the contents of his memo, which went far beyond discussing a possible biological reason for the gender gap.
The document contained detailed criticism of Google's diversity initiatives and their effects on employees, and it said that the company's biases led to alienation among employees holding conservative views. His Labor Board charge rests on Section 8(a) subsection (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to engage in activities for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection." Google discriminated against Damore by firing him "in retaliation" for activities protected by law, and also possibly to discourage such activities within the company, the charge sheet said. It appears clear that the protected activities Damore refers to are his communications, in the memo, with co-workers, about issues in the workplace.
Google was unavailable for comment, but the newspaper quoted an earlier statement from Google CEO Sundar Pichai that "An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
The document contained detailed criticism of Google's diversity initiatives and their effects on employees, and it said that the company's biases led to alienation among employees holding conservative views. His Labor Board charge rests on Section 8(a) subsection (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to engage in activities for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection." Google discriminated against Damore by firing him "in retaliation" for activities protected by law, and also possibly to discourage such activities within the company, the charge sheet said. It appears clear that the protected activities Damore refers to are his communications, in the memo, with co-workers, about issues in the workplace.
Google was unavailable for comment, but the newspaper quoted an earlier statement from Google CEO Sundar Pichai that "An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
Fake WhatsApp App Downloaded 1 Million Times https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
"Constitutional protection of free speech doesn't apply to private company workplaces"
Funny how that works. It's not protected, as long as the company disagrees with you?
I would argue it's better to protect free speech especially when the corporation disagrees with you.
Let's put it this way - a very left wing employee of a very right wing company gets fired for advocating her views at the company. Do you still think the company is ok to violate free speech? So only some people get protection from very powerful people?
Maybe you should read what Damore wrote. Copies are easily available from multiple sources, though look for the unedited copies, not the ones selectively edited to push an agenda. In short, he said there are differences to how men and women approach topics and Google's workplace tended to be more accommodating to men than women, and some changes could help the situation. This was interpreted the way your question implies (which I hope was an honest question rather than a passive-aggressive snark), and he was terminated for what was phrased as an attack on women.
no martian, read the memo
"An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
weasel words
noun
words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.
You obviously did not read the memo.
-- Has the definition of harrassment and creating a hostile workplace culture broadened to include when the offensive activity in question is actively engaged in (through calmly / voluntarily reading a website) by the person who claims being harrassed or antagonized?
-- Does the person who claims being harrassed or feeling antagonized have complete free reign to define what constitutes this and is reasonable for someone to be fired over?
-- If all of the claims in the "manifesto" were true, does it change whether someone can legally be fired over it? (truth of course is hard to judge)
Yes, that's generally the con take on it.
It's part of the war on women.
I haven't read the memo either but I have it on good authority that he said Hitler did nothing wrong.
Oh yeah and that was after his managers told him to drop it and he then made the company look bad.
You do realize that federal law explicitly grants workers the right to bring up discriminatory practices in the workplace, and therefore telling a person who brings it up is a federal law violation? And retaliating against them for bringing it up, or not dropping it, is also a violation? You realize that, right?
And for those unaware of how these laws work, the person bringing it up does NOT have to be a person negatively effected by the practices.
He needs to remember to add "These views are mine and mine alone and in no way represent the official views of Google Inc...." next time he wants to piss all over his companies diversity policy.
Sure he might be right and there might be genetic reasons for distribution of skills that make Googles 50/50 aims bad, but YOU STICK A CLEAR DISCLAIMER ON IT IN CASE IT LEAKS TO THE PRESS AND IS DISCUSSED AS IF ITS A GOOGLE STUDY DOCUMENT.
Otherwise you're opening up Google to a wealth of lawsuit pain, and of course they then have to fire your sorry ass to create distance between you and them. Distance that should have come from the disclaimer you forgot to add.
I don't think they wanted to sack you, I think they had to.
Isn't that something like an email that you used to dictate to a typist before computers forced us all to learn to type?
Maybe it's because you're ACTUALLY trolling, under the guise of "I just don't agree with you".
Because that's all leftists do, is claim to be the voice of reason when in actuality, they're just trolling anyone who can read and think logically. Since you are obviously incapable of using logic and critical thought when reading the memo, you simply state that it's "underwhelming" not because you disagree, but because you just "don't get it".
You may not even realize you're trolling, but you're still trolling nonetheless and deserve to be modded as such.
What are you doing? Stop it. This is not the time to be logical, there's men to hate.
Memo gets written that Google could do a better job being sensitive to the differences between men and women.
Gets fired for being "insensitive"
The old "When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger." tactic.
Or in this case typical Stupid Juvenile Whiner tactics.
/cynical Classic.
An important part of our culture is lively debate. Unless you start making arguments that threaten our position that we cannot refute.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to be written by an engineer - who thinks that because he's so, so smart, he can easily grasp argumentation, social sciences, and politics. But the reality is, this is the guy who - when he walks into a meeting - the room rolls its eyes because the meeting is going to take twice as long and accomplish half as much. But boy, are you going to hear his opinions.
The irony is staggering!
Why does a conservative snowflake's need to work only with men trump my desire to not work with conservative snowflakes? I mean in the real world we need to be able to work with anyone. and we certainly don't want to work with people whose mind is so weak that they can't differentiate someone looking different from someone who is less able. This reminds me of a snowflake working for a Austin tech company that could not hold meeting with women because his wife would yell at him. This is especially funny because it was not so long ago that a conservative man who was afraid of his wife would be summarily laughed out of town by all the real conservative men.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I don't know, MightyMartian. The answer depends on whether or not you've stopped beating your wife yet.
I am grateful when I find leftists who honestly want to have open debate. Unfortunately, that is rare. The hard left actually hates free speech because its ideas cannot stand up to intellectual scrutiny.
Damore is not even all that radical of a conservative. He just departed from the religion of the Silicon Valley c-suite and that is, of course, a grand heresy for which he must be punished.
To all left-leaning readers, just remember: if you are against free speech for ideas you dislike, then you are against free speech period. And the limits you impose on others can one day be turned on you.
Google fires James Damore for writing a conservative memo.
Liberals: It's a private company, they're not obligated to respect his free speech rights.
The NFL fires Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the anthem
Liberals: THEY VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Instead of being as clueless as all the other group-think-morons, you could actually read what he wrote and edited, which was based on feedback of coworkers. But then that would require effort, something virtual-signalling does not. And if you did read it, or got past the TLDR... Nice! Is it that your reading comprehension sucks? Or is it that you're so biased, it has clouded your comprehension?
> I found the arguments essentially rehashing rather old, tired talking points without adding anything new
> All he did was take a contentious topic and give the pot a very thorough stir without adding anything new (IMO).
Since none of the points are discussed as part of the topic, within Google (as he stated and Google then characterized as hateful), it's hard to understand how your mind comes up with some of these opinions.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
You do realize that federal law explicitly grants workers the right to bring up discriminatory practices in the workplace, and therefore telling a person [to stop] who brings it up is a federal law violation? And retaliating against them for bringing it up, or not dropping it, is also a violation? You realize that, right?
They didn't retaliate against him for bringing it up.
Umm, yes they did.
What happened is he didn't like his manager[']s answer and created a hostile workplace environment (something which they are 100% entitled to act on) by posting his opinions to the entire company.
He posted it to an internal mailing list dedicated to discussing issues about inclusion, not to the entire company. It was then forwarded by someone else who objected to his memo. So, posting a concern about inclusion to an internal mailing list dedicated to discussing issues of inclusion is now deemed creating a hostile working environment? Interesting theory you have there.
Now of course you can argue back and forth as to whether you think he's right and whether or not that did create a hostile workplace environment. But that doesn't make your interpretation of the law one I think is correct.
And sooner or later we'll get a definitive answer on this unless google settles which I doubt they will.
If you mean if a decision is made by a court, that will only address whether Google's actions in this case violated the law, not whether the interpretation I cited is correct. BTW, go do some research and you may find the law journals I pulled it from. Also, I doubt it will reach a trial since Google will make it go away before that point is reached.
Good luck to him. I've found the Oakland NLRB branch to be kind of useless, and the Office of Appeals even worse. I filed a complaint against a former employer, and the initial group dismissed it, so I wrote an appeal. Even found 5-6 prior cases the NLRB has decided that reflect on elements of my case and worked that in. The response I get back from the Office of Appeals is something along the lines of, "You allege you were engaged in a protected concerted activity, but we're not going to actually take the time to figure out if you were or not." The entire rejection letter read like something a high school student might come up with when they realize the night before they have a book report due the next day: skim a few pages looking for a couple of specifics to throw in, and then just BS the rest.
These agencies all tend to have the one set of rules that they put out for public view, and then there's a separate secret set of rules that they follow. I know it'll never happen, but there really should be an agency that advocates for workers, since most can't afford lawyers.
I said when it happened that Google was stupid to fire him; at most they should have just asked him not to do it again. I hope that he wins and nails Google to the wall so that they think twice the next time. I seriously doubt that he will win, but I hope he does. It's long past time for the second gilded age to come to an end and the balance of power swing a back a bit more in favor of workers.
Yep, when you don't have an argument just befuddle them with bullshit slander. Typical leftist.
No, this is the case where a liberal presents a view that maybe women don't want STEM careers. And those critical of him and who fired him didn't bother to actually read what he wrote, and just assumed the author was a conservative who said that women are inferior at STEM.
Really, this case has become a great litmus test at determining who actually reads the facts and decides for themselves, vs. who doesn't care about the facts as long as they can use the issue to publicly demonstrate that they're being compliant with the socially acceptable conclusion.
Since none of the points are discussed as part of the topic, within Google (as he stated and Google then characterized as hateful), it's hard to understand how your mind comes up with some of these opinions.
Well, by reading the memo, for one.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Please read this ten page memo. But if you fire me, you'll hear from my lawyers.
Try reading the memo.
You are trolling. Everyone who read the memo knows that you did not.
It's painfully obvious, in fact, and it's hilarious because it makes you look so ignorant and you're not even aware of it.
Boring like your comment? Full of biases with nothing to back it up?
You would have a hard time convincing me that it's even possible to "create a hostile workplace environment" by posting your opinions on something.
Harassment requires a victim, and you can't just say the whole company is the victim.
it is okay to be white
The Economist posted the response Google should have sent to James Damore here:
https://www.economist.com/news...
It is far more eloquent than a typical Slashdot comment. If you're interested in this subject, and in seeing what in my opinion is the most thoughtful commentary on this subject, the above article is highly recommended.
Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
So what's your credentials that you know about social science better than the next guy. You are simply attacking from a place of authority. No real argument here.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Yeah, someone posting their view on Jews totally wouldn't have a negative view on any Jewish coworkers. Oddly enough most human beings have emotions.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Your co-workers may dislike you, for any number of reasons.
The point is, that's not sufficient to create a hostile work environment.
If you came in every day and were submitted to anti-Semitic propaganda from those above you, you would have a case.
Here i thought it was the case of someone learning that there are consequences of causing a bunch of shit where you work. I get it, you conservatives have to latch on to every immoral dickhead that comes around just to make you feel like you're not the filthy, lonely, ungrateful dregs of society that you are.... all it really means is there's a few more dregs for decent people to be disgusted by.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Don't say that you want a dialogue about something, then fire somebody if one actually happens.
> He says things - over, and over, and over - like they're facts, with zero basis for them. His citations are often ridiculous, and he certainly does spend some time talking about how unbiased HE is.
Way to contradict yourself. He has zero basis... except for all the citations of scientific studies. What could be more ridiculous than hand-waving away all the evidence without bothering to engage with it? Why don't you read the memo some more and discuss that? Right, then you'd have to deal with scientific facts that make you uncomfortable.
So please explain the factual basis of your disagreement with the citations or GTFO. There are facts on this side in the paper. You haven't presented even one specific factual basis for disagreement. That only serves to show people that you know your basis for arguing is weak and you therefore are reluctant to disclose any specific factual disagreements.
In short, facts or GTFO.
I think the memo loses value once circulated outside Google. In that case I can see why you would think the arguments and points boring.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
the fact that this all shakes down in public is insight to the dysfunction of the company. Like when a family argument spills out into the street.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
In case you've forgotten, here's an unretouched photo of Mr Damore with two former co-workers who had just had their way with him. If you look closely, you can see that one is still holding the fork that Damore used to toss his salad. According to several other co-workers, it was entirely consensual.
I want you to take a step back and think about how you're trying to shame him based on his physical appearance and mock him by implying his sexuality, and then think about how you'd feel about anybody who did that to a woman for any reason.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Here i thought it was the case of someone learning that there are consequences of causing a bunch of shit where you work.
The memo was private, and leaked. The damage to Google was caused by the media leaking the private, internal memo to the public, not by Damore.
I get it, you conservatives have to latch on to every immoral dickhead
I'm not a conservative, but I support what Damore is saying quite vigorously. I'm what used to be called extremely liberal. That is until the neo-liberals started demanding purity of essence in the world. You're either a neo-liberal, or a troll. I can't tell which.
Damore was fired, not for being anti-diversity, but for being intentionally disruptive and confrontational, writing a ten page attack memo and posting it in a company-wide forum, where it was (not suprisingly) leaked to the press. That put the entire company on the defensive.
If you do that, you're risking your career at that company. Similar consequences could be expected if Damore or a colleague had written a memo attacking the company's product or engineering strategy. It's not at all surprising that there are passionate disagreements on some of these things. It's a matter of choosing the right (or wrong) forum to publicize one's disagreements. It's one thing to argue about something in the break room or hallway, or to ask the CEO or VP a tough (but respectful) question at an internal meeting. It's another thing to publish what amounts to be a manifesto attacking company policy.
Youre full of shit, i would bet my life on that.
Speaking of reading, try: https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-week-newspaper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal
much better researched than anything you will see in a comments section.
The memo is here. There are these crazy things called "quotes" that one normally uses to support a particular point like that. You have posted six times on this story as of a moment ago when I went here and counted. I note a conspicuous lack of supporting quotes in your posting.
I do not and will not believe that you have read the actual, uncensored memo until and unless you quote from the memo to support your claims. You appear to have read reports about the memo while ignoring the memo itself and then conflated what's been reported about the memo with that which was actually written. This is hilariously bad because some outlets have done stupid things like strip all the citations.
Because what reader would want to bother with pesky things like facts in a discussion like this?
Perhaps the issue is your baseless assertion that you've determined his conclusions are invalid because his citations are [all the negative characterizations], when neither you nor any of his other critics have actually presented evidence to support that argument. That's what makes it a troll argument. I've already commented so couldn't mod either way, but had you backed up your criticisms of his citations with research invalidating those papers, which weren't riddled with flaws, biases, etc, themselves, I would have been very interested in reading it and would have upmodded. But repeating the same old "Well I think the science he cited is wrong" is just a troll at this point without counter-cites.
Being mean, insensitive, foul-mouthed, insulting, etc. Is the very definition of a hostile work environment. it may not be a firing offense the first time, but it soon will be if it doesn't stop.
It is kind of ironic that right now Google is facing a lawsuit for discriminating against women, and also one for discriminating against men. Where will the insanity end??
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
>Remains to be seen: I don't see google settling out of court on this one.
I do. A couple of mill in return for silence would be far more convenient for the company than having it's internal communications dragged through open court. I've deal with big corporation lawyers enough to know this angle will have been considered.
I don't know, MightyMartian. The answer depends on whether or not you've stopped beating your wife yet.
I haven't. She's hopeless at Call of Duty and I beat her all the time.
I'd say that it is more than enough, and almost certainly would get you fired.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So, you're saying he's a modern day civil rights leader, but we shouldn't listen to him because you think he's gay? This is one of your least coherent insults, and that's saying a lot.
The media didn't leak the memo, a coworker most likely did, the media just published it.
Why read or allow diversity of opinion when you can just misrepresent and suppress your enemies?
It is kind of ironic that right now Google is facing a lawsuit for discriminating against women, and also one for discriminating against men. Where will the insanity end??
When we start discriminating against people for machines.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Thankfully pro corporate slaves like you generally don't end up on juries.
Google will either pay out millions in go-away money or lose in court big time and have the DoJ digging into their shit for years.
Female scholar Christina Hoff Sommers on why feminism is an enemy of liberty:
http://tomwoods.com/ep-625-feminism-vs-free-speech-and-a-free-economy/
You couldn't actually argue anything Damore wrote, could you?
Google's diversity efforts also alienate many minorities and women, because the message that Google is sending loud and clear to minorities and women is: "You are incapable of standing up for yourself, and unless we train the wealthy straight white males to walk on eggshells around you, you can't succeed here on your own." Of course, the same wealthy straight white males have no trouble heaping vitriol on anybody who doesn't toe their political line.
No wonder that Google has some of the worst turnover rates of any US corporation (average stay: 1 year) and that diversity at Google isn't improving. I found the atmosphere stifling and left within less than a year. My new company deals much more maturely with diversity issues than Google, and the job is actually more fun too. I will never work for an Alphabet company again.
And posting his 10 page opinion piece to an internal list intended for such topics is not harassment.
Even by your definition.
Been looking for a down-mod badge for a while. Thanks!
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Why on Earth would you research something for yourself, peon? The Ministry of Truth has told you all you need to know.
You wrote "the conservative view".
This clearly suggests that you believe there is only one conservative view.
In my opinion it is very narrow minded to espouse such things.
It's entirely valid to consider it sloppy work. However, have you applied the same standard to the writings that got us into this echo chamber in the first place?
It's everything from fake stats, to motivated reasoning, to outright cult indoctrination. But because it's feminism, criticising it as a man gets you dismissed as a misogynist who's mansplaining women's issues to them. Strangely, these same people don't seem to see anything wrong with women talking down to men and dictating how feminism is going to solve men's issues... Something which in the history of the movement they've never once done.
Damore's memo has to be seen in the context of a company that pushes the view is criticizing as official dogma. In that light, what he's done is not only a valiant effort, it's speaking truth to power from a position of oppression. The thing social justice pretends to care about.
Putting his name on it: is that not what James Damore did just before people like you crucified him because you are unable to debate his claims in the open?
Could you please not demean homosexual people ("faggots")?!
Are you a homophobe?
So, I notice your argument consists of "he is wrong" without giving concrete arguments and evidence.
I.e. you need to say with a little detail what the "old, tired talking points" are; what the "obvious truths, wild extrapolationsn claims purporting to be obvious truths but which were more like references to tired stereotypes" are; and how the "cherry picked, old, contentious or in some cases didn't support what they were claimed to support" are in fact cherry picked, or how their age is relevant, or how they are contentious.
Without justifying your accusations with some evidence then your words are pretty hollow.
I don't know, MightyMartian. The answer depends on whether or not you've stopped beating your wife yet.
That would depend on an unstated assumption. Does he has a wife or not?
That's a key point.
Specifics of the complaint aside, it's clear that Google's corporate culture is terribly fucked up, and that decisions are being driven by politics and arbitrary manager preferences. That's not a good thing for a company to have spread all through the courts and the news, and it doesn't bode well for the long term health of the company.
It normally takes several decades for a company to become top-heavy, hidebound, obsessed with internal politics, and resistant to any sort of change. It happened quickly to Google.
Donâ(TM)t you have a date with an oven somewhere?
Well yeah, you can't exactly say a bunch of scientific papers are wrong by supplying flawed ones yourself.
The second link is an opinion piece with no scientific debate simply asserting how wrong all mischaracterizations were like everyone else, the first was more interesting, but of the portion that wasn't just explaining how horrible the author thought his opinions were without challenging the facts, and consisted of actual scientific references, the author has a few valid points here and there, but the bias is so incredibly thick and it's full of so much "no you're wrong and you're a racist sexist because I say so" it doesn't even seem worth pursuing the nitpicks; and there's lots of attacking straw men (by erroneously claiming Damore is asserting biology *alone* accounts for something, then linking to evidence for nature and nurture). I mean seriously, the author explicitly states we shouldn't judge people on their individual merits.. how can you really take that as a serious rebuttal? It's clear someone on the far left was extremely personally offended and tried to take it apart, but the extreme bias and desperation produced nothing but opinion, straw men, and minor nitpicks, among the small percentage of the article that actually directly addressed the actual content.
But that's not a comment I would mod down, since you did at least try to back up the opinion with a non-troll source. Might not mod it up since it's wrong and contradicted by lots of other scientists, but not down.
Sure, except he's referring to a person who always referred to themselves, and he did it in three amusing paragraphs rather than a 10 page diatribe
There's a big difference between constantly talking about how smart you are and pointing out when other people do this
But sure, let's just assume all fruit is dead rats
I mean seriously, the author explicitly states we shouldn't judge people on their individual merits.. how can you really take that as a serious rebuttal?
This is actually the premise behind social justice. Really, it is. I've been told by at least 6 people here on slashdot that if you have any success at all in life when there are other people who don't, then that is an injustice no different than if you had stolen from somebody else. So in other words, social justice says to throw out the Martin Luther King message that people should be judged by the content of their character, and unfortunately, postmodern liberalism has done precisely this.
I'm a liberal. The view below is mine, but typical amongst the liberals I know.
I think that there are significant issues with equality of opportunity to be dealt with in society, but equality of outcome is impossible as people have different capabilities. I don't think that your opportunities should be constrained because of membership of a group, and that instead your capabilities should determine things within a meritocracy.
There are some complexities in that some may need additional support, and given how much of a child's developmental path is determined before school, equality of opportunity is very difficult to achieve.
How to achieve equality of opportunity universally is not simple, but removing gross discrimination is a first step.
did we read the same document...? Or is it that you've never had to administer a project before and so don't know how many nonsense assumptions he made?
It is not the best thing since the bible, it is not novel, it is not an entertaining read. However since it is the argument of the discussion, one shoul read it before posting his/her insights.
I read his "essay" in full. It's not completely bad, it has few good points, it has several bad ones, but ultimately this is about the image of the company.
All in all, no matter how much he tried to make it technical, cold or like a scientific study, it's still basically - men are biologically more apt to some types of jobs rather than women, the "extreme left" is hindering Google as a business, and attempts to bring more women into the company is getting to some extremes he doesn't like and feels threatened by.
Are there possibly some extreme left inside Google that is blindly against his views? Probably yes. Could they have had a hand in leaking the essay which ultimately led to him being fired? Also probably yes.
But ultimately, the problem is that Google could not keep him as an employee without it becoming a huge liability. He's smart enough to realize that. His defense will fail because Google will put it up that his attempt of "mutual aid or protection" was obviously damaging to the company as a whole, to several employees, and to general company policies. He has no ground to stand.
The press took his essay to say it's an attempt to biologically label women as inferior. It's not exactly that, nor it is what the full thing is about, but that's the image that was left.
With this, it's pretty much unsustainable to keep him there both for Google's image as a company, and as an employee that would most likely create an internal divide that the company really cannot afford.
Now, Google is a company that has been struggling, spending a whole ton of money, and reforming itself internally to adopt a more progressive role and go exactly against speeches like his. This is probably the current money sinkhole there, as it is on several other social networks.
His steps towards a better company, at least some of them, are not bad per se, but the way he put it isn't great for anyone.
It's all about the tone. There's a bunch of useful stuff in his write up, but unfortunately, it came with a bunch of other stuff that threw mud in entire areas where Google is investing a whole lot of money and effort. It calls for elimination of parts of Google. It certainly wasn't only mutual aid and protection, it was also an attack on parts of Google's internal structure. And to make things worse, he politicized his views - the sort of polarization that Google and other big companies are definitely trying to run away from. There's a lot of unjustified and baseless labeling in his speech where he keeps trying to defend stereotypification and labeling with general statistics. It's poor science at best, prejudice at worst.
If Google kept him there, even if the argument was in defense of free speech or whatever, it would bring the polarization and toxicity of political discussions inside the company more than it probably already is.
This is a personal opinion of course, but I think Google did the right thing. Even if he somehow wins his complaint, in the long run it'll be far less damaging to the company as a whole.
No, this is assholes taking the conservative name because its sounds better than "the assholes" and "alt-right" has taken on a pretty negative tone recently, even in conservative media.
It must suck to be a decent conservative (or a Republican) these days. All of your valid arguments and viewpoints are grossly overshadowed by bullshit like this, Charlottesville, etc. "Women should stay in the kitchen" or "blacks should still be slaves" are just not really valid political viewpoints anywhere on the spectrum anymore.
Or at least they weren't before the US elected a president who wants to set the country back 200 years in terms of civil rights and basic human decency. It won't be long before China's calling the US out for human rights violations the way things are going.
Which is why metamoderation is a thing. Of course that's just one step further down the potential rabbit hole..
No, this is the case where a liberal presents a view that maybe women don't want STEM careers.
Uh no, you're leaving out the most important part. His assertion is that maybe women don't want STEM careers, and therefore that's why they're having a hard time at google. But his assertion is false, and so is his conclusion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you cant take inside criticism especially agreed with enough to be shared openly by so many inside.
It will be impossible to have continuous improvement.
Not even money keeps the best with such a hostile management to criticism.
Read the document, and make up your mind on the facts of the case, not second hand opinion.
Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, James Darmore.
Opinion - any rule that is based on "the eye of the beholder" rather than a clear standard is at risk of inconsistent, unfair, and unjust application.
When they stop judging and hiring people based on "diversity" and start with merit.
Except that he literally did not say that. Stop making shit up, liar.
so, it really only matters what his contract said. could he be fired for this legally? yes. his comment makes no difference except to burn bridges he's never seen before. what a dumbass. it's crazy how self-described libertarians are sticking up for him. he's like the posterchild for the free market removing a cancer.
“strong policies against retaliation, harassment and discrimination in the workplace,” that is a nicely shaped drama triangle. Although I would recommend swapping out harassment for intimidation so they all follow the same suffix. Doing nothing you are discriminating, doing something for yourself you are intimidating, doing something for others you are retaliating. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Certainly no Lead, Follow or GTFO rules of engagement here and when employees do not see that meta and prioritize accordingly its a broken culture of cargo cult science.
Conservatives in general oppose welfare
Only for "other people". They're more than happy to receive it.
so "ungrateful" is hardly a useful label either
I think it's okay. They think they deserve the handouts they'd deny to others because they believe themselves to be the "right kind of people" who "deserve it". 'Grateful' isn't an emotion I'd associate with them.
Required reading for internet skeptics
They didn't care what he wrote, they only care about the hornets' nest that got kicked up afterwards, and were looking for the quickest way to burn that to the ground. It wasn't about right and wrong, it was about solving a completely different problem.
Considering it's *Google*, we expect much more, and are ashamed that the discussion was tabled in this manner.
That step was accomplished decades ago.
If you don't see that, you're not a "liberal", you're a neo-Marxist.
Who are you to say that a) "women" have a different style than men?, b) that this style you alleged is inferior to "men's style" and therefore c) women can't do jobs men can do without more difficulty?
That's the same stuff Damore got fired for saying but at least he tried to back up his assertions with citations.
You are just a pig.
So is it the case that the conservative view is that women are inferior in STEM careers?
Hard to tell what all conservatives think.
There really wasn't anything exactly wrong in his memo, and I doubt that it reflects all conservative thought.
His mistake was circulating it as a memo.That was what did the dumbass in.
There is no denying that there is a powerful faction that demand that all accept the notion that men and women are exactly alike in the way that their minds work, and any differences are culturally instilled. So that except for artificial distinctions enforced by the patriarchy, there would be almost a 1:1 ratio in all fields.
One disagrees with that notion at their own risk, as is quite clear here.
I'll merely point out that it is rather strange that in a patriarchy, a person who expresses viewpoints that might be considered patriarchal is fired for it.
Funny thing is I would have fired him as well, for being so stupid as to send a memo with a forbidden opinion.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You have the most bizarre take on such a straightforward document. His points were:
* Men and women, as groups, as statistically different psychologically
* The way Google recruits and approaches problems is biased towards men, because it's focused on a narrow aspect of the job that men are more likely to be interested in
* Google should fix that, as a better way to improve the gender ratio than what they do now
Seems like a legitimate topic for discussion on a mailing list about inclusion.
When I interviewed at Google it was the least social interview experience I've had (or at least tied with Facebook). No soft skill or team fit type questions at all. No leadership skills probing questions at all. Purely design and coding questions, and in those questions, the interviewer was the least interactive of any place I've interviewed (and I've interviewed at a lot of places including 4 of the Big 5).
Do you see the problem there? Solving purely abstract technical problems with no social interaction is less than half the job at any development shop I've worked at. It's an important skill set to interview for, to be sure, but it's far from the whole picture, and statistically it's biased towards men.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
California law trumps his employment contract
Yeah, someone posting their view on Jews totally wouldn't have a negative view on any Jewish coworkers. Oddly enough most human beings have emotions.
Whoa, hold on.
I am convinced that as a generalization, that men and women think differently.
I am likewise convinced that individual women and men do not all think alike
Therefore, any woman who wishes to work in a field where her thinking process lends itself to working in the field is welcomed to work there.
And of the female engineers and scientists and technicians I've worked with, almost all were quite competent. There was one unfortunate exception, who got into the field and was miserable, eventually leaving to start a day-care center.
Thinking that there are differences in thought processes is not holding negative views.
Those women I worked with were highly capable, and were highly capable by virtue of how their minds worked.
Counter example is my spouse, who is every bit as intelligent as me, but her thought process is geared more toward an accounting and organizational outlook, or a dear friend woman who is scary smart, yet very much more "traditional feminine" in her outlook, and makes a living as an artist.
I could give more examples, but those will suffice.
Point is, neither my wife nor this lady friend would ever thrive in what I do. They take great amusement with my "overly" analytical approach to everything. My STEM lady friends rather like my approach to the world.
Point also is that I could never do what they do proficiently. One of the most destructive aspects of modern education is the lie that "You can be anything you want - if you only try hard enough." for 90 precet of us, that is simply not true.
And as strange as it might seem to some in here, for a person who expresses opinions not in line with the present day dogma, that there is no difference between male and female, I have quite a few female friends. Both in male dominated fields, and more "traditional" situations.
I wonder if it is because I make my judgements on the individual level, and not try to force fit ideology to gender, which is as prevalent on the left as well as on the right.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You. Seriously. Referenced. Work. That. Had a game of thrones. Reference.
Lost me there, stopped reading.
First, it's *fiction.* Second, a lot of people haven't seen a single session of game of thrones.
Whatever the economist is, or was, it's ageist, or non nerdist ... But the editors need firing
No, this is the case where a liberal presents a view that maybe women don't want STEM careers.
Uh no, you're leaving out the most important part. His assertion is that maybe women don't want STEM careers, and therefore that's why they're having a hard time at google. But his assertion is false, and so is his conclusion.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if many women don't want STEM careers though.
It's only my experience that on a very general level, there is a different thought process between men and women. On an individual level, there are no hard and fast differences. I cannot tell unless I know them and have been around them.
I look at both the conservative and liberal concepts of how females "are" as very prejudiced and stereotyped. To the point where they remind me of the Bell curve fallacy, in which racists try to declare one race superior to another.
Which is, even if true, it is useless, because it does not tell me one single thing about any individual.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It must suck to be a decent conservative (or a Republican) these days.
You have no idea. I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid, that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible, and that everyone gets a chance on the individual level.
And I think for myself, rather than get my ideology handed to me. I think that's what the crypto-conservatives really hate.
Anyhow, it's kind of lonely out here.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Even better: the original used to be a rape joke, hence the added 'it was consensual' bit.
Boycott Google! Boycott Google!
Don't search Google Don't Search!
Trump still uses Chrome!
Search american inventors........... Google's results are #fakenews!
The argument is that the reason there are less women in STEM isn't because of some vast patriarchal conspiracy, but because women in general are not as interested in STEM as males. It's hard to accept this argument when you've based your entire world view around the notion that there are no biological differences between men and women, but once you've accepted that there's a biological reason some bodies grow uteruses and others grow penises the idea that biology may also influence other traits becomes more plausible.
Coding, especially at a biz like Google with an enormous pool of systems running 24/7, is mostly RPC and then "interfacing" - or whatever the local buzzword is for discussing - with other teams to find out why a particular call takes orders of magnitude longer every now and then. Anyone can cut code, some of it will be better of course and superhero coders will crank out much better faster lone gunman projects, but optimizing an inner loop or remembering how to call bespoke-munge-widget from the Australian server farm aren't irreplaceable skills at global scale.
Damore wants the "right" to be an asshole to those he particularly finds inferior. As he uses "conservative" we can guess what that demographic is. In an enormous coding shop that's not gonna work, because getting all prickly when someone points out that, just maybe, the problem will have to be solved by changing your PERFECT widget is going to create problems.
If he had wants the "right" to be an asshole to everybody because he's a genius he should go into design. Just pass off the PS files and then talk down your nose at the dev who points out the dimensions are wrong. Of course there will be cage matches with all manner of product managers and UI/UX/U? types and some of them might be female and they won't immediately be overwhelmed by his masculine genius but that's what video game comment threads are for.
Maybe you should think about doing something about all that pent up anger. Maybe get laid.
Well, seeing how Damore was treated and given that this is one subject where a person's published opinion will impact their life and work, one shouldn't be surprised that any public discussion where the participants are not anonymous would heavily represent just one side.
Basically, everyone else is afraid for expressing their opinion, so you only see one side and think that's the consensus (or worse, know what's happening and pretend that's the consensus)
As I recall, there were a few months of time between when the memo came out, and when the memo leaked and resulted in his firing. If my recollection is correct, then Google o my fired him because of the attention the memo generated rather than the content of the memo. That suggests retaliation.
Reading it requires some effort, and we all know how lazy as fuck you libtards are.
Better for you to just regurgitate your gender professor's opinions instead;
Men Bad! Woman Good!
And you supported The Rape Apologist Hillary right?
So Progressive!
Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin comments on an impresario in the news for allegations, which the subject of these allegatiions has as much as admitted, that he had assaulted many women. Mr. Baldwin remarks on Twitter or other public places that "everyone knew" what was going on but said impresario was not held to account because "women accepted settlements."
The response to Mr. Baldwin was yes, women accepted financial settlements in exchange for their silence but what choice did they have given how the "system is rigged"? Excellent point, and there is also a "you go first" problem. Once many women come forward with corroborated stories, it is not anywhere near as hard as if you are the first woman to come forward against a well-connected man and how you as the accuser are going to be put on trial.
But that is not how the correct-thinking persons are responding to the once correct-thinking Alec Baldwin. There is not a conversation of the form, "This wouldn't have been such a problem if the women hadn't accepted financial settlements" to which the response could be offered, "Yes, I see your point that maintaining silence perpetuates the problem. But you also have to take into account that the first woman to speak out will be facing tremendous obstacles, especially not knowing if other women will follow in speaking out."
No, Mr. Baldwin offers his opinion and then it is, "Oh the Humanity! How can Baldwin make such a sexist, insensitive remark? Alec Baldwin is the worst sort of man in Hollywood with no regard for what women in Hollywood go through! Mr. Baldwin's career is finished."
The subject here is a somewhat different aspect of men's inhumanity to women, but do not many of the "debunkings" of James Damore, here and elsewhere, fit this pattern?
Just asking.
I had thought that Mr. Damore posted to an internal Google message board where employees were encouraged to post their views on the diversity policy?
If he had posted publically in his role as a Google employee, I would concur with the sobriquet "dumbass."
Had he on his own initiative circulated an "you are entitled to reading my opinion" memo within Google, also "dumbass."
Since he responded to an internal Google request to carry on a conversation on a potentially controversial company policy . . . wait, "conversation" doesn't mean having a back-and-forth exchange of views, "conversation" means the company speaks with one voice and the employee politely listens. This is a widely known social convention, this is not by everyone in the world apart from maybe a 'spergie coder. Never mind, "dumbass"!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Even if Mr. Damore is a RWNJ, he is utilizing a New Deal agency that numerous Republican administrations have crippled and tried to kill. It is still valid and needed, even more so in these times.
Equality of opportunity de jure, not de facto. It is impossible to suggest with a straight face that there is equality of opportunity between poor and wealthy, and impossible to ignore the racial component of wealth. And it is ridiculous to assert women are handed the same economic opportunities as men throughout society.
Trump pardoned Arpaio. If you still support trump then you hate America and hate the constitution.
I support Trump and love America and the Constitution.
Obama pardoned a lot of criminals, including Oscar Lopez Rivera, convicted terrorist and cop killer. Elections have consequences. Deal with it.
I would expect this from an AC, not someone that at least pretends to have an informed opinion.
Actually, they didn't take any action for some time-- first the memo had to become public, and then it had to accumulate sufficient backlash.
Google didn't seem to have a problem as long as the memo was internal, and not embarrassing them.
And that inconsistency may be the basis of his case.
"whiny MRA incel manbabies"
Ya know, if there has to be "Men's rights" and "Women's rights", then you have missed the basic concept of equality. Of course, the rest of your post demonstrates your narrow-minded stereotype-ridden sexist view of the world, so I suppose it's not surprising.
Engineer? He has a degree in biology. Also, you can betcha an engineer will research his topic before diving in, unlike the CEO type, who will certainly rush in with a virtue signalling opinion rather than science.
> Well, by reading the memo, for one.
So that isn't rehashed, by the standard you set. The mental gymnastics you employ, are staggeringly transparent.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
There are some complexities in that some may need additional support, and given how much of a child's developmental path is determined before school, equality of opportunity is very difficult to achieve.
Two questions in these complexities are:
- What does equal opportunity mean? Is it cumulative karma points you can cash in at any point, or does it apply step-by-step? If someone had less opportunity to get a good education, is that a problem for educators, or for Google? is it Google's moral burden to deliver citizens a birth-to-death life experience approaching "equality" at the expense of shareholders and other employees?
- Suppose Google decides "yes," and lowers their hiring bar for anyone they feel didn't have the opportunity to get a good education, for whatever populist reason people feel that these days. Suppose promotion committees give extra scrutiny to Black promotion candidates, knowing the hiring bar tends to be pushed down for them. Is the problem that the promotion committees are white supremacist neonazis perpetuating a two hundred year legacy of slavery, or is the problem illegal discrimination in the interviewing process made things worse instead of better by making stereotypes real when that could've been easily avoided?
That's a question asked, more tactfully, by the Damore paper, though he neatly avoids the moral aspect of it by reminding people that the voters of California already decided that what Google is doing in their interviews right now is not Californians' view of "equal opportunity" and is illegal.
depends on if the she deserves it
promiscuous behavior is detrimental to society and trains women to be bad mothers. Not only do they deserve to be shamed for disregarding the feelings of their male friends, they must be shamed to maintain the integrity of society.
Libtard is a rather lazy smear
Still struggling with that "thinking logically" part? Clinton would have been a terrible president. That has nothing to do with seeing that Trump is awful.
Umm, yes they did.
No they didn't. He brought it up and the managers declined to act on it. He only got fired after posting it to the entire company.
Declining does not make unwanted stuff vanish. Thinking so would be childish. He brought it up in a way the stupids could not make it vanish.
They're both awful. But Trump is awful in a way that might change things in the long run.
In the meantime, the supreme court is good for a generation, easy. More when Ginsburg drops.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
After editing it.
Once Damore collects from Google, he will be coming for those outlets that libeled him. He's set for life.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid,
Sure, that's a conservative value...
that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible,
...but that's a liberal one...
and that everyone gets a chance on the individual level.
...and there's no value more liberal than equality.
Thanks, though, whatever you call yourself.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm a liberal.
A modern liberal or a postmodern liberal? My beliefs tend to align really well with the former (also called classical liberals,) but far less so the later, and I would really like to see a general shift in political ideologies back in that direction. Interestingly, postmodern conservatives and liberals seem to think they're more like them than the other side is, when in reality they're both very far from it.
I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid,
Sure, that's a conservative value...
that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible,
...but that's a liberal one...
Keeping in mind that Goldwater was pro choice and anti-religious fundamentalist, I'm right in step with him:
Fundies:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Gay Rights:
"The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least – and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."
Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar"
Abortion:
A woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.
Environmentalism
While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.
I think the problem is that it's so difficult to see just how horribly today's crypto-conservatives have drifted into whatever the hell they have become. It isn't conservatism, but corporatism. And they have found a wicked successful formula. Single issue voters of the Fundamentalist stripe Ex-Dixiecrats who can no more let go of theire racism than the people in the middle east can get over whatever the hell got them started thousands of years ago, And poor people who can be convinced to vote against their own interests. And now they have outside help.
Some people might call Goldwater's tendencies Libertarian, but even today's libertarians are just Republicans that won't take telling. "Don't let the Government tell you what to do - Jaywalk for Jesus!"
Anyhow, Barry was an interesting fellow who is well worth looking into. I don't agree with everything on his agenda, but he respected freedom of individuals. was open to compromise, which is the only way a government can function (today's federal guvmint is exhibit A) Hated Fundamentalists, and we need conservatives like him badly.
He made some pretty funny quips at times too
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
California law trumps his employment contract
Sure it does, but it is amusing to see libertarians try to justify how this time it's good for the government to do what their ideology says it should never be allowed to do.
Fanatically anti-fanatical