6 ms·

Holding a view that inherently biases them against a whole gender does make them a work liability. How can you trust this person to be fair when - god forbid -

Holding a view that inherently biases them against a whole gender does make them a work liability. How can you trust this person to be fair when - god forbid - they manage people and have to decide who performed better in their mixed-gender group? If anything, by firing him Google might be saving money in future gender-based discrimination lawsuits. On that alone, the "laissez faire capitalists" should stop moaning about this.

ksk 9y ago
>Holding a view that inherently biases them against a whole gender does make them a work liability. That is your own fabrication. Please stick to what was actually said. They simply showed a lack of faith in their companies hiring practices (making sure diversity candidates were not accidentally turned away) being in line with their stated goals (hiring on merit). On principle, its no worse than employees complaining a bunch of new employees "got in easy" through an aqui-hire. If additional evidence was to be unearthed that this person is actually a raging bigot, then sure, bring out the pitchforks. >If anything, by firing him Google might be saving money in future gender-based discrimination lawsuits. On that alone, the "laissez faire capitalists" should stop moaning about this. Indeed, if we're operating on feelings and perception alone, then firing this individual probably makes a lot of sense from a PR standpoint.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > Indeed, if we're operating on feelings and perception alone... If additional evidence was to be unearthed that this person is actually a raging bigot I'm sorry, but trying to bring up physical make up as an explanation of why women may or may not be interested in a subject that was denied to them until very recently is ill-informed at best. It'd be like concluding that "gay people aren't interested in getting married, based on the last 200 years of history until 2015." > Indeed, if we're operating on feelings and perception alone, then firing this individual probably makes a lot of sense from a PR standpoint. It's not PR, it's HR and legal. Nobody is trying to hang him in a public plaza, but there's a pretty solid argument about him being a future liability.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - collyw 9y ago
    how was a subject denied to anyone?
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      Are you kidding me? I'll give you a hint: go back fifteen years, and watch the ads on a single day of TV programming. Then classify who the cleaning and cooking ads are targeted to, and who the ads for high tech widgets are targeted to. Then come back and tell me there's no expected gender behavior.
      - collyw 9y ago
        "may not be interested in a subject that was denied to them until very recently" No TV ad is from 15 years ago was denying anyone anything. They were playing to certain stereotypes, yes, but thats completely different from denying someone a job in tech.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        And you believe the stereotypes were completely unrelated to the roles society assigned to the genders? And that those roles might affect the choices people might make during their lives? It's kind of unbelievable that people who are willing to take a single study that says pre-natal testosterone determines all future behavior at the same time are happy to dismiss hundreds of other studies showing the impact of gender stereotypes.
        collyw 9y ago
        It's still not denying anyone anything.
- lurker69 9y ago
  I think he was smart and planned all of this. I am reading that he has previously complained to NLRB and plans to sue Google for firing him arguing that his dismissal was a revenge. And by reading memo instead of its misinterpretations on feminist blogs it seems like he just pointed out that Google created environment where people who dont agree with current left leaning political correct agenda cant express their opinions safely anymore. And he got fired for exactly this: expressing opinions that are not aligned with SJW dogma. His language was very careful, his claims were sourced. He mentioned multiple times that this controversial points are not his personal opinions but rational explanations, and he was very careful to point out that he doesnt generalize based on this data. I havent find single sentence that could be used on court as proof of misogyny. He is guilty only of opening talking points SJWs and feminists dont want to talk about and use tactic of character assassination to dismiss messenger instead of debating his message. HR was forced to fire him by outrage that many of their vocal left leaning echo chamber activist caused. I am not convinced this was beneficial for google. He will probably won the case for compensation. And from PR perspective? Sure, regressive left, SJWs, hardcore hillary supporters... they will like this move. But conservative publications use this as perfect point to smear Google, accuse them of spreading left propaganda, accuse them of firing conservatives... I am not sure which camp is bigger and which brings more money.
  - generic_user 9y ago
    Given that Republicans control the Presidency, The majority in the Congress and Senate the majority of Governorships and state houses its a safe bet not only are they larger but Conservative media is going to get the biggest wins from this. Its going to motivate and reconfirm to all the deplorable that yes, the Leftist Liberal San Francisco millionaires hate them and will fire and destroy the career of conservatives who dare to challenge the Left narrative. Brendan Eich 2.0.
    - lurker69 9y ago
      Maybe. I have been reading that Bannon wants to start regulating big social media platforms as utilities, to limit their censoring and promoting narrative capabilities. https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-faceb... And I have to say that I agree with him. This platforms became global communication channel. This is not just private company website anymore. So decision to delete peoples accounts and posts cant be given in hands of some biased moderators with personal agenda. What is going on now on twitter and facebook, is comparable to phone company disabling your line because you have been talking naughty things over the phone.
stevenwoo 9y ago
I kind of assumed they had to fire him based on the fact that there is a current federal gender discrimination lawsuit against Google in which Google claims to not discriminate on gender and Google claims to not be able to produce the data to back up this assertion because it would cost too much to produce.
lurker69 9y ago
Have you actually read the memo or only left leaning articles misrepresenting content of it? Google shot themselves in the foot by pandering to SJW style cry bullies. > "$1 million in bonuses" was changed to "$100 million as a compensation" after Damore was "fired" by a Mr Kunda Píča whom I have never heard of; Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters. Source: http://motls.blogspot.si/2017/08/james-damore-deserves-1-million-in.html http://motls.blogspot.si/2017/08/james-damore-deserves-1-mil...

ksk 9y ago

>Holding a view that inherently biases them against a whole gender does make them a work liability. That is your own fabrication. Please stick to what was actually said. They simply showed a lack of faith in their companies hiring practices (making sure diversity candidates were not accidentally turned away) being in line with their stated goals (hiring on merit). On principle, its no worse than employees complaining a bunch of new employees "got in easy" through an aqui-hire. If additional evidence was to be unearthed that this person is actually a raging bigot, then sure, bring out the pitchforks. >If anything, by firing him Google might be saving money in future gender-based discrimination lawsuits. On that alone, the "laissez faire capitalists" should stop moaning about this. Indeed, if we're operating on feelings and perception alone, then firing this individual probably makes a lot of sense from a PR standpoint.

dguaraglia 9y ago
> Indeed, if we're operating on feelings and perception alone... If additional evidence was to be unearthed that this person is actually a raging bigot I'm sorry, but trying to bring up physical make up as an explanation of why women may or may not be interested in a subject that was denied to them until very recently is ill-informed at best. It'd be like concluding that "gay people aren't interested in getting married, based on the last 200 years of history until 2015." > Indeed, if we're operating on feelings and perception alone, then firing this individual probably makes a lot of sense from a PR standpoint. It's not PR, it's HR and legal. Nobody is trying to hang him in a public plaza, but there's a pretty solid argument about him being a future liability.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- collyw 9y ago
  how was a subject denied to anyone?
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    Are you kidding me? I'll give you a hint: go back fifteen years, and watch the ads on a single day of TV programming. Then classify who the cleaning and cooking ads are targeted to, and who the ads for high tech widgets are targeted to. Then come back and tell me there's no expected gender behavior.
    - collyw 9y ago
      "may not be interested in a subject that was denied to them until very recently" No TV ad is from 15 years ago was denying anyone anything. They were playing to certain stereotypes, yes, but thats completely different from denying someone a job in tech.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        And you believe the stereotypes were completely unrelated to the roles society assigned to the genders? And that those roles might affect the choices people might make during their lives? It's kind of unbelievable that people who are willing to take a single study that says pre-natal testosterone determines all future behavior at the same time are happy to dismiss hundreds of other studies showing the impact of gender stereotypes.
        collyw 9y ago
        It's still not denying anyone anything.
lurker69 9y ago
I think he was smart and planned all of this. I am reading that he has previously complained to NLRB and plans to sue Google for firing him arguing that his dismissal was a revenge. And by reading memo instead of its misinterpretations on feminist blogs it seems like he just pointed out that Google created environment where people who dont agree with current left leaning political correct agenda cant express their opinions safely anymore. And he got fired for exactly this: expressing opinions that are not aligned with SJW dogma. His language was very careful, his claims were sourced. He mentioned multiple times that this controversial points are not his personal opinions but rational explanations, and he was very careful to point out that he doesnt generalize based on this data. I havent find single sentence that could be used on court as proof of misogyny. He is guilty only of opening talking points SJWs and feminists dont want to talk about and use tactic of character assassination to dismiss messenger instead of debating his message. HR was forced to fire him by outrage that many of their vocal left leaning echo chamber activist caused. I am not convinced this was beneficial for google. He will probably won the case for compensation. And from PR perspective? Sure, regressive left, SJWs, hardcore hillary supporters... they will like this move. But conservative publications use this as perfect point to smear Google, accuse them of spreading left propaganda, accuse them of firing conservatives... I am not sure which camp is bigger and which brings more money.
- generic_user 9y ago
  Given that Republicans control the Presidency, The majority in the Congress and Senate the majority of Governorships and state houses its a safe bet not only are they larger but Conservative media is going to get the biggest wins from this. Its going to motivate and reconfirm to all the deplorable that yes, the Leftist Liberal San Francisco millionaires hate them and will fire and destroy the career of conservatives who dare to challenge the Left narrative. Brendan Eich 2.0.
  - lurker69 9y ago
    Maybe. I have been reading that Bannon wants to start regulating big social media platforms as utilities, to limit their censoring and promoting narrative capabilities. https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-faceb... And I have to say that I agree with him. This platforms became global communication channel. This is not just private company website anymore. So decision to delete peoples accounts and posts cant be given in hands of some biased moderators with personal agenda. What is going on now on twitter and facebook, is comparable to phone company disabling your line because you have been talking naughty things over the phone.

stevenwoo 9y ago

I kind of assumed they had to fire him based on the fact that there is a current federal gender discrimination lawsuit against Google in which Google claims to not discriminate on gender and Google claims to not be able to produce the data to back up this assertion because it would cost too much to produce.

lurker69 9y ago

Have you actually read the memo or only left leaning articles misrepresenting content of it? Google shot themselves in the foot by pandering to SJW style cry bullies. > "$1 million in bonuses" was changed to "$100 million as a compensation" after Damore was "fired" by a Mr Kunda Píča whom I have never heard of; Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters. Source: http://motls.blogspot.si/2017/08/james-damore-deserves-1-million-in.html http://motls.blogspot.si/2017/08/james-damore-deserves-1-mil...