4 ms·

California is an at-will state. They won't be able to fire you for participating on a Trump rally or donating to Hillary Clinton, but sure as hell they can fire

California is an at-will state. They won't be able to fire you for participating on a Trump rally or donating to Hillary Clinton, but sure as hell they can fire you for creating a hostile workplace, which is what this guy did.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Unless he can convince a judge that "creating a hostile workplace" is a euphemism for "having a political view management disagrees with". Which might be easy. After all, he just alleged the Google workplace is clearly hostile to conservatives ... and they fired him for it. The argument that he was creating a hostile workplace is very weak. The argument that Pichai is, is very strong.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Right. The reason why this created a massive controversy was because he didn't do anything to stir up controversy. I get it, you really want to give this guy a pass because you agree with him, but reality doesn't agree with you.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    "Controversy" is the easiest thing in the world to abuse. Anyone who doesn't like an opinion on anything can say it's "controversial" and therefore shouldn't be spoken about it in case it upsets people. Mature organisations and cultures can tackle controversial topics. Google used to be able to do that too. It obviously cannot anymore.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      > Mature organisations and cultures can tackle controversial topics. Google used to be able to do that too. It obviously cannot anymore. You do realize that it wasn't the controversy that landed this guy in hot water, but rather the veiled attempt at using pseudo-science to create a conspiracy theory about Google discriminating against males, right?
      - peoplewindow 9y ago
        The scientists who wrote the papers he cited said he got it right, and it wasn't pseudo-science at all. And there's no conspiracy theory: the things he talked about have happened. The way in which you describe actual science as pseudo-science because you don't like the conclusions is very scary, by the way.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        The scientists that wrote the papers were concerned with a single field of science. There's a whole societal context that's not considered, and that is what makes his position pseudo-science: just like phrenology, finding correlation and assuming causation is just bad science. > The way in which you describe actual science as pseudo-science because you don't like the conclusions is very scary, by the way. The way you describe cherry-picked papers on a single field of science as definite proof of your world view is really scary too. How low will you lower your bar to explain the world in terms you like?
        peoplewindow 9y ago
        Look, I'm not a huge fan of social science or psychology myself, but that's because they have trouble reproducing things. The scientists he cited and who wrote in support of him are social scientists and psychologists. They are discussing reproducible results. Are you saying that no psychological finding, no matter how reproducible, can ever be used if it's related to gender? If you have hard scientific evidence with scientists willing to go on the record and say, no, in fact, there are no innate differences between the preferences of men and women, it's all just lies and in fact girls love computers when they are children just as much as boys and here's why the other studies are all flawed ... sure. Show them to us. As it is, you look like someone who is scrabbling around for an excuse to ignore perfectly valid scientific debating by disclaiming entire fields as "pseudo science" and "cherry picked". Please debate properly - make real rebuttals with evidence.
        dguaraglia 9y ago

peoplewindow 9y ago

Unless he can convince a judge that "creating a hostile workplace" is a euphemism for "having a political view management disagrees with". Which might be easy. After all, he just alleged the Google workplace is clearly hostile to conservatives ... and they fired him for it. The argument that he was creating a hostile workplace is very weak. The argument that Pichai is, is very strong.

dguaraglia 9y ago
Right. The reason why this created a massive controversy was because he didn't do anything to stir up controversy. I get it, you really want to give this guy a pass because you agree with him, but reality doesn't agree with you.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  "Controversy" is the easiest thing in the world to abuse. Anyone who doesn't like an opinion on anything can say it's "controversial" and therefore shouldn't be spoken about it in case it upsets people. Mature organisations and cultures can tackle controversial topics. Google used to be able to do that too. It obviously cannot anymore.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > Mature organisations and cultures can tackle controversial topics. Google used to be able to do that too. It obviously cannot anymore. You do realize that it wasn't the controversy that landed this guy in hot water, but rather the veiled attempt at using pseudo-science to create a conspiracy theory about Google discriminating against males, right?
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      The scientists who wrote the papers he cited said he got it right, and it wasn't pseudo-science at all. And there's no conspiracy theory: the things he talked about have happened. The way in which you describe actual science as pseudo-science because you don't like the conclusions is very scary, by the way.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        The scientists that wrote the papers were concerned with a single field of science. There's a whole societal context that's not considered, and that is what makes his position pseudo-science: just like phrenology, finding correlation and assuming causation is just bad science. > The way in which you describe actual science as pseudo-science because you don't like the conclusions is very scary, by the way. The way you describe cherry-picked papers on a single field of science as definite proof of your world view is really scary too. How low will you lower your bar to explain the world in terms you like?
        peoplewindow 9y ago
        Look, I'm not a huge fan of social science or psychology myself, but that's because they have trouble reproducing things. The scientists he cited and who wrote in support of him are social scientists and psychologists. They are discussing reproducible results. Are you saying that no psychological finding, no matter how reproducible, can ever be used if it's related to gender? If you have hard scientific evidence with scientists willing to go on the record and say, no, in fact, there are no innate differences between the preferences of men and women, it's all just lies and in fact girls love computers when they are children just as much as boys and here's why the other studies are all flawed ... sure. Show them to us. As it is, you look like someone who is scrabbling around for an excuse to ignore perfectly valid scientific debating by disclaiming entire fields as "pseudo science" and "cherry picked". Please debate properly - make real rebuttals with evidence.
        dguaraglia 9y ago