Someone living somewhere that UK libel laws don't apply might think that this could be paraphrased as, "Stop! You're demanding the company is run properly! We'll lose all our money if the company has to obey the law and not have a toxic working environment!"
Personally, living in the UK, I merely think that this is a cynical attempt to avoid the share price plummeting to its more natural level.
Not really. Truth may make you right, but that doesn't make you popular. Companies react against things that make them unpopular.
Two, he IS a biologist.
No. He was a biologist. He became an engineer. His job was not exploring biological differences and that made them a topic 'likely to get you fired' anywhere.
It then goes on the point out that mandating impossible quotas, discriminatory (and possibly illegal) hiring practices, and fostering an environment where people are afraid to speak their minds and contribute might not be the best way to achieve diversity of any stripe.
He would probably still have a job if that was all he'd done. Well, maybe offering the options on how to encourage diversity without repeating those mistakes too.
here are some biological and social reasons why.
That was the mistake. Whether he's right or wrong (and I haven't read the science, so I don't know) that's what crosses the line between 'acceptable to discuss at work' and 'likely to get you fired'.
Unless you're a biologist or doing a PhD in Sociology. Although frankly, even then if you're challenging certain current religions.
I think they have to walk a very fine line here - they also want to cultivate an image of having an open-minded and friendly culture, where you can discuss things openly, and they don't seem to have quite figured out how to encourage that, while at the same time setting a firm standard for what is acceptable.
I think they're in a very very difficult place here. Sadly it's self-imposed, as the memo states that they've implemented racist and sexist policies, and they've sacked the person that's tried to suggest more inclusive alternatives.
At this stage it's damage limitation for them, reduced options when recruiting (as many engineers will avoid joining a company that they know will discriminate against them) and over a period of a couple of years probably returning to business as usual.
I'm hoping that the rest of the industry learns from this and avoids the same initial mistakes that led to this situation, which - polemic or otherwise - did have clear roots in suppressing dissent against corporate polices perceived to be unfair and biased.
It works that way in large businesses too. People running these businesses do care about their staff, because employees are often one of the highest costs and happy staff are productive.
If something is upsetting large groups and there is constructive action that will help address this most senior managers will be delighted to hear ideas and help improve the situation.
There are various official channels to allow these conversations and a few unofficial ones. I've used them myself, including feedback to the CEO that I know he's received, even though he's never even heard of me.
I've never published a manifesto of the nature discussed in this article but I have contributed to the diversity conversations at my current employer. I've actually thanked them for taking a very inclusive and mature approach to it, and focussing on improving working conditions for everybody. That the things being changed adversely impact women more than men is explicitly acknowledged and driving many of the changes, but all employees will benefit.
You make no sense. 1 - you're assuming that's how minorities were ever treated at Google. 2 - you're assuming that non-minorities never defended minorities when poor behaviour occurred 3 - you just stated that non-minorities are cowards for standing up to the threat of violence, because minorities stood up to it 4 - you're suggesting that poor behaviour to one group justifies poor behaviour to another 5 - you're suggesting that a population group should accept poor behaviour based on their sex and/or race
They tried to create a forum to discuss things, but people said they were scared to participate because they feared being identified
Yeah, but it's not the ones disagreeing with him that were scared. Shit, some of them used their disagreement to get themselves a bonus day off earlier this week.
Looking at how anyone not agreeing with this guy on Slashdot gets hammered down with -1 mods, it seems they have a point.
Looking at how anyone agreeing with this guy on 90% of the media sites out there gets hammered down with abuse and threats, it seems they do indeed have a fucking point.
Meanwhile the sheer number of your posts that I see suggest that people disagreeing with him on Slashdot are in fact not getting modded to oblivion at all. I don't browse at -1, but I do find I need to reply to you a little too much because we clearly disagree strongly on this. I like to think I'm the rational one though, with this post and the one to which it replies as the obvious evidence.
Be less hyperbolic and maybe you'll get more support. That's how Slashdot works.
The problem with the Red Pill and the people who interviews in it is that they don't have the solutions. They have ideologies that the film doesn't challenge, instead just letting them make their case with minimal criticism or counter points.
Have you any idea how fucking rare it is for those cases to be heard without being shouted down, disrupted by fire alarms, disallowed due to threats of violence?
Maybe if people would fucking acknowledge that
men are undervalued by society and have many genuine issues
then attention could switch to finding solutions. Right now every fucking law going through that has any gender variance in it is pro-women and anti-men. Every fucking law.
feminism is the solution to these problems
Feminism is a stupid term to use, it has multiple interpretations and can not be objectively defined. People identifying as feminists were the very fucking people inciting (or committing) violence on the people interviewed in The Red Pill.
Rather than being resentful or jealous of the freedoms and rights that women have, they should be looking for the same kind of liberation from traditional male roles.
Traditional male roles? Like dying for your country? Oh, that's right - feminists took legal action to prevent Selective Service being imposed on women. Like suffering domestic violence in silence? Oh, that's right, feminists shouted down the only fucking MP that asked for gender neutral domestic violence legislation during the debates in parliament last year. Like paying for someone else to raise children they can't even see? Oh, wait, the Government imposed legislation that incentivises women to lie about their partners in order to get the legal assistance required to retain custody, resulting in even fewer men being able to raise their own children.
finding workable solutions that have been tried and proven
Men are finding workable solutions too. Like refusing to have children, refusing to get married, and laughing in the face of the women asking, "Where are all the good men?"
Thing is, is he wrong? I don't know, I just know that nobody seems to be interested in finding out.
They'd rather demand that he's crucified and burned, even though he was actually suggesting environmental changes that would make the company a nicer place to work.
Fucking demon, isn't he, wanting a nice place to work.
Unfortunately Google's corporate policy appears to be that non-whites are indeed inferior, as the company apparently offers "Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race" suggesting that they need extra assistance to compete on an even footing.
Strangely I don't see Google's management being fired for their sexist racist policies.
I suspect it depends entirely on whether you live alone or not:)
However, I can't see my kitchen and my large TV at the same time, I can work out of sight from either. Even open plan offices tend to have ways to segment parts of the room, and living spaces do benefit from that.
By avoiding actual walls though a relatively small house feels far more spacious.
I want a big barn of a house with a three storey high ceiling, so that I can use an internal balcony for my bed, stick the kitchen under it and use the rest of the room for mixed social/work/entertainment purposes. Not there yet..:(
Some "snowflakes", like this guy, decide that fighting the meta-political bullshit battles that happen at every company is more important than doing the work he was hired to do
Professional ethics oblige him to draw attention to processes and activities that will damage the company and its stakeholders, particular shareholders, customers and staff.
He very clearly believed that Google's practices were damaging their staff and shareholder outcomes, and identified some changes in approach that might lead to a stronger company.
Whether you agree with how he wrote it up or not, I think he's very correct to raise those concerns and I respect that he offered options instead of merely bitching about things.
Yes, making men wear a suit and tie then lowering the temperature to stop them permanently sweating is sexist against women that want bare shoulders and refuse to put on a fucking cardigan.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I did not. Read more carefully.
Someone living somewhere that UK libel laws don't apply might think that this could be paraphrased as, "Stop! You're demanding the company is run properly! We'll lose all our money if the company has to obey the law and not have a toxic working environment!"
Personally, living in the UK, I merely think that this is a cynical attempt to avoid the share price plummeting to its more natural level.
Technically it didn't look like that at all. You'd have stopped the download at
twitter facebook linkedin Share on Google+
and gone to another page/website instead. Why waste bandwidth on the rest.
Shrinking to the size of the favicons is much more preferable than having to scroll back and forth.
Which of the 17 wiki pages I have open is the one I want? They all have the same favicon.
Oh, wait.. I use a browser that tells me the tab's page title too. Thank fuck you didn't have a hand in designing it.
Computer scientists? Power Users??
Shit, you made me laugh there. Until I stopped to ponder whether you're serious.
Being unable to get laid and fantasizing about sticking it to women isn't really a workable solution.
The PUA community would laugh at you, if they cared enough to bother.
One. Truth as an absolute defense.
Not really. Truth may make you right, but that doesn't make you popular. Companies react against things that make them unpopular.
Two, he IS a biologist.
No. He was a biologist. He became an engineer. His job was not exploring biological differences and that made them a topic 'likely to get you fired' anywhere.
Well, popular slashdot topics include
- gender issues (every Friday)
- science (even biology)
- Google
- technology companies
- current tech news
- evil corporate behaviour
- shit happening in silicon valley
Something that ticks all those boxes was never going to get by with just a quick AC comment on another story
It then goes on the point out that mandating impossible quotas, discriminatory (and possibly illegal) hiring practices, and fostering an environment where people are afraid to speak their minds and contribute might not be the best way to achieve diversity of any stripe.
He would probably still have a job if that was all he'd done. Well, maybe offering the options on how to encourage diversity without repeating those mistakes too.
here are some biological and social reasons why.
That was the mistake. Whether he's right or wrong (and I haven't read the science, so I don't know) that's what crosses the line between 'acceptable to discuss at work' and 'likely to get you fired'.
Unless you're a biologist or doing a PhD in Sociology. Although frankly, even then if you're challenging certain current religions.
Erm, no. Almost precisely and exactly the opposite.
We found that women made better fighter pilots than men did (who do you think fly those A-10 Warthogs?)
That 'A' in A-10. That should be a bit of a clue. The A-10 Warthog is not a fighter.
Different skillsets.
That was very nicely done. Using Damore's logic to explore why he may have been in a minority.. Masterful.
(not sarcastic; I appreciate it can be hard to tell in a post like this)
I think they have to walk a very fine line here - they also want to cultivate an image of having an open-minded and friendly culture, where you can discuss things openly, and they don't seem to have quite figured out how to encourage that, while at the same time setting a firm standard for what is acceptable.
I think they're in a very very difficult place here. Sadly it's self-imposed, as the memo states that they've implemented racist and sexist policies, and they've sacked the person that's tried to suggest more inclusive alternatives.
At this stage it's damage limitation for them, reduced options when recruiting (as many engineers will avoid joining a company that they know will discriminate against them) and over a period of a couple of years probably returning to business as usual.
I'm hoping that the rest of the industry learns from this and avoids the same initial mistakes that led to this situation, which - polemic or otherwise - did have clear roots in suppressing dissent against corporate polices perceived to be unfair and biased.
It works that way in large businesses too. People running these businesses do care about their staff, because employees are often one of the highest costs and happy staff are productive.
If something is upsetting large groups and there is constructive action that will help address this most senior managers will be delighted to hear ideas and help improve the situation.
There are various official channels to allow these conversations and a few unofficial ones. I've used them myself, including feedback to the CEO that I know he's received, even though he's never even heard of me.
I've never published a manifesto of the nature discussed in this article but I have contributed to the diversity conversations at my current employer. I've actually thanked them for taking a very inclusive and mature approach to it, and focussing on improving working conditions for everybody. That the things being changed adversely impact women more than men is explicitly acknowledged and driving many of the changes, but all employees will benefit.
Strange that Google can't do this too.
You make no sense.
1 - you're assuming that's how minorities were ever treated at Google.
2 - you're assuming that non-minorities never defended minorities when poor behaviour occurred
3 - you just stated that non-minorities are cowards for standing up to the threat of violence, because minorities stood up to it
4 - you're suggesting that poor behaviour to one group justifies poor behaviour to another
5 - you're suggesting that a population group should accept poor behaviour based on their sex and/or race
So you're incoherent, idiotic, racist and sexist.
They tried to create a forum to discuss things, but people said they were scared to participate because they feared being identified
Yeah, but it's not the ones disagreeing with him that were scared. Shit, some of them used their disagreement to get themselves a bonus day off earlier this week.
Looking at how anyone not agreeing with this guy on Slashdot gets hammered down with -1 mods, it seems they have a point.
Looking at how anyone agreeing with this guy on 90% of the media sites out there gets hammered down with abuse and threats, it seems they do indeed have a fucking point.
Meanwhile the sheer number of your posts that I see suggest that people disagreeing with him on Slashdot are in fact not getting modded to oblivion at all. I don't browse at -1, but I do find I need to reply to you a little too much because we clearly disagree strongly on this. I like to think I'm the rational one though, with this post and the one to which it replies as the obvious evidence.
Be less hyperbolic and maybe you'll get more support. That's how Slashdot works.
The problem with the Red Pill and the people who interviews in it is that they don't have the solutions. They have ideologies that the film doesn't challenge, instead just letting them make their case with minimal criticism or counter points.
Have you any idea how fucking rare it is for those cases to be heard without being shouted down, disrupted by fire alarms, disallowed due to threats of violence?
Maybe if people would fucking acknowledge that
men are undervalued by society and have many genuine issues
then attention could switch to finding solutions. Right now every fucking law going through that has any gender variance in it is pro-women and anti-men. Every fucking law.
feminism is the solution to these problems
Feminism is a stupid term to use, it has multiple interpretations and can not be objectively defined. People identifying as feminists were the very fucking people inciting (or committing) violence on the people interviewed in The Red Pill.
Rather than being resentful or jealous of the freedoms and rights that women have, they should be looking for the same kind of liberation from traditional male roles.
Traditional male roles? Like dying for your country? Oh, that's right - feminists took legal action to prevent Selective Service being imposed on women.
Like suffering domestic violence in silence? Oh, that's right, feminists shouted down the only fucking MP that asked for gender neutral domestic violence legislation during the debates in parliament last year.
Like paying for someone else to raise children they can't even see? Oh, wait, the Government imposed legislation that incentivises women to lie about their partners in order to get the legal assistance required to retain custody, resulting in even fewer men being able to raise their own children.
finding workable solutions that have been tried and proven
Men are finding workable solutions too. Like refusing to have children, refusing to get married, and laughing in the face of the women asking, "Where are all the good men?"
Thing is, is he wrong? I don't know, I just know that nobody seems to be interested in finding out.
They'd rather demand that he's crucified and burned, even though he was actually suggesting environmental changes that would make the company a nicer place to work.
Fucking demon, isn't he, wanting a nice place to work.
Are you saying it's literally impossible to discuss these things in a reasonable manner? That's a depressing thought.
Turns out that at Google, that is very much the case. Someone tried and got not only sacked but also demonised by large swathes of the media.
Unfortunately Google's corporate policy appears to be that non-whites are indeed inferior, as the company apparently offers "Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race" suggesting that they need extra assistance to compete on an even footing.
Strangely I don't see Google's management being fired for their sexist racist policies.
I suspect it depends entirely on whether you live alone or not :)
However, I can't see my kitchen and my large TV at the same time, I can work out of sight from either. Even open plan offices tend to have ways to segment parts of the room, and living spaces do benefit from that.
By avoiding actual walls though a relatively small house feels far more spacious.
I want a big barn of a house with a three storey high ceiling, so that I can use an internal balcony for my bed, stick the kitchen under it and use the rest of the room for mixed social/work/entertainment purposes. Not there yet.. :(
But we are guaranteed equal opportunity under the constitution. Equal opportunity is not conditional on biology or "suited for" conclusions.
Except, according to Damore, at Google.
You cannot expect to use biology as your shield for supporting inequality without expecting a severe backlash
So why do Google??
Some "snowflakes", like this guy, decide that fighting the meta-political bullshit battles that happen at every company is more important than doing the work he was hired to do
Professional ethics oblige him to draw attention to processes and activities that will damage the company and its stakeholders, particular shareholders, customers and staff.
He very clearly believed that Google's practices were damaging their staff and shareholder outcomes, and identified some changes in approach that might lead to a stronger company.
Whether you agree with how he wrote it up or not, I think he's very correct to raise those concerns and I respect that he offered options instead of merely bitching about things.
While meeting the work delivery commitments he made, I could easily find somewhere affordable to live even on $36k/year before tax.
I could also meet those work commitments while taking a second job that pays a six figure sum, so really it's just a bonus $3k/month.
Clearly you missed the memo : Air conditioning is sexist.
https://www.theguardian.com/mo...
Yes, making men wear a suit and tie then lowering the temperature to stop them permanently sweating is sexist against women that want bare shoulders and refuse to put on a fucking cardigan.