Slashdot Mirror


Former Google Employee Files Lawsuit Alleging the Company Fired Him Over Pro-Diversity Posts (theverge.com)

According to court documents filed today, a former Google engineer is suing the company for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. "Tim Chevalier, a software developer and former site-reliability engineer at Google, claims that Google fired him when he responded with internal posts and memes to racist and sexist encounters within the company and the general response to the now-infamous James Damore memo," reports The Verge. From the report: Chevalier said in a statement to The Verge, "It is a cruel irony that Google attempted to justify firing me by claiming that my social networking posts showed bias against my harassers." Chevalier, who is also disabled and transgender, alleges that his internal posts that defended women of color and marginalized people led directly to his termination in November 2017. He had worked at Google for a little under two years. Notably, Chevalier's posts had been quoted in Damore's lawsuit against Google -- in which Damore sued the company for discrimination against conservative white men -- as evidence Google permitted liberals to speak out at the company unpunished. Chevalier's lawsuit alleges that his firing is, in fact, a form of punishment. The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court and Chevalier is seeking damages for lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages, and injunctive relief against those alleged harmful acts. Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

308 comments

  1. Remember when we cared about tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And not just the internal day-to-day nonsense?

    1. Re:Remember when we cared about tech? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Remember when we did our goddam job and played at the fucking house?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:Remember when we cared about tech? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I never discuss politics at work. If I want a political argument, I go to Slashdot.

    3. Re:Remember when we cared about tech? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Argument is an intellectual process. Slashdot is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    4. Re:Remember when we cared about tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, But if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

    5. Re: Remember when we cared about tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't: ;)

    6. Re: Remember when we cared about tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't: ;)

      That isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

    7. Re:Remember when we cared about tech? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I visit slashdot from work you insensitive clod!

      --
      bickerdyke
    8. Re:Remember when we cared about tech? by mdhoover · · Score: 5, Funny

      No it isn't

    9. Re:Remember when we cared about tech? by fazig · · Score: 2

      If it only was an argument. Unfortunately it's mostly a monologue and tons of fallacies on all sides because no rational argument can take place any more. There's been an article on /. about exactly this phenomenon. https://politics.slashdot.org/...
      I'd really appreciate it if we could move back towards topics where rational thinking is not overshadowed by identity politics. But I also believe that hoping for this is a very naive thing.

    10. Re: Remember when we cared about tech? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
      Mr. Vibrating: It can be.
      Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
      Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
      Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
      Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
      Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
      Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
      Man: No it isn't!

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    11. Re:Remember when we cared about tech? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    12. Re:Remember when we cared about tech? by tattood · · Score: 1

      Yes, But if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

      No you don't.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
  2. Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Chevalier, who is also disabled and transgender, alleges that his"

    So this thing was born with a vagina. Do I have that right?

    1. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like being rear ended by some ghetto woman when you are FORCED to go down to the ghetto to get an expedited passport. It's a person that you would never have contact with ordinarily and KNOW that if you so much as look in the person's general direction, you are "automatically guilty" because the system is rigged to give credence to welfare scum that will reach their tentacles out at anyone that might not be an unproductive part of society. So you're sucked into it, you have to deal with this ape's drama, your time is wasted for months, and at the end of it, the ape doesn't get a whole lot out of it, and you've lost a ton of time and money.
       
      "Transgendered" people are mentally ill. I am DISGUSTED with people who group them along with normal homosexuals--including homosexuals trying to band together their LGBBQ hogwash--and I am even more sickened that the media keep pushing this as an "issue" that society must handle lest we all be considered "racists" or "homophobic" or whatever the fake term du jour is.
       
      Slashdot, like the mainstream media, is a total FARCE and FAILURE.

    2. Re:Woman by Cederic · · Score: 0

      Given the lawsuit itself states that Chevalier was born female, but now identifies as disabled, queer and transgender, yes, he was born with a vagina.

      You have an issue with that, it's your problem, not his.

    3. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      daz raysis

    4. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obvious troll. Try harder. You're dull.

    5. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you are FORCED

      I am DISGUSTED

      and KNOW that if you so much as look

      *claps*
      bravo, sir, bravo. Your impersonation of an indignant middle class conservative is outstanding. Some would say you overplayed it, but Poe's Law and all ...

    6. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, I found some transgender stuff for you to look at.

    7. Re: Woman by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yes, he was born with a vagina.

      You have an issue with that, it's your problem, not his.

      I'm pretty sure that her being born with a vagina and then developing the belief that she's a man is an issue for her, and nobody else. It certainly isn't an issue for the court to examine, so wtf is it doing as part of the lawsuit?

    8. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are we sure this isn't the one who sexually identifies as an ornate building? Maybe its schizophrenia triggered a psychotic episode that necessitated its dismissal, then it sued for discrimination because of course it did.

    9. Re:Woman by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How the hell do you "identify" as disabled. You either are able-bodied or you aren't.

      There can be literally hundreds of objective measures of physical performance that can screen for physical infirmity. Some of them are even codified into laws and regulations, like what criteria you have to meet to get a handicap placard for your car or whether you're capable of operating a motor vehicle at all.

      This phrasing is retarded. And while I'm at it...what the hell is 'queer' exactly?

    10. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, "stupid" could be interpreted as an insult.

      The rest is cool, though. Nothing wrong with wanting to fuck homo pervs.

    11. Re:Woman by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      For example, I have ME, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

      ME can range from mild to severe. It can change day to day. Sometimes it is a kind of disability, in that there are things I can't do that I used to be able to, and sometimes it has little impact.

      So do I tick the disabled box on the form? And if I do tick it, what happens?

      I decide on an ad-hoc basis. If I'm booking a flight I probably won't tick it, there is little benefit in telling them that I have a disability and I don't really want to explain it to them. On the other hand, if I'm starting a new job and HR asks I will tell them, and they will tell my manager and help with any necessary adjustments.

      Oh, and queer just means someone who doesn't conform to binary gender or binary sexuality.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Woman by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      For example, I have ME, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

      Yes, but as you said: you have it. You don't identify with it.

      --
      bickerdyke
    13. Re:Woman by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I boggled at identifying as disabled. But just to clarify, he's claiming mental disabilities not physical ones. PTSD and some other thing that I forget and can't be arsed re-reading the suit to find out.

    14. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do I think he means when he "checks the box"? Identifying perhaps?

    15. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those boxes ask if you have a disability that has to be accomodated. Not if you're disabled.

    16. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mon Ami, everyone knows the chronic fatigue syndrome is a modern name for compulsive masturbation. Brain needs some rest from constant hormone stimulation. The ancients knew it and considered such form of sex unproductive and shameful.

    17. Re: Woman by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Discrimination on the grounds of gender is illegal in most places. Gender disphoria is a recognized medical condition.

      Saying things like "developing the belief that she's a man" could be used as evidence of a hostile workplace. If someone said something like that, he reported it and HR didn't take action, it strengthens his case. That's why it's part of the lawsuit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re: Woman by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'll try not jacking it for a month, and report back here. If I seem a bit frustrated these next few weeks you will have to forgive me.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re: Woman by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They usually ask "do you have a disability?"

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re: Woman by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Gender disphoria is a recognized medical condition.

      And they only stopped thinking of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1987 https://www.psychologytoday.co...

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    21. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell do you "identify" as disabled. You either are able-bodied or you aren't.

      Some disabled people don't like to discuss their disability.

      Some disabled people don't like to disclose their disability out of a fear of discrimination.

      Of course, in today's society where you can identify as black (or anything else), "identifying as disabled" fits the SJW narrative.

    22. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gender disphoria is a recognized medical condition.

      And they only stopped thinking of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1987 https://www.psychologytoday.co...

      In body integrity identity disorder (BIID), people feel like their arms and legs should be amputated.

      In the future where we can actually fix human brains, should medical treatment alter the brain to accept two arms and two legs, or should we chop off perfectly healthy and functional limbs because the brain is malformed and that's "the way the patient wants it"?

    23. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell do you "identify" as disabled.

      I decide on an ad-hoc basis.

      So you're saying what you can switch what you "identify" with on a whim? Why that's so convenient! Maybe the Republicans were onto something when they suggested that pervs could just "identify" as a woman and enter girls' washrooms.

    24. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, he was born with a vagina.

      You have an issue with that, it's your problem, not his.

      I'm pretty sure that her being born with a vagina and then developing the belief that she's a man is an issue for her, and nobody else. It certainly isn't an issue for the court to examine, so wtf is it doing as part of the lawsuit?

      It's almost as if this person is bringing it up just draw attention to itself.

    25. Re: Woman by Pascoea · · Score: 0

      In the future where we can actually fix human brains, should medical treatment alter the brain to accept two arms and two legs, or should we chop off perfectly healthy and functional limbs because the brain is malformed and that's "the way the patient wants it"?

      Yup. They key to your statement is "the way the patient wants it". Why do you get to force them to do something they don't want to do? Your liberty ends where mine begins.

    26. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have an issue with that, it's your problem, not his.

      All I did was ask a question. If you think I have a problem with the circumstances, that reveals your own biases, not mine. I simply wished for clarification on whether TFA was using "he" because that's how it was born, or because that's how it views itself.

    27. Re: Woman by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...they only stopped thinking of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1987...

      That doesn't imply that it WAS a mental illness before 1987. (I don't think you were trying to imply that.) Historically, a lot of the treatment of gays has been terrible. Turing comes to mind. If some woman wants to live as a man, that's entirely up to her. I'll even use a person's preferred pronouns regardless of genitalia. Doesn't hurt me at all.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    28. Re:Woman by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...he's claiming mental disabilities not physical ones. PTSD...

      I'm diagnosed with PTSD. You wouldn't believe the number of cases that appeared when it became a qualifying condition for buying cannabis. PTSD is a real thing and I feel for the people waking up screaming and all, but a whole lot of people just 'identify' as PTSD.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    29. Re: Woman by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Gender disphoria is a recognized medical condition.

      Gender dysphoria is even more so.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the future where we can actually fix human brains, should medical treatment alter the brain to accept two arms and two legs, or should we chop off perfectly healthy and functional limbs because the brain is malformed and that's "the way the patient wants it"?

      Yup. They key to your statement is "the way the patient wants it". Why do you get to force them to do something they don't want to do? Your liberty ends where mine begins.

      Mental health facilities confine people against their will when they a danger to themselves or others.

      I would say that intent to chop off perfectly healthy limbs counts as a serious danger to self.

      Note to everyone: If I ever start seriously talking about chopping off my limbs, please fucking confine me and fix my god damn brain. Do NOT let me chop off my limbs, no matter how much I think I want that at the time.

    31. Re:Woman by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      For example, I have ME, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

      So do I tick the disabled box on the form?

      If Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is considered a disability, yes you tick the box.
      Someone with Epilepsy would say they have Epilepsy even though they aren't having a constant 24/7 seizure.

    32. Re: Woman by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      He's not entirely wrong - after all, you did recognize the medical condition to which he was referring ...

    33. Re:Woman by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      "Queer" is a catchall term for anyone not cisgender and heterosexual. In place of the alphabet soup of "LGBTQQA+OMGWTFBBQ".

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    34. Re: Woman by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Saying things like "developing the belief that she's a man" could be used as evidence of a hostile workplace. If someone said something like that, he reported it and HR didn't take action, it strengthens his case. That's why it's part of the lawsuit.

      Her lawsuit doesn't make any such allegation, ergo her lack of a penis is not pertinent to the case. Besides which, it would take a special kind of gullible idiot to believe that Google - the bastion of "progressivism" - discriminates against trannies.

      A more likely explanation is that she's used to being able to scream "I'm disabled and transgender!!!" to immediately end disagreement and receive deference from pretty much everyone around her. She's do used to it that she's fooled herself into believing that the legal system works the same way; just claim that you're transgendered and you automatically win.

      She's about to get a nasty surprise.

    35. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Queer" is a catchall term for anyone not cisgender and heterosexual. In place of the alphabet soup of "LGBTQQA+OMGWTFBBQ".

      I think Andrew Dice Clay explained it pretty well years ago:

      They don't know whether they wanna be called gays, homosexuals, fairies - I call 'em cocksuckers. I think it spells it out.

      Another one of his:

      Bi sexual? Let's clear this up now! No such thing! You either suck dick or you do not suck dick - there is no in between!

    36. Re: Woman by torkus · · Score: 1

      Cut that out. I have a spelling disability.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    37. Re:Woman by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      You either fuck pussy or you don’t, too. Obviously the ones who do are the straights right?

      Even if those pussy-fuckers also suck cock? Still straight? You either fuck pussy or you don’t right? And they do, so...

      And what about people who neither fuck nor suck? Gay because they don’t fuck pussy? Or straight because they don’t suck cock?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    38. Re:Woman by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      You asked a question on a website that was originally a safe space for Linux developers. What you just received was the normal level of assistance this guy is used to providing for people with questions.

      ie.: He just told you "GO RTFM NOOB!!!" even though he knows there isn't one to read.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    39. Re:Woman by Cederic · · Score: 0

      If you think I have a problem with the circumstances, that reveals your own biases, not mine.

      Actually no, it's based on yours.

      using "he" because that's how it was born

      Your use of 'it' demonstrates that you have a problem. You should seek help, or at least education.

    40. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your request might have more weight if you weren't an AC. Just saying.

    41. Re:Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Andrew Dice Clay

      You... do know that's an act, right? Maybe we should start quoting Emo Philips to make a point about economic policy next.

    42. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noooo

      You'll lose all your mojo.

    43. Re: Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's in California, working for a California company. She probably *can* just automatically win court cases by identifying as a person due social privilege.

    44. Re:Woman by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Your use of the R word is, well, you know.

  3. There are many ways to get fired. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's at-will employment.

    1. Re:There are many ways to get fired. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I imagine that argument goes well with the #MeToo campaign.

    2. Re:There are many ways to get fired. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's at-will employment.

      "At-will" means you can be fired for ALMOST any reason, or for no reason. But even with "at-will" there is are reasons that cannot be used to fire someone. For instance, you cannot fire someone for belonging to a protected class. California has state restrictions in addition to the federal restrictions. The city of Mountain View may add even more.

    3. Re:There are many ways to get fired. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The difficulty is that you can fire someone for no reason, but they may be able to sue for wrongful dismissal if there is an underlying reason that you don't tell them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Through Chevalier’s conversations with his manager and Human Resources, he learned that Google defines appropriate workplace speech by the standard of what someone with a cisgender, heterosexual, white, male, upper-middle-class background would say.

    This is just the opposite end of the spectrum from James Damore. Apparently Chevalier feels that this kind of enforcing of stereotypes is ok because all cisgender, heterosexual, white, male, upper-middle-class people would say the same thing.

    1. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my opinion, if you are openly contributing to a toxic work environment, you deserve to be fired.

      This applies to conservatives or this person.

    2. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is just the opposite end of the spectrum from James Damore.

      Maybe if you're looking at it as the irrational bigotry in this chick's rants being the polar opposite of the kind of rational, nuanced case put forward by Danmore. But if you're talking about politics and particular stances, then no, there's no "opposite spectrum" to a centrist.

    3. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only reason why they ever created the term "cisgender" is because they simply cannot bring themselves to call it what it really is: normal.

      Admitting this through word choice would remove much of the wind from their proverbial sails.

    4. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess people confuse being declared "non-normal" with "bad".

    5. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you've successfully identified the inherent bias in the use of 'normal' to describe some behaviour and not other.

      'Normal' may well have literal and specific meaning, but in common usage there's an implied positive value in 'normal and a negative one in not.

      There are certainly times and places when being within the normal range is desireable. Blood pressure for example. There are times when using words that have common usage and associations that you're trying to fight against means that you need to use new words.

      Some people find new words confusing and difficult rather than recognising that their creation, introduction or use usually means that there's an idea or concept that either needs to be refined or distinguished, a new idea, or that language itself is complex and nuanced and contains a lot of implicit values. But it's OK. A lot of people find learning to get more difficult as they get older and end up clinging to the things they learned as a child. It's normal.

    6. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irony is calling other people childish when they don't play along with your make-believe fantasy world.

      You're free to invent new words, but don't fool yourself into thinking the rest of us are as fucking retarded as you.

    7. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > 'Normal' may well have literal and specific meaning, but in common usage there's an implied positive value in 'normal and a negative one in not.

      Yes, there is, and that implied value is attached to the meaning, not the word. This is why we migrate to ever newer words to avoid causing offence, yet land right back where we started.

    8. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Inventing new words is fine (stupid, but fine). It's when they unilaterally redefine old words to mean something completely different than they have for centuries that gets annoying.

      Since the dawn of humanity "What sex/gender are you?" has meant "Do or don't you have a dick/Y-chromosome?", not "Which of two (or several dozen) sets of perceived societal stereotypes do you and/or your 'headmates' feel most in conformance with today?".

      I don't fucking care, I just want to know if you have a vagina or not. Though if you're having problems answering that question chances are I'm not interested one way or the other anyway.

    9. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was Google who created the toxic work environment. The company allowed and even encouraged political activism. But Google chose one side to support and fired anyone who didn't agree with their political platform. Goggle might as well introduce religion into the work environment and chose only one denomination to support and fire anyone who doesn't agree.

      I wonder how low Google has set the bar when evaluating and hiring employees in order to meet their diversity quotas? Oh and in the real world who gives a flying fuck bout diversity in the workplace? The only real concern is obtaining the job you want. After you are hired you may be able to spend a few minutes worrying about the inequities in life.

    10. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is clear from the story that they're firing people on both sides. I realise this is an inconvenient fact, but Google does not have a consistent political bias.

    11. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      I'm confused... Do gay people have a different way of speaking? Are transmen inherently different from men? Is this upper-middle class white man having trouble with the appropriate workplace speech of upper-middle class white men?

    12. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to just assume the following things are acceptable under Chevalier's worldview.

      "ALL men are pigs, ALL men are rapists!"
      "White men are racist, black people cannot be racist!"
      "Die cis scum!"
      "Dirty cishet!"
      "Even as an ex-woman I am getting paid 70 cents for every dollar my male counterparts make!"
      "This is the address and phone number of someone who didn't respect my genderfluid friend's pronouns when they changed in the middle of his sentence!"

      So yeah, Chevalier, change your surname, you're doing a disservice to Chevalier d'Eon.

    13. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so interested in stranger's genitals?

    14. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Erm. That's kind of normal.

    15. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they do. They are a neoliberal organization.

    16. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the poster is most likely male (not unusual on this forum) and most likely a technophile (again, not unusual) then yes, he is very interested in the tackle of a potential love interest...

    17. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cutting off your dick and pretending to be a woman is not normal, is not positive, is very negative.

      Cutting off your tits, getting a fake cock sewn on and pretending to be a man is not normal, is not positive, is very negative.

      Those are mentally ill people in need of serious psychiatric assistance. Nit normal. Sick.

    18. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by lucasnate1 · · Score: 0

      That's also true for words like "healthy", "calm", or many others. Why does it disturb you so much specifically when it comes to gender? Are you a sensitive snowflake?

    19. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Mikkeles · · Score: 2

      Gender was a linguistic category (e.g., masc, fem, neut, common) until just a few years ago when some bozos thought 'twas cooler than the word "sex".

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    20. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I thought they changed it because they were tired of people writing "yes" under "Sex?".

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    21. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right.

      I have a company that is primarily Christian. People come out and demonstrate that various Christian precepts are not promoted/supported by the company. Those people are toxic, they must be fired.

      I have a company that is primarily Christian. We have people that take issue with some Christian teachings. Those people are toxic, they must be fired.

      See, the problem with "toxic work environment" is that it is highly variable based on who is doing the defining. If there was a standard, measurable definition we'd have no issues.

    22. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't wait till get get to throw fuckheads like you into fucking camps, you tiny-dicked bigot.

    23. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Novae+D'Arx · · Score: 2

      As near as I can tell, this is probably a direct result of Damore's lawsuit. That is, Google almost certainly had a third-party firm come in and independently evaluate every point of Damore's lawsuit. The firm then would have determined the relative likelihood of any of Damore's claims standing up in court. If Tim's postings were toxic enough, and especially if he had been reported to H.R. in the past and H.R. had a notable bias where straight white dudes were punished but non-cis / non-white / etc. people got a pass, then that would have been a major point where the independent firm would have stepped up and said "Yeah you suckers are gonna get railed, there's an overt bias here and that's not going to go over well in court, and we explicitly recommend terminating the worst offenders to reduce future liability". And then Tim gets canned and starts crying, because his expectation up to that point was that he had special privileges and he's not adjusting well to ACTUALLY being treated equally. I'm basing this off of having had to pressure my own work H.R. to call in an independent firm because they were letting a manager get away with overt retaliation against me, and they refused to admit there was a problem until the independent firm said "Yeah, no, there was definitely retaliation, and probably a hostile work environment because of the upper management condoning this behavior as well". Suddenly, the senior legal team was VERY interested and suddenly everyone was very concerned about employees being treated fairly.

    24. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Do you equally object to "straight" or "heterosexual" being words?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    25. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, gay people often have a different way of speaking, although they are usually quite capable of being indistinguishable from the average heterosexual.

    26. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you also have to remember that you can identify as whatever you like whenever you like. You can be a woman now then switch to a man then back to a woman. This is extremely convenient when there is a long line at the ladies room. It's also extremely easy to get a nice diversity graph, just get some of your employees to identify as the opposite sex or as black or asian people.

    27. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by david_thornley · · Score: 0

      Normal what? There are several things that are definitely not normal about me, but I am in fact cisgender. The advantage of "cisgender" over "normal" is that it's specific about what it is.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you look at the number of people whose genitalia is any of my business, it's a very short list. Outside that list, I treat people according to how they act and want to be treated, which is not necessarily connected to genetic makeup and/or genitalia. I'm positive that some of my friends have vaginas, but it would seem rude to ask.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    29. Re:Just plain hypocrisy by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      As with most things dealing with gender, sex, and sexuality there are more layers than what you initially perceive. "Normal" for current western society is not "normal" for other societies throughout history. Moreover, there are innumberable instances of different "normals" on this planet right now. One could assume that because we are genetically similar to our predecessors and inhabitants of places where "normal" differs from here, but are not incorporating the same sexual proclivities and gender expressions in our definition of "normal" that the definition of "normal" is not a recognition of phenotype or genotype.

      Without that fundamental basis to argue "normalcy" from, and with the wide range of observable variation from history and other places, one realizes very quickly that the definitions of "normal" are a result of the cultural and socio-sexual programming of an individual society. "Normal" is nothing more than a transmission of cultural norms and standards from your kin. They are a tautology, circularly arguing for their very existence through generational hearsay. "Normal" is, if anything, a fallacy.

      Once you realize that "normal" is an organic product of collective thinking you might also realize that the definition is mutable. If you are really smart and like to categorize things, compare trends, and analyze data you might realize that the true "normal" is that human sexuality and gender expression exist not on a spectrum, but more like emission spectra, each one unique and scattered about the spectrum. It always has. That is the one thing that never changes.

      Even more interesting to me is the changing nature of "normal." As homosexuality has become part of "normal" there have been some interesting side effects. I watched friends struggle for decades to be accepted by society as gay men, only to turn around and ostracize any gay man from their clique who admitted having sex with a woman. I saw the same behavior from lesbians who admitted sleeping with men. And I have seen both bisexuals and transsexuals ostracized by certain members of the gay community. I would have thought that people who fought so hard for acceptance for so long would certainly understand the terrible repercussions that follow from ostracism and torment of our fellow humans. Apparently this was not the case, and in some ways is still not the case.

      If this behavior looks familiar to you you might be starting to get what I got. For those who presuppose "normal" it is two part. "Normal" encompasses acceptance by society on one hand, and scapegoating and oppression on the other. Once you are "normal" your admittance is predicated on keeping everyone else out, and rooting out and exposing those who are traitors and phonies.

      Unfortunately, since human sexuality is not always a continuous function within each individual, you get people who are culturally forced into suppressing or hiding their true sexual and gender expression. Instead, they restrict themselves to expressing the mainstream flavors of "normal" sexuality and gender identity or they risk ostracism. Fortunately our cultural "normal" now encompasses more flavors than previous generations, and the repercussions of true self expression are generally less than they were.

      Now, referring back to your position on the term "cisgender," I would put it in the same category as the words "straight, gay, lesbian, white, black, Asian..." It is merely an artificial construct designed to represent boundaries between normal and not-normal. They are the back of the hand of "normalcy," used for the enforcement side of those that presuppose the existence of "normal."

      You may not see it as such, but from my perspective it's just more of the same thing that you humans do to each other. You require sacrifice from those that want to be seen as "normal." One must give up the parts of themselves that others might find objectionable in order to belong. Sadly, the result of joining is the further enforcement of separation, otherwise you face t

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    30. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is the party responsible for allowing and encouraging political activism in the work place. There is no law against what they have done but there will be in the future. The divisiveness and rampant animosity in today's society needs to be kept out of the workplace. I would like to see Google's documented hiring process and job requirements that are supposedly designed to create a utopian society full of diversity.

      For those who work in IT and other technical fields diversity doesn't really come in to play. When hiring a programmer or engineer the applicants skills and knowledge can be revealed quite easily. If there are several applicants with the requirement technical skills vying for the same position the decision on who to hire will come down to the applicants personality traits. Gender and race never enters the picture and if it does there are already laws in place to deal with instances of discrimination. It would be too easy for the applicant to display their capabilities in court.

    31. Re: Just plain hypocrisy by lucasnate1 · · Score: 0

      Commeting on slashdot about how people should behave is ofcourse very normal and positive.

  5. It is all a bit perplexing. by CptLoRes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regardless of you gender, race, beliefs, whatever, there are some unspoken but very obvious rules about what you say and don't say on company time. Especially in written form. But apparently some people didn't get the memo..

    1. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly, being transgender and disabled is irrelevant. IF you engage in discriminatory behaviour you are gonna have a bad day so depending on the memes he published he probably doesn't have much of a case regardless of his personal circumstances or what other people did.

    2. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Regardless of you gender, race, beliefs, whatever, there are some unspoken but very obvious rules about what you say and don't say on company time.

      As companies demand more and more of your time, there's less of a distinction between company time and non-company time than there used to be. Besides, Google is a "bring your whole self to work" company which encourages discussion about things on their internal systems that at other companies would be considered unprofessional.

      We have professionalism for a reason, but companies like Google will nonetheless insist that meritocracy is a thing.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of you gender, race, beliefs, whatever, there are some unspoken but very obvious rules about what you say and don't say on company time.

      As companies demand more and more of your time, there's less of a distinction between company time and non-company time than there used to be. Besides, Google is a "bring your whole self to work" company which encourages discussion about things on their internal systems that at other companies would be considered unprofessional.

      We have professionalism for a reason, but companies like Google will nonetheless insist that meritocracy is a thing.

      Meritocracy would be a great and wonderful thing, if it were ever actually implemented.

      Sadly, politicking continues to pay off so the incentive stream is completely maladaptive.

      Hypothetically ... If these UFOs people claim to see (somehow) actually are alien spacecraft, well, it's no wonder they don't just openly land. I can see them now, having a conversation. "No, they're not ready. All they care about is controlling each other." I wouldn't make open contact either, not with such savages. At least, I'd like to think I'd have sense enough not to do that. No, the sensible thing to do is kick back and watch the show.

    4. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Regardless of you gender, race, beliefs, whatever, there are some unspoken but very obvious rules about what you say and don't say on company time.

      Legally speaking the rules are not unspoken, they are both very spoken of and actually written down.
      This guy is just trying to spitball in court to see what he can make off with.

      a former Google engineer is suing the company for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

      discrimination - can he show another individual who wrote and released the same type of memo he did, but is in a different class, and did not get fired just the same?
      While being able to point out just one person matching that description is likely enough to get the courts looking into it, it would also very much help if he can prove the class of the not-fired-person is somehow privileged at google too.

      harassment - this would require him still being on premence and/or in communications with someone working at google in an official capacity.
      Seeing as he was fired, I can't see google allowing him access to their buildings anymore, which is evidence counter to his claim.

      wrongful termination - what state does this guy intend to take google to court in if not California?
      Because California is a "work at will" state, and the law explicitly says an employer needs no reason to terminate employment, wrong right or otherwise.
      The one single limitation to this is that google can't claim "out loud" that the reason is due to race, gender, age, or disability. Since google claimed the reason is due to the memo, that is all that's needed to be legal.
      Remember, it's the claim that actually matters, not the true reason. A company can fire someone for being black or a female if they want, they just can't SAY that is why. Also worth noting is "just becase" and "no reason at all" are both completely legal and acceptable reasons.

      retaliation is about the only claim that can't be proven either way, so he has at least a non-zero chance of convincing a judge or jury of it.

      He is going to be required to produce paperwork, receipts, and contracts with other companies to prove any claimed dollar amount of damage however. "emotional stress" or a made up number isn't going to cut it. Potential losses also won't cut it.
      He will literally need to have a contract in hand, dated and somehow notarized as such, that shows an exact dollar amount he would have received, and then demonstrate the other party backed out of that contract explicitly due to being fired.
      Otherwise he can only claim $0 in damages, which makes a lawsuit kinda pointless and expensive seeing as he won't get anything out of it.

    5. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Pseudonym · · Score: 0

      Meritocracy would be a great and wonderful thing, if it were ever actually possible to implement.

      FTFY

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    6. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, say nothing and have no opinions. There are my values and morals, and if you don't like them, I have others. I can't afford or defend any position, because then I would be taking sides, and possibly cause division. Accordingly all my pay deductions to worthy causes, and political parties are hereby cancelled, so I can't be accused of a perceived wrong, even if that perceived wrong is in the future. OK, Malaria research stays, nobody likes female mosquito's. Now about that pointer - C is a load of garbage and ......

    7. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Finally someone gets it. Pushing this stuff hard at work is going to get problematic no matter which side you are on, if it starts to create a hostile workplace or badly impact the operation of the company. The way you deal with things like sexist encounters is not to post some stupid memes, it's to complain to HR and let them deal with it.

      This guy and Damore are both screwed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      harassment - this would require him still being on premence and/or in communications

      No, it wouldn't. It would require him to provide evidence to the court that harassment occurred during the period in which he did work for Google.

      The one single limitation to this is that google can't claim "out loud" that the reason is due to race, gender, age, or disability.

      Or political views, which his lawsuit explicitly mentions as the reason.

      Since google claimed the reason is due to the memo

      No, that was Damore. This is a different engineer with a different lawsuit.

      Otherwise he can only claim $0 in damages

      He was sacked. That means he's lost earnings (and other employment benefits), and has been put in a disadvantageous position in the jobs market.

      If the company mistreated him before sacking him, and sacked him illegally, then he can claim damages, and those will be non-zero. This is fairly straightforward case law.

      I'm fairly sure a contract is unnecessary, although I'm also confused why the fuck anybody would take a professional grade job in America without one.

    9. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      all my pay deductions to worthy causes, and political parties are hereby cancelled

      You may want to keep quiet about that, as failing to contribute to the 'correct' cause is de facto opposition to it, you cis nazi scum*.

      *not my views, I'm roleplaying an idiot here. I mean, a woke west coast gender fluid otherkin

    10. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...IF you engage in discriminatory behaviour you are gonna have a bad day ...

      Not really. You just have to select an unprotected class to discriminate against. You can say or publish whatever you like regarding straight white males and never expect to have any repercussions. Doubly so if you're a protected class. Should they dare to talk back they will be dealt with severely. Just ask this guy:

      https://gizmodo.com/google-fir...

    11. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you belong here? That post is very logically consistent, and seems to indicate the use of a single standard.

    12. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but political leaning is not a protected class, and thus one can't sue if they're fired for problematic political beliefs.

    13. Re: It is all a bit perplexing. by liefer · · Score: 1

      Google provides places where you can talk about how you handle wanting to have your wife anally fscked by another man. Literally. Even on company time. In such an environment, are the unspoken rules really that obvious?

    14. Re:It is all a bit perplexing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damore's case is a legitimate reaction to very hostile behavior.

      The only reason he was fired was because his enemies conspired with the MSM to frame him.

      But you don't have to agree with me. We will speak the truth to the very end. History will bear witness to who is right here.

  6. Work? by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do they do any real work at Google anymore or just write weird memos about social justice all day?

    1. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. After viewing the contents of the Damore suit, my main question was "how on earth do they have time to engage in this all day?"

      Easy answer? Google is search and ads.

    2. Re: Work? by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course they do real work. Someone has to find and demonitize all the conservative YouTube channels ...

    3. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They were programmed from an early age in public schools, which filled their heads with left wing ideology they were not allowed to question.

      This is the youth of today - good luck.

    4. Re:Work? by Jarwulf · · Score: 2

      Probably 10-20% do most of the actual work while the rest are goldbrickers put there to either look good or just talk about diversity all day. Not a new phenomenon of course but now you can look busy talking about transgender rights all day as a senior database engineer instead of shuffling papers to hide how incompetent or useless you are.

    5. Re:Work? by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, dashing off a memo (one way or the other) doesn't take a lot of time.

      What does take a lot of time, cumulatively speaking is reading such memos. If you send a memo and it gets distributed to a couple of hundred people, the cost of that memo can be staggering.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're projecting a hell of a lot of bitterness about your own career here. Are you one of those poor $80k IT wage slaves angry at all the googlers making 200k?

    7. Re:Work? by AbRASiON · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know a dude who works there and he feels like he's undercover at this point, there's constant inane memos about excessive SJW stuff.

      Sure, obviously they do actual work in the place, but the diversity and equality group or whomever they are, really seem to have their fingers in every pie, fussing over the most inane bullshit.

    8. Re:Work? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A while back I did some consultancy work for a company that made gaming machines. It was actually kind of interesting to go out to the companies who used them. Most of them still had a few engineers who were understandably fed up that their company had brought in an outside solution instead of the in house one they'd championed. However they had loads of executive types who spent their time having boozy pub lunches, usually ending in an angry political rant.

      It reminded me a bit of the idea of a 'resource curse', the notion that 'that countries with an abundance of natural resources (like fossil fuels and certain minerals), tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources'.

      It's possible that there's something analogous happening with Google - once they worked out how to make piles of cash from ads and not from developing new software it all started to stagnate.

      Or look at Valve. Valve used to make some very interesting video games, peaking around the Orange Box with Half Life II and Portal. However now they've got an income from Steam they too seem to produce less than they used to.

      In Google's case it seems like they've hired a lot of smart people fresh out of good universities but most of them get stuck in a profoundly stagnant environment. So the politics starts up. Interestingly in Google it's not normal company politics - trying to bring down your rivals at work - but rather the sort of identity politics you see at elite universities. And a few people on the other side pointing out how silly this stuff is.

      So the sort of insanity that played out at Evergreen and Harvard and Yale now plays out at Google.

      I think the reason Google can survive it for as long as it does is that it's profitable mostly because of ad revenues, not producing new software. Android and Chrome are free after all, and have become the default choice like Windows and Internet Explorer used to be.

      I.e. the resource curse has allowed them to survive despite having a culture which is more about student politics than having to deliver anything to critical customers on time.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they do any real work at Google anymore or just write weird memos about social justice all day?

      Have you looked at youtube lately?

    10. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama gave a heartfelt speech

      Chew soap.

    11. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yâ(TM)all are just pissed off that you and your fly over kin are dying out.

    12. Re:Work? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well, this guy's manager is named in the memo and accused of targeting him with a comment about spending 50% of the time writing weird memos.

      So clearly there's a desire for staff to be productive, and Chevalier disagrees with his former manager regarding the appropraite work/memo balance.

    13. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing Hal Porto isn't a fat nazi faggot who thinks Silicon Germanium is a magical substance!

    14. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      In Google's case it seems like they've hired a lot of smart people fresh out of good universities but most of them get stuck in a profoundly stagnant environment. So the politics starts up. Interestingly in Google it's not normal company politics - trying to bring down your rivals at work - but rather the sort of identity politics you see at elite universities. And a few people on the other side pointing out how silly this stuff is.

      I've got news for you. Identify politics is now mainstream politics, at least for anyone under 40 or so. My wife works at a non-profit, filled with young people like this. They're all, by and large, super-PC types, either attacking one another about what NOT to say or what opinion NOT to have, or desperately trying NOT to offend someone by saying the wrong thing. I assure you none of them went to elite universities. At one point the local SJW went after people for wearing goofy Mexican hats and eating tacos as part of a fun annual lunch activity ("Cultural miss-appropriation!").

      In other words, this isn't a lack of challenge problem, or an elite university problem, it's a Millennial problem. (Possibly a college educated Millennial problem, though I have no experience on how non-college educated Millennials think these days).

      Google is chalk full of Millennials.

    15. Re:Work? by jader3rd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A guy in my church congregation who works at Google, mentioned about three weeks ago that he feels if he ever says "I think that a marriage between a man and woman is good." He'll be escorted right out of campus. It does make me think how much non-development communication has to go on there to have such a fear.

    16. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or look at Valve. Valve used to make some very interesting video games, peaking around the Orange Box with Half Life II and Portal. However now they've got an income from Steam they too seem to produce less than they used to.

      Somebody, aka you, ought to look at the business history of Valve. Pay attention to their purchases and their actual staffing.

      Not only can corporations change, in this case, they were never quite what you think.

    17. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you actually believe this shit is sad...

      They investigated Hillary? Are you fucking kidding?

      They literally closed the investigation, despite a wealth of incriminating evidence (documented by the FBI), before they interviewed anyone involved...

      Top secret documents stored on a personal server, in their bathroom, sent to people without clearance, later found on a pedophile's laptop... And she didn't even apologize... Much less face the justice any normal person would have...

    18. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the people making $200k who can't afford a one bedroom apartment?

      $80k in Iowa dollars is $335k in San Francisco dollars... Dipshit.

    19. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's a "yes I am."

    20. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A guy in my church congregation who works at Google, mentioned about three weeks ago that he feels if he ever says "I think that a marriage between a man and woman is good." He'll be escorted right out of campus. It does make me think how much non-development communication has to go on there to have such a fear.

      You're generally able to ignore this stuff at Google, if you don't go looking for it you'll be subjected to it maybe once a month briefly at various all-hands presentations and such. If you do look for it, well, then, yes, you could spend all your time just doing that. The James Damore situation should make it obvious that, yes, saying the "wrong" thing about this sort of thing is a quick way to get fired - you don't need to work at Google to see that.

    21. Re: Work? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Y'all are pissed off that Slashdot doesn't like your iPhone's Unicode.

    22. Re:Work? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 0

      You're probably right about the US. Every time I go there I go to NY or CA or the like and it's amazing how messed up the culture is politically. Luckily I can rant and rave on here to blow off steam.

      It's not like this in the UK though. Or maybe I just go to places that are not as single party as NY and CA are in the US.

      And it's certainly not like this in Taiwan.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    23. Re: Work? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure what you're alluding to here. Valve were great around the time of the Orange Box and seem to have gone downhill a lot since then. I don't really know too much about them before then.

      Of course it might just be that I had the time and hardware to play games around the time of the Orange Box and haven't really had it since then.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    24. Re:Work? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I don't think it makes any different what they do. Most of Google's income comes from a handful of established cash cows (main search engine, youTube, possibly maps, and AdSense). The other stuff is just there because a tech company must be seen to be innovating.

      There's no real direction. People are paid for being smart, and Google hopes that that will produce good products. There are no metrics for whether most of these make any money, but the cash cow is so large it can support a lot of complete wastes of space.

    25. Re:Work? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Do they do any real work at Google anymore or just write weird memos about social justice all day?

      You do realise that Google has 74000 employees, and that you're complaining about a small handful right?

    26. Re:Work? by jemmyw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you're right. When the money pressure was removed from Google they started doing interesting things, but that period was quite short lived before stagnation overtook.

    27. Re: Work? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      This is another one of those Fermat's Margin gambits isn't it? I.e. "I have proof that I'm right and you're wrong but it is too large to fit in this slashdot comment box"

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    28. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone on the inside, I suspect that this is the case.

      Once a company becomes successful, there's a desire to grow. Google's pretty much conquered the search advertising space. So now its trying to grow into other areas. So lots of money is being thrown around in an seemingly-haphazard way. No group gets enough resources to really be successful, and there isn't any real strategy other than "AI-first". This provides people a lot of time to worry about things not related to work.

    29. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, when Google isn't firing people they're canceling projects, ending services, and removing features.

    30. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve has shifted, they don't really make games now. It's a distribution platform for games. (Plus strategic development for their game platform, like the hardware controller, set top boxe, etc.)

    31. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing more amusing than conservative projections about 'the gays' are conservative projections about persecution.

    32. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there is much evidence that countries with good natural resources do badly. The industrial revolution started in Britain, which at the time was blessed with excellent resources, such as coal, copper, etc. The USA us blessed with large fossil fuel reserves, as well as minerals and wood. Norway has huge per capita reserves of fossil fuels.

    33. Re:Work? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Actually last figures I saw had Google losing money on YouTube as the big YouTubers have realized they are getting fucked and have their own ads and bypass Google's biased BS ads so the only ad rolls they get are for the smaller channels and even those are going to Patreon because they are tired of the BS. Search is their cash cow, the others are just same datamining that helps the search business.

      This is why I have switched to Bing, if Bing search disappeared tomorrow its not gonna affect MSFT in the slightest and they seem to be actively avoiding all the SJW shitshow while Google is balls deep, if you want to support their racist sexist views? That is your choice but since I think racists are scumbags I simply will not use their products. My Gmail is a spamdump, I don't use their search, the only Google product I use is an Android phone and I've replaced the browser and use Bing search on it so other than the occasional playstore search they aren't getting shit from me.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    34. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me summarize: waaaaaaaaaaa!

    35. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible that there's something analogous happening with Google - once they worked out how to make piles of cash from ads and not from developing new software it all started to stagnate.

      That sure sounds plausible, but I remember why it started. A Googlegeist survey included a question about whether you're comfortable "bringing your whole self to work." The survey, by its nature, can be easily sliced by "identity" dimensions, and practically begs for that, while other hypotheses are difficult to test against survey data. Simultaneously a whole "diversity" industry was spinning up, travelling facilitators and course materials. And Die Luegenpresse and all of the Hollywood actors and writers were in the midst of their nerd-shaming cycle about women in tech.

      Every Googlegeist needs to turn into a list of action items, not too many not too few, so morale stays up from people thinking Google is still "bottom up" and responds to the survey, and so they can make organised progress (or, in this case, "progress"). Execs saw the bog-obvious data, and the army of solution peddlers, and said, "looks easy. Go."

      Interestingly in Google it's not normal company politics - trying to bring down your rivals at work - but rather the sort of identity politics you see at elite universities.

      No, Google has the other kind of politics, too. When people ask each other what team they're on, the first question is always, "who's your manager," and "are they good?" The refrain right before this SJW shitstorm exploded was always, "Google's a great place to work iff you get a good manager." And this is happening at higher levels as well. The most common cause of "burnout" is working two years on a product, doing a great job, then having its launch cancelled because of some political machinations of "product managers" and "directors". There are also jokes about how often people are "reorged." Usually several times a year, the reporting chain is adjusted. This makes people look busy making "bold choices," but I suspect it also makes the psychopaths harder to weed out the lower they are in the tree.

    36. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said the Googler being given $200K to dither unproductively on another abandoned beta.

      Go soak your fat head.

    37. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a weird thing to want to say ... I'm trying to think of situations that would call for that sentence to be said at work, and I cannot for the life of me think of one.

    38. Re: Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SteamVR is the best thing Valve has ever worked on. So it doesn't seem like they are stagnating that much.

    39. Re:Work? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've said things about individual marriages, but I will point to my first marriage as conclusive evidence that not all marriages between men and women are good. Personally, I'm in favor of getting married when appropriate, and I don't care about the sexes or genders of the people involved.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    40. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is well known that math, science, logic, and reading comprehension are all leftist conspiracies. This is why us conservatives disdain all that! I just wish I could find a job outside of fast food :(

    41. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are incorrect. Youtube has had resounding success after they started removing the racist ranting and nazi videos. I know my Youtube channel has gotten about a 4x increase in traffic, and I haven't added videos to it since about 2015. Most every Youtuber I'm aware of has had much more success after the nazi removal. I think the users appreciate not accidentally stumbling across a nazi propaganda video. I know I've finally let my kids watch videos on Youtube because of that, and I'm far from the only parent that was worried because of how easy it was to find literal nazi propaganda on there.

    42. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're leaving out the "only" between a and man, and that makes it pure discrimination.

    43. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really, really bad these days. You can be an undercover conservative, and avoid some of the hate -- but you can't really be an undercover white man, so every day is a constant battle.

    44. Re:Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      However, for the last two years or so, hiring decisions are made with a "diversity champion" in the room, to make sure that all new hires have enough diversity points. The result is that, actually, a huge fraction of those employees actually don't do any work all day except as soldiers in Google's culture war -- because that's what they were hired for, and that's all they are capable of anyway.

  7. An strange development by Ayano · · Score: 1

    It seems that Google is attempting to establish some kind of 'even-handed' approach. The company remains overwhelmingly liberal, but it seem they're cutting the edges off for provocative discussion. The most radical 10% liberals are edged out but still 50% -> 100% on the conservative scale are edged out leaving only the most centrist conservatives as 'last ones standing'.

    Google has a right to cultivate their own corporate culter, you can't tell a private company how to run its business. I'm just enjoying the view into the fishbowl here, and seeing a mini culture war.

    --
    I don't read AC
    1. Re: An strange development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your frame of reference must be pretty far to the right for you the believe those numbers. Was your dad racist much?

    2. Re: An strange development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Hillaryist bigot!

    3. Re:An strange development by Pseudonym · · Score: 3

      I'll bite. Where did you get those numbers from?

      Not saying you're right, not saying you're wrong. Just looking for source data.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    4. Re:An strange development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you can't tell a private company how to run its business"
      Unless that company is a bakery. Or a photography shop.

  8. Re:stupid Russian plant msmash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid Arabs purchasing Slashdot and running it into the ground. The buyers have so much money they could buy their own server farm......but THIS.
     
    BTW, never saw that movie before, but it looks hilarious. I love how the chick is trying to say "BUSTED!" but no bust occurs, so she changes her wording midstream and ends up with something that sounds remarkably like Buzzard with a T in it.

  9. great show. get the popcorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this just goes to show how immensily instable a SJW-based system is. I predict we will see the implosion of google pretty soon because they will have terminated the last capable engineer for social misconduct, probably because she "killed" some server or virtual machine that was showing erronous behavior. Just gotta love this.

    So where's the popcorn?

  10. They just want people to get back to work by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the main issue here is that Google doesn't want people arguing this stuff on company time instead of working. Fighting against social ills like sexism and discrimination is a noble cause, but if employees are spending half their time doing so instead of working, the company will suffer.

    Better to rid of toxic people on both sides than to allow them to rile up others and cause big social problems within the company. A lot of times a group of people will work quite well as a team until politics is brought up, then it's practically World War Three.

    1. Re:They just want people to get back to work by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I think the main issue here is that Google doesn't want people arguing this stuff on company time instead of working.

      Well if so, they have a funny way of showing it. As a company they spend a lot of time and energy talking about all this argle fargle.

    2. Re:They just want people to get back to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a company they spend a lot of time and energy talking about all this argle fargle.

      You're confusing Google with the Russian trolls on Twitter.

      Oh wait, I mean formerly on Twitter since they got purged.

    3. Re:They just want people to get back to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think the main issue here is that Google doesn't want people arguing this stuff.

      Fixed that for you.

      > Better to rid of toxic people on both sides

      But Google is not "ridding toxic people on both sides". The man was not even toxic. His piece was well polite, specific, and clear about the issues. The freakjob I met in the Google cafeteria proclaiming "gender is not binary!!!", and was frankly insulting to my transgender acquaintances who have gone to extreme lengths to achieve a distinct gender.

    4. Re: They just want people to get back to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, this person was obnoxiously toxic in a repellent fashion which is odiously obvious to those aroubd them, even if not blatantly discriminatory.

      But heck, here you are protesting your own shallow objections without realizing what kind of red flags they are.

    5. Re:They just want people to get back to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is a fair point, except that Google seems to have internal forums designed specifically to get employees talking about these things. A lot of companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to "encourage diversity" and everything, so long as it's their kind of diversity. And no, this isn't a lead-up to some far-right conspiracy theory. There are places like Walmart which tiptoe right up to the edge of what they can legally do to discourage workers from unionizing, including making new hires watch anti-union propaganda films as part of their orientation, which IMO is just as wrong as what Google is doing.

      If employers want workers to keep politics out of the office, how about employers keep politics out of business? No more political donations, no more huggy-feely "let's share our feelings" BS that invariably leads to situations like this, and just stick to making/selling/servicing widgets. I'm tired of seeing companies trying to convince me to write a member of congress about some issue -- which is probably illegal for them to ask in some states -- or vote for that company's CEO in some magazine poll, or hear about how they gave large donations to Candidate X's campaign. Let's have politics on one side, business on the other, and never the two shall meet.

    6. Re:They just want people to get back to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sodomites are always doomed to failure as they reap the rewards of chaos. Watch the battle between the TERFS (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) and the trans community develop. Basically they're at each other's throats because there are lesbians out there that fear too many young lesbians are going to become transmen instead of lesbians and believe that transwomen have no right to have an opinion on feminist matters because they were born with a fucking PENIS!!! (Hear that triggered screach in your mind).

      The transcommunity meanwhile is up in arms at everyone because of their lack of correct use of made up pronouns like zim and zer and their 56 other cognates to the point where I have more likelihood of successfully Conjuring gold by chanting variatiins of zim Zaladan zaladine than getting their choice of pronoun correct.

      The problem with these individual freaks is they think that by inventing lables they somehow represent a group. And they think that belonging to this group somehow matters. They are power hungry authoritarian fascists who are seeking to criminalise every thing that is good, true and normal for the sake of their obsession about their genitalia and who they fuck, the colour of their skin and ethnicity and which fairy tails they choose to believe in.

      Left wing, right wing, white black, Christian , Jewish, Muslim lbgqtixyz they all need to fucking get a grip on reality and stop being snow flakes and that includes half the gun toting tea party cunts.

      Next we are going to be told we need to start using a different alphabet because the existing ones are part of the patriarchy and are symbols of OPPRESSION!

    7. Re:They just want people to get back to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then why dont see hire people based on skill instead of skin color and genitalia?
      diversity for diversity's sake = zero work gets done.

    8. Re:They just want people to get back to work by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      "My manager does a lot of argle fargle" is not actually an excuse for ignoring strong hints from your manager for you to do less argle fargle. At will employment is what it is.

    9. Re:They just want people to get back to work by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      They have people who are paid to work on this stuff. And they have people who are paid to do other jobs. If you're paid to write software but you're spending your time championing diversity, you aren't doing the job you were hired/paid to do. If you want to do that kind of work, apply to transfer to the diversity department or whatever it's called. I read one of the articles on this and the particular employee was warned about spending too much time on social activism prior to getting fired.

    10. Re: They just want people to get back to work by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Lick those boots!

    11. Re:They just want people to get back to work by nazrhyn · · Score: 1

      Except that they've apparently solicited discussion about these very topics. That's what led to the Damore memo.

  11. So if you are incompetent and about to get fired by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just quickly post some things like these. Not saying this is what happened here, but seems to be a flaw in the system.

    It is also quite possible the actual problem here is these companies having styled themselves too much as a "home" and "welcoming place" in order to attract talented people (and have them work long hours uncompensated) and people working there are less and less aware that it is a place of work. You know, one of those places were you keep politics out and are expected to behave professionally all the time ...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  12. Google has a what now? by martinX · · Score: 3, Funny

    FTFA:
    "A Google employee allegedly responded to the post by noting that asking for ID was just part of the job, Gizmodo reported. Chevalier then made a privilege-denying dude meme using Google’s internal meme generator with the caption, “I have opinions about forms of oppression that don’t affect me.” "

    Google has an internal meme generator. I'm sure it provides hours of laughter and cohesive working.

    --
    When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    1. Re:Google has a what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It’s a honey pot to figure out who to fire.

  13. Damore Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would Damore's lawsuit actually be more difficult to win after this firing because google can just say that a nasty email/doc/... is from an X employee and does not represent google?

    1. Re:Damore Lawsuit by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I think it will, because not only were some of the exhibits in Damore/Gudeman's suit from Chevalier (e.g. page 21, then Exhibits B 16, 26, 40, 44, 46, 83 and 86) but it looks like Chevalier was sacked before the Damore/Gudeman suit was filed.

    2. Re:Damore Lawsuit by invalid_user · · Score: 2

      On the contrary, I think it will strengthen Damore's case, because Google has tacitly agreed that there has been unacceptable behavior from the so-called "diversity" camp. In which case, firing Damore shows even less justifiable bias against his position.

    3. Re:Damore Lawsuit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I think it will strengthen Damore's case, because Google has tacitly agreed that there has been unacceptable behavior from the so-called "diversity" camp. In which case, firing Damore shows even less justifiable bias against his position.

      I think even the best lawyers are going to have a hard time convincing a judge that actions that display even-handedness on Google's part, is actually evidence of bias. However, if Google enters Chevalier's firing into evidence, which they likely will, I'm fairly certain that Damore's lawyers will try a similar argument. I just doubt that the judge will accept it as anything more than a desperate reach by a floundering lawyer.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re:Damore Lawsuit by invalid_user · · Score: 1

      Why did Google fire Damore instead of Tim in August? Since later in November, Google agreed that Tim demonstrated disruptive behavior.

      Calling this "desperate reach by a floundering lawyer" betrays your impartiality.

    5. Re:Damore Lawsuit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Why did Google fire Damore instead of Tim in August? Since later in November, Google agreed that Tim demonstrated disruptive behavior.

      Probably because they fire people in the order of the size of the problem they are creating?

      Calling this "desperate reach by a floundering lawyer" betrays your impartiality.

      I don't claim to be impartial, and that's just what the argument looks like to me, a blatant attempt at spinning inconvenient facts.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  14. Lots by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    this is getting magnified by two thing:

    a). It's click bait. I predict 300+ comments on this post if not more.

    b). These lawsuits are being funded by the Republican party. This is a major political issue for the Republican party. It's part of a larger narrative they're building that white males are under assault.

    Now, the fact is white males are... by declining wages due to outsourcing, H1-Bs, economic crashes caused by widespread deregulation, vulture capital firms killing off their jobs, etc, etc); but they're no more so than any other member of the working class. It's basically the right wing version of identity politics. Something to distract from the broader issues and keep the various groups of working class people at each other's throats. A caste system.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Lots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And only the republicans are bankrolling things? Right? riiiight? Oh wait the DNC is doing it too. Look at the current thing on the news. Does not matter what it is. Notice how all the news orgs are ALL talking the same points as the DNC. Now stop and think about how much that costs. Quite a large sum isn't it. But they are the 'good guys'. Right? They tell me they are. They have never lied to me. Right?

      It's basically the right wing version of identity politics
      The previous guy was doxed. Google did it. It went from a small group of people to all over the place. My guess is anyone involved google is going to offload. No mater your party. That is the way of corporations. Fire until the problem 'goes away'.

      A caste system
      https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

      The system is being gamed by the very people you want to side with. To make sure you get paid for shit while they walk away with millions and make sure you fight the fight for them. Good job.

    2. Re:Lots by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, the Republican party is funding the Damore lawsuit, but this lawsuit, the one started by this transgender person, I doubt that's being funded by the Republican party.

      That last lawsuit against Google could be funded by Google against itself for all I know, to show that they're not showing bias in firing people since people from both sides are suing them.

    3. Re:Lots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you judge it on it's merits, rather than on who's funding it? You sound like a climate denying Republican complaining about democrats funding climate change research (i.e. the liberal climate change conspiracy).


      It's basically the right wing version of identity politics. Something to distract from the broader issues and keep the various groups of working class people at each other's throats. A caste system.
       

      This just sounds like a left-wing conspiracy to me. Personally what bothers me about BOTH these cases, and the larger picture of current identify politics is that we've become an increasingly intolerant society. It started with the Republican party, (the liberals this, the liberals that!), and now the left has taken on the same thing (racist Trump supporter!).

      I have lots of different ideas about politics that don't always fit into a category, but I often get viewed as some kind of screaming liberal, or even a Trump supporter, simply because I don't have a pure version of whatever people think is purity, or I don't think "the other guy" is the devil incarnate. I actually think MOST people aren't that different from me, and have ideas that cross the political spectrum. But we seem to have lost that idea that we're all a mix of different beliefs, ideas an values.

    4. Re: Lots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans are funding a fat trans whore's lawsuit, because xe was fired for being an obnoxious SJW?

      You are a fucking imbecile.

    5. Re:Lots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That last lawsuit against Google could be funded by Google against itself for all I know, to show that they're not showing bias in firing people since people from both sides are suing them.

      That would be a beautiful conspiracy theory if it wasn't for the fact that words like "false flag" are thrown around like fart gas these days.

    6. Re:Lots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the one started by this transgender person, I doubt that's being funded by the Republican party.

      Why? If anything, the Republican Party has shown that the ends justify the means.

    7. Re:Lots by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Sheesh. Please just read the article. There is no need to speculate.

    8. Re: Lots by temcat · · Score: 1

      "That last lawsuit against Google could be funded by Google against itself for all I know, to show that they're not showing bias in firing people since people from both sides are suing them."

      This. Also, I predict that this lawsuit, unlike Damore's, will be settled for a sweet sum.

  15. Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm constantly being harassed because I'm a transgendered lesbian person of no-color - although I identify as Asian. People just assume that because I look like a white man and act like a heterosexual man, that I'm white heterosexual guy. When I tell them that my wife is a transgendered homosexual man of no-color but identifies as Black and that I'm in a non-traditional marriage, folks don't take me seriously. I get thrown out of LGBTQ groups and made fun of. Just because she has a vagina and breasts and can get pregnant doesn't mean he is a woman. And just because I can get erections doesn't mean I'm a man.

    People really need to stop this bigotry.

    1. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was beautiful.

    2. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      To be fair, you aren't a man. You're a troll.

    3. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its funny until you know people exactly like that, in SF.
      they do it because it gives them privileged statuses.

      I certainly know a white male married to a pale girl and a couple years ago they became a transgender couple. like, taking hormones and all. still married otherwise.
        a few month after they started they both go much better job, higher pay, everyone caters to their every needs and they say they're happier than they're ever been.

      i'm not sure how many people do this but this is a real, serious thing - and it absolutely works (as long as you're ok with getting boobs as a man and getting a beard as a woman that is..)

    4. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, you aren't a man. You're a troll.

      Are you feeling unsafe? Do you want some gold fish crackers and apple juice before your nap? You SJW types like to dish it out but you sure cant take it coming back at you.

    5. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they do it because it gives them privileged statuses.

      This in an of itself is not a new idea. For example, in India there are groups of people who self lobby to be declared officially "backwards" and "historically disadvantaged" just so that they can secure a slice of the guaranteed slots in top universities and government employment. Plenty of Brazilians try to pass themselves off as "black" in video interviews for university places to get an advantage under the affirmative action system in Brazil. Although, I've got to admit that taking hormones to change your sex and possibly even having your little friend hacked off or sewn on just to get a better job is pretty hard core.

    6. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your wife can't get an erection you need to work on your skills.

    7. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're asking why you're "harassed" ?
      You're already giving me headaches and I never met you in person.
       

    8. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Freischutz · · Score: 0

      To be fair, you aren't a man. You're a troll.

      Are you feeling unsafe? Do you want some gold fish crackers and apple juice before your nap? You SJW types like to dish it out but you sure cant take it coming back at you.

      I suppose that's why you posted AC, to prove how you don't have to hide under a rock like some limp dick alt-right pyjama boy? ... because you can take what's being dished out.

    9. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm constantly being harassed because I'm a transgendered lesbian person of no-color - although I identify as Asian. People just assume that because I look like a white man and act like a heterosexual man, that I'm white heterosexual guy. When I tell them that my wife is a transgendered homosexual man of no-color but identifies as Black and that I'm in a non-traditional marriage, folks don't take me seriously. I get thrown out of LGBTQ groups and made fun of. Just because she has a vagina and breasts and can get pregnant doesn't mean he is a woman. And just because I can get erections doesn't mean I'm a man.

      People really need to stop this bigotry.

      Hi, my name is Anonymous Coward. I am persecuted, because I'm a superior white male and because I'm Chrisitan. I'm of mixed, Jewish, Irish, Russian, Italian, Native American, African and Scandinavian descent but I identify as a racially pure Aryan Übermench. When I tell people I'm being persecuted and that they should instead bow before me in awe at the purity of the Aryan genome that I identify with and award me special privileges because of it folks don't take me seriously. I keep telling people that because I identify as a racially pure white native of this country, I deserve stuff, like a hot Aryan wife, a guaranteed unskilled job that pays enough for me to buy a big house with a pool, three garages for my sports cars and a separate room for my guns and my collection of 3rd Reich Religia, and some brown Untermenschen to serve me, but people just keep making fun of me. When I show myself in public with my friends in our dashing brown Sturmabteilung uniforms for a Tiki Torch march to the rousing shouts of 'Jews will not replace us' people just throw vegetables at us and call us names instead of acknowledging the natural superiority of our monoculturalist ideas about racial inbreeding.

      I agree with you comletely, people should really need to stop this bigotry. Perhaps we can get together and form a support group? Dibs on being the master race!

    10. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, you aren't a man. You're a troll.

      Are you feeling unsafe? Do you want some gold fish crackers and apple juice before your nap? You SJW types like to dish it out but you sure cant take it coming back at you.

      I suppose that's why you posted AC, to prove how you don't have to hide under a rock like some limp dick alt-right pyjama boy? ... because you can take what's being dished out.

      GGGP post made an utter mockery of the, "But I identify as ..." claptrap. The fact it's so damn easy to mock ought to tell you something.

      And now you're all butthurt and calling him "some limp dick alt-right pyjama boy"?

      Grow the fuck up.

      PS - why are you focusing on dicks, anyway?

    11. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that's why you posted AC, to prove how you don't have to hide under a rock like some limp dick alt-right pyjama boy? ... because you can take what's being dished out.

      That's rich - a millenial on the Internet lambasting people for being thin skinned. This is the generation that has mental breakdowns when confronted with facts they didn't know were true.

    12. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      limp dick alt-right pyjama boy

      Temper, temper!

    13. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aw bless your heart you tiny-dicked twat

    14. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you joking? Some hipster in Vancouver gets in a huff over words, and the other end of the horseshoe acts like civilization is collapsing and the world is ending. None of you delicate offense seekers can take a joke.

    15. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a whole spectrum of what "transgendered" refers to---no need to alter "your little friend" to be considered "transgendered". Still, all of the complications and risks related to hormone therapy is nothing to take casually.

    16. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ...haha ... hahahaha .... gawd bless you ... you emotocentric transfinite fool ... I hope a duck waddles by and kicks-in yo face ... ahahhaha.

    17. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, you aren't a man. You're a troll.

      Are you feeling unsafe? Do you want some gold fish crackers and apple juice before your nap? You SJW types like to dish it out but you sure cant take it coming back at you.

      I suppose that's why you posted AC, to prove how you don't have to hide under a rock like some limp dick alt-right pyjama boy? ... because you can take what's being dished out.

      Says the person who posts under a psuedonym, you're so brave!

    18. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worryingly in the current climate it's not clear if this is serious or not.

    19. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolls and SJWs are often indistinguishable.

    20. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrue. The trolls are deliberately funny.

    21. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mother is a transgendered lesbian person of no-color who identifies as Asian, you insensitive clod.

    22. Re:Transgender Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that's a she-troll to you.

  16. Re:So if you are incompetent and about to get fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is where most workplaces will document, thoroughly, legally supportable reasons to fire you. It usually involves a "recovery plan", which gives 30 days to meet a whole stack of recovery goals before termination. Ran into that once when a new manager didn't like me because I kept catching his hand in various cookie jars, and was *exhausted* by a long short-staffed time. I took it as time to find a new job, and accepted the recovery plan while I found a new job. (It is *much* easier to find a new job while still employed, trust me! It's like getting a date while you still have a girlfriend, they employers can *smell* that you're worth keeping around!)

  17. Just wondering if you are a GAY MAN at Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and you get a sex change and 'become' a woman, are you still considered GAY by Google?

  18. Fire 'em all by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    Does anyone get any work done at that fucking place? With all the memo-ing and meme-ing, I'm shocked that this Chevalier or Damore were able to keep their jobs at all.

    Knock off all the bullshit, you two. You're here to work for a living, not make spectacles of yourself. If you have a problem with your company's policies, feel free to go work somewhere else (unless there's something criminal going on, of course). Starbucks is always looking for baristas. EVERYTHING ISN'T ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: Fire 'em all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world is coming to an end. I actually agree with you, for once.

      Are you really PopeRatzo? Someone stole your account, right?

      I hope you get a +5 for this. I'll come back when I have mod points.

    2. Re: Fire 'em all by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Are you really PopeRatzo? Someone stole your account, right?

      PopeRatzo is more than a single individual. He is an idea. You can think of him as the Nicolas Bourbaki of Slashdot commenters.

      I hope you get a +5 for this. I'll come back when I have mod points.

      I appreciate that, but the answer is still no, I won't have sex with you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re: Fire 'em all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever you say, man. Long as you stay sane.

    4. Re:Fire 'em all by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Get back to work" and "it's not about your feelings" from a hardcore Leftist. Gosh, funny how things do a complete 180 when it's someone whose points you don't want to listen to.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Fire 'em all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that unexpected? Neo-liberalism, founded upon postmodern ideas require practitioners to dismiss the feelings and value of others if they do not fit the mold of inclusivity. That equitable mold where some animals are more equal than others, ranked by how much they conform to the party or don't conform to the opposition.

    6. Re:Fire 'em all by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You're here to work for a living, not make spectacles of yourself.

      Google tried making specacles for other people, and that didn't work out very well. So, the only choice left is to make them for themselves.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Fire 'em all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PopeRatzo is not a hardcore leftist unless your Overton window is lying smashed on the opposite sidewalk.

      I know hardcore leftists. He ain't anywhere near that.

    8. Re:Fire 'em all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Overton Window is so ridiculously far to the left that it's broken and not reliable as a barometer. Face it, nobody knows, or cares, about your extremely-out-there opinions. They've been tried and resulted in millions of deaths.

  19. I'm confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confused!!
    They're not anti-diversity.
    They're not pro-diversity.

    1. Re:I'm confused! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      It's almost like Google doesn't have a consistent bias that conforms with anyone's narrative!

      Oh dear.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  20. Google owes Damore and Chevalier jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon guys, you're young, well educated and talented. Go find another job and get to work kicking Google's ass in an arena you can be proud of - using code and IT architecture, not in the courts.

  21. Hmmm... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One might think the unwanted attention from outsider interlopers has forced Google's hand and they're quietly trying to clean house. Then again, one George Wallace and one Bull Connor and for two generations most of America has been assuming automatically all white Southerners are racist to the bone. So maybe Google doesn't get out from under this one for a good long while either.

  22. Don't try to change company culture yourself by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Chevalier’s supervisors were critical of Chevalier’s political participation and dismissive of his attempts to change Google’s culture. Ultimately, Google fired Chevalier. Human Resources explicitly told Chevalier that Google was ending his employment because of his political statements in opposition to the discrimination, harassment, and white supremacy he saw being expressed on Google’s internal messaging systems

    The proper recourse for harassment is to report it to HR and let the company deal with it -- you don't get free reign to try to change the company's culture yourself. If the company doesn't deal with it, *then* you sue the company.

    1. Re:Don't try to change company culture yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's "free reign"? Do you mean "free rein", or "free rain", or even "free rane"?

    2. Re:Don't try to change company culture yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The proper recourse for harassment is to report it to HR and let the company deal with it

      Hahahahahahahahahahah. Oh, that's a good one. HR looking out for anyone but the company. Oh, you're serious.

    3. Re:Don't try to change company culture yourself by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In well-run companies, HR tries to reduce the number of lawsuits the company will face.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  23. Silicon is Toxic by njhunter · · Score: 1

    Who'da thunk that in that beautiful valley was toxicity.

    1. Re:Silicon is Toxic by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      Gotta have adult supervision. A culture that eschews adult supervision isn't going to work out in the end. Whether it's petty incivility and unprofessional behavior in the workplace or millions of investor dollars wasted on juice squeezers and raw water...it'll correct itself eventually.

    2. Re:Silicon is Toxic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Google is expressing adult supervision. Professionals know when you see some insanity like the original memo, you forward it to HR, and STFU. Have you ever worked in a large corporation? You aren't there to express your opinion, you're there to do your damn job. I'ld think you of all people would know that.

    3. Re:Silicon is Toxic by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Belatedly. The allegations in Damore's lawsuit and some of the reporting that happened around the time of the memo indicated there was some pretty crazy stuff being tolerated at Google offices that the infamous memo was commenting on. In a fairly dry and civil way, mind you. You're assuming there's a good guy to be found in there somewhere. I've come to the conclusion (informed only by outside observation, granted), that the whole place is a funny farm.

    4. Re:Silicon is Toxic by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Professionals know when you see some insanity like the original memo, you forward it to HR, and STFU.

      The problem with having an internal social network is that insanity can go around the world several times before the adults have a chance to put their boots on.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    5. Re:Silicon is Toxic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly do you mean by a funny farm? Can you give examples of what that might mean and why it is good or bad, and for whom?

    6. Re:Silicon is Toxic by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Quite so. That's why email will always be king for workplace communication.

  24. Saw this coming a mile away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The end-game to ever-expanding worker-against-worker protections has always been obvious: companies getting sued (and even losing those suits) no matter what action they take.

  25. Maintaining professionalism by DogDude · · Score: 2

    Any large organization falls apart if professionalism isn't maintained to some degree (see current White House). Groups of people don't work together well with lots of emotional outbursts from its members. This is pretty consistent across most cultures. If somebody can't keep their shit together at work, then they gotta go. It's as simple as that.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Maintaining professionalism by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      True, but you gotta dig a little deeper. If corporate culture is that it's OK for some people to needle and agitate others to the point of losing their composure, that does not bode well for the 'no drama' smell test of corporate governance. If HR is part of the problem with tampons in the men's room and the like, then that also invites conflict and confrontation.

  26. Something vaguely offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd write something pro-white, pro-male... would it matter? We don't communicate about these things, we're just stalling for time. Civil war when?

  27. Low level employee inserts themselve into HR issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could possibly go wrong?! My God, they raise these kids stupid af today. If your job isn't HR don't get involved with HR issues.

  28. Chevalier is the same asshole who got Brendan Eich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chevalier led the campaign to get Brendan Eich fired from Mozilla. https://www.fastcompany.com/3028664/lgbt-programmers-speak-out-on-mozillas-anti-gay-marriage-ceo

    Karma if you ask me

  29. Looks like a reasonable guy to me by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    Can't imagine why he'd be fired. https://pics.me.me/nd-punch-al...

  30. Re: stupid Russian plant msmash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid sand n1ggers bought /.? When?

  31. He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anonymous for obvious reasons.

    I reported Tim to HR several times. Good to see that the system works.

    Tim posted a lot. A lot. Pretty much all of was abuse.
    I never saw any good faith pro diversity posts from him, so the article is wrong in that regard.
    Instead, his usual posting style consists of jumping into a discussion and start hurling serious abuse and personal attacks against whomever he thought was in the wrong.

    He regularly calls other work colleagues Nazi, Racist, Rapist. Relentlessly and over and over.

    He is very toxic and abusive. Shame it took this long to get rid of him.

    I don't think his lawyers really know what kind of stuff Tim was writing when at Google. If they did they would know that this whole "fired for being pro diversity" angle will crash and burn almost immediately once Google starts showing what really happened.

    1. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely Tim was the leaker as well. The other significant SRE trouble-making trans-person looks like a pretty decent fellow to me. Who do I think is the biggest culprit? That Gizmodo journalist Kate.

    2. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What do you mean he is the leaker?

      You have not seen shit about what he used to post. If I were him I would not leak anything.

      True story: I reported this with screenshot evidence around feb/mar last year :

      There was this woman that wrote a long and heartbreaking post on how and the struggle to bring up a mentally challenged child
      or her own, and whom she loved. It was really good and informative on the challenges of a young family protecting and bringing up
      a downs syndrome child.
      I and all other googlers that have a heart, and are not insane, was touched by her experience and her struggle.
      We emotionally started to understand the real live situation and how to help.

      In comes Tim. He is mad. This mother or a challenged child used the "wrong" words to describe her childs disability and he tore her a new asshole
      on how intolerant she was and how bad mother she was. Personal attacks left right and centre and really aiming to hurt this woman that had opened
      up to talk about a very difficult subject. His attacks were relentless. He was so vicious you can not even imagine it towards this woman.
      Not even the worst you have ever seen on twitter comes close.
      He hurls abuse, slurs and personal attacks left right and centre on this woman. Disgusting.

      So fucking disgusting. Such a fucking disgustingly bad person. This was one of the two times I reported him to HR. I never reported him calling fellows rapists or nazi or that they should die or leave google. Those guys can protect themselves. They are grownups.
      But when you viciously attack a mother of a mentally handicapped child, that is crossing the line.

      Hope you read this Tim. You are a disgusting worm.

      There are just so many similar stories about Tim you would not believe it. This one just struck a cord with me for personal reasons.
      No other company would he be left on the payroll for almost a year with HR involvement this long.

    3. Re:He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Michael G. Schwern v. Noirin Plunkett

      On September 21, prominent open source software developers Ashe Dryden and Leigh Honeywell both tweeted that plaintiff had been arrested for attacking defendant. Fellow developer Tim Chevalier made a similar tweet on September 22. On information and belief, Ms. Dryden, Ms. Honeywell, and Mr. Chevalier were all republishers of defendant's unprivileged false claims about plaintiff, and based their tweets on these claims.

      On September 25, the Ada Initiative published a blog post on its website entitled "The Ada Initiative does not support Michael Schwern's ally work."

      Defendant has previously arranged to have participants ejected from the Open Source Conference. On information and belief, defendant made her defamatory remarks about plaintiff partially in order to create the preconditions for getting plaintiff ejected from future Open Source Conferences.

      On information and belief, defendant's defamation of plaintiff biased Ms.Koehler and other senior employees of Mozilla against plaintiff so that Mozilla would refuse to hire plaintiff if he applied for a job with them.

    4. Re:He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have enough people to protect, you can construct any argument.

    5. Re:He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, it's almost like being a constant toxic worker might get you fired--and that being a ranty SJW isn't really a defense. I can't wait till these people start learning that more and more.

      I've hired lots of people. Fired a few. Since I don't hire untalented people I must have fired the ones I did for a reason, and I did. Every one of them had one trait in common: causing a lot of workplace drama that was totally unnecessary.

    6. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by sinij · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You Googlers with your diversity over sanity screeds and pushes created a situation where someone like Tim could exist largely unchecked. I wouldn't care if this was some generic CaliCorp, but Google has substantial cultural impact on tech culture everywhere.

      When diversity is a priority, being Trans and Disabled puts someone in an entirely separate class. Tim could get away with almost anything, and it is surprising he got fired at all even after very egregious and appalling behavior. Disadvantage person my ass, he is using his social privileged status to shit all over other people for no good reason.

      This is inevitable consequence of abandoning merit to promote diversity - you end up with useless or worse people that get in the way of doing good work and getting along.

    7. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damore's point is that workplace channels have been abused for political purposes. Since a blog is personal, it does not fall within his argument.

    8. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, dear. Thanks for sharing that.

    9. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >This was one of the two times I reported him to HR. I never reported him calling fellows rapists or nazi or that they should die or leave google. Those >guys can protect themselves. They are grownups.
      >But when you viciously attack a mother of a mentally handicapped child, that is crossing the line.

      Mmmh, man (white, I suppose) can defend himself. Mother needs help. Damn it. We are still really at it?

    10. Re:He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While quite forthright he doesn't call anyone a Nazi, racist or rapist in these messages. If he did, I'm at a loss to explain why Damore didn't include such examples in his lawsuit, since they would demonstrate a hostile workplace.

      Those messages (or similar) will probably show up later when Damore's lawyers can subpoena Google for more evidence.

    11. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      If what you write is even half true, the documentation that Google will present as justification for firing him should make for some entertaining reading.

    12. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ex-Googler here. Do you realize that while you post as A/C HR will find out who you are from the details you shared here?
      My own interactions with Google HR is that you should not complain to them about anything as they'll flag you as a PITA and will never actually help you if you have an actual work related issue. Remember who writes their paycheck, their job is to make internal issues disappear, not ensure that you are treated fairly as a Google employee.

      In my case I had a manager that strongly discouraged vacation, even parental leave, and Google HR was fine with that. After that transferring teams became impossible as my manager would 'warn' any prospect team that I talked to HR. I left for a much better company, with a much better pay, one that was not part of the illegal anti-poaching agreement that was going at the time.

    13. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the warning. But that Googler didn't write anything here. I heard that from him and posted on his behalf. I don't work for Google.

    14. Re:He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous as well for the exact same reason.

      Disregard the above Anonymous Coward. Doesn't work for Google, has no idea what happened or what's going on.

      I've seen Tim's posts, they are well thought out, and while they are quite forward, there is no name calling, unlike Damore's internal posts.

    15. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it's quite obvious you are not a Googler. There's no need to make up desperate lies to try and push your narrative. Unless you're the guy who got fired recently for trying to get Tim fired. Is that you Mark?

      Nevertheless, this story did NOT happen the way Mark claims above.

    16. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Testify Brothren or Sistren!

    17. Re: He never wrote any pro-diversity posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please post screenshots.

  32. Re: stupid Russian plant msmash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Around the time you showed up.

    Wait, hang on...

  33. Muh politics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck that guy. Nobody wants that shit at work.

    Shut up and do your job.

  34. Google... by BlueStrat · · Score: 0, Troll

    You went full-SJW.

    Never go full-SJW.

    I think Google changing the "Don't Be Evil" corporate motto was the signal that SJWs inside Google reached critical mass, and they're now in a runaway chain reaction that will eventually doom Google in a metaphorical mushroom-cloud of lawsuits, accusations, bad PR, government investigations, protests, etc etc...oh my, the spectacle should be glorious!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have an expression for this situation...

      The inmates are running the asylum.

    2. Re:Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grab the popcorn, it's going to be a fantasic show!

  35. Another day, another extremist white guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do white males like yourself bitch and moan so much?

    You need to find a hobby. Preferably one not involving speaking. Maybe take up video games?

    Or perhaps masturbte more often?

    1. Re: Another day, another extremist white guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #bigot

    2. Re:Another day, another extremist white guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you are both racist and sexist.

      Physician, heal thyself.

  36. Things like these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean, things like these? No, Chevalier was not fired for being too liberal. He was fired for advocating violence. Quotes from the Damore lawsuit file:

    Chevalier: "Getting punched for participating in a white supremacist rally is not opression, it's reasonable social consequences"
    Chevalier: "It's perfectly reasonable to expect a violent response to the expression of hate speech because hate speech is itself violence"

    His views on hiring are highly inappropriate too, but that pales in comparison to justifying punching people.
    Chevalier: "Alternate proposal: moratorium on hiring white cis heterosexual abled men who aren't abuse survivors." (responding to a proposal that Google should not hire directly from university, so that people have experience with the way things are at other companies, to make Googlers appreciate the available infrastructure more and use it more responsibly.)

    1. Re:Things like these? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, for variable values of "advocating". Obviously these quotes are not to be taken literally. Still, if he made them within a work-context, that is pretty bad.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Things like these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're a bit out of touch: Antifa used social media to track down and KO a neo-Nazi | New York Post. Nazis are actually getting punched, fist to face, not rhetorically. This has been going on for a while, so Chevalier undoubtedly made the comments knowing full well he was advocating in favor of actual violence: How to Punch a Nazi, Alt-right leader punched during interview, Swastika-wearer walks amid protesters, gets punched

  37. Goolag Customer Reliability Enginee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw many of his tweets (@fatneckbeardguy) before he went into hiding (locked account). I'd venture to say that he needs to take one of Trump's dementia tests. After he passes these psych tests, we'll know better what kind of people Google employs in the name of diversity! I hope Alex Hidalgo gets the sack too (@SometimesAlex) for emailing James Damore about he would harass and hound him until he was fired (and he didn't care either if he got fired). Funny to note that instead of going in lock-down, Alex just removed all connections to Google on his profile (deleted "Customer Reliability Engineer" - https://twitter.com/KittyLenoir/status/950614265945313281 ). Would appear that the cancer in Google lives in their Customer Reliability Engineer as I counted at least 4 violently vocal members. Shame on google for creating such a toxic work environment. No doubt leaker of thee Damore memo was from that toxic dept.

  38. STFU and work by ruddk · · Score: 0

    Do they get any actual work done?
    Must be a touch workplace for people who just want to focus on working. :D

  39. Taste your own medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol this is some poetic justice at play.

  40. Re:So if you are incompetent and about to get fire by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    What is this girlfriend thing you speak of?

  41. What if? by Evtim · · Score: 1

    What if this is the....uh....guy....girl...whatever that leaked Damore's memo?

    Google surely would love to get rid of such employee...

  42. And the anti-social justice crowd starts chanting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WAHHH we want social justice for James Damore!

  43. Re: wah wah Conservatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good morning, Comrade Wang! How's the air pollution in Beijing today?

  44. Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Valve is quite different, that is due to a flat management structure (no bosses) and wheeled desks.
    Valve changed to episodic gaming to try and avoid crunch time (gabe freaked out over his employees health and overtime). When that didn't work, they completely restructured how the company was run.

    Now, with no management, there's no pressure on deadlines. I have no doubt HL3 is being worked on by 1 or 2 people at a time, but things like hats in TF2 are far more interesting to most devs, or DOTA stuff, etc.

    All of this has been discussed often in interviews with valve multiple staff, and revealed in other ways.

    What they really need to do is outsource games to a third party (like they did with the HL1 expansions) that have management and structure.

  45. So many snowflakes... by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    ...so little time.

  46. Ok, let me see if I've got this by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    So my point is that this clap trap about SJWs is a smoke screen promoted by the Republican party to distract white working class males from the real cause of their economic problems (to wit: Right Wing economic policies that destroy middle class jobs and wages while dividing the working class).

    Your response to that point isn't to attack it on it's merits, but to say that my point is irrelevant because there might be a conspiracy by Google to fund lawsuits against themselves as a false flag operation to discredit further criticism of their diversity policies

    Seriously, read what you wrote and think about the absurdity of it. Also, if you're going to attack my post do it by attacking the content of my post, not by engaging against random attacks on Google. I realize the latter is much, much easier (nobody likes Google right now because everybody hates SJWs), but you're not helping what should be your actual cause (e.g. helping white working class males address the issues confronting them).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  47. COMPANIES DO NOT LIKE LIGHTNING RODS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sole purpose for businesses to exist is to make money and drama interferes with that purpose.

    Just ask Chris Kluwe. He has an opinion on the matter.

  48. Re:So if you are incompetent and about to get fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are incompetent?

    There are two types of employees at Google: cis-het-white-males with mad skills and non-(cis-het-white-male) diversity hires.

    It is just a logical consequence of diversity-focused affirmative action, the only way you could work at Google as a cis-het-white-male is if you had mad skills; otherwise, they would find any excuse to fill your position with a diversity hire.

  49. Re: stupid gateway timeout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Justice for the social justice warrior. Hope in humanity is not yet lost.

  50. I know a dude... by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    "I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude."

    1. Re:I know a dude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her name is Shirley.

  51. This doesn't add up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why Google would fire somebody over promoting the exact kind of cancer that they're infected with. If anything, their work environment is hostile to anybody who doesn't spew inane diversity bullshit. I have a feeling the truth will be radically different than the version of events we've been presented with when it comes out.

  52. I'm having a hard time believing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This doesn't pass the sniff test.

    The cynic in me thinks this is about Google recognizing that it has earned the reputation of an extreme, fundamentalist, intolerant, cult-like organization and is trying to fluff it's image by pretending that it is balanced.

    However, the idea that a company as uni-dimensional as Google would ever turn on a fellow liberal is pretty laughable. That'd be like the NRA waking up one day and claiming they embrace gun control and gay marriage.

    Leopards don't change their spots.

  53. Google's HR Department.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a good example that nobody is good at everything. For all the great stuff being done by Sergey and Larry's people, the nontechnical stuff (such as HR & Youtube Censoring) shows their weak side.