19 ms·

What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highl

What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian. Not the Tweeters shaking with anger and demanding for him to get fired. Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand. Not the diversity officer reaffirming the commitment to diversity in a dystopian way. It is scary, it really is. We have all grown up learning about regimes like this, we are all aware, yet seemingly nobody can help themselves.

int_19h 9y ago
> Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand. Could you give a link to that rant?
- tylersmith 9y ago
  https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
  - paapi__gudiya 9y ago
    This whole episode has been so disgusting and shows how regressive and authoritarian the mainstream tech community is. People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view? If you can resort to violence against someone and get away with it, you're the oppressor in the society, not the oppressed. Sundar, Yonatan and their likes are so privileged and delusional. These people have no issue with a war-criminal like Kissinger being invited to talk at Google but have such serious issues with a software engineer writing his views.
    - amyjess 9y ago
      As a woman, I could not work with an outspoken misogynist. As a lesbian, I could not work with an outspoken homophobe. As a Jew, I could not work with an outspoken antisemite. Forcing minorities and women to work with people who are bigoted against them is a recipe for a lawsuit.
      - macspoofing 9y ago
        This guy isn't a racist or a misogynist. A better example is an atheist working with an evangelical. Both the atheist and the evangelical will have very strong opinions on each others' belief systems.
        rbanffy 9y ago
        Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in his profession because their biology makes the inherently less interested in it?
        stagbeetle 9y ago
        This is a false equivalency. A better statement would be: "Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in church organizations because their beliefs makes the inherently less interested in it?" The answer would be yes. But it's not a good example.
        rbanffy 9y ago
        Is your argument that software engineering is a religion women don't believe in?
        stagbeetle 9y ago
        My argument is that one's religious beliefs dictate what sort of organizations one will be a part of, just the same a person's physiological makeup will dictate his profession of choice.
- ambulancechaser 9y ago
  > And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment. https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    I'm not seeing the bit about where he says he'd understand about the people punching him in the face? In fact, he's saying that he wouldn't assign people to work with him for fear of that - which I would take to mean he disagrees with the action.
    - notdonspaulding 9y ago
      He's saying that he would keep those of his employees who, when presented with a viewpoint which they consider offensive, would punch their coworkers in the face from having to be in any kind of a working relationship with someone because of the viewpoints which they hold. He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        > He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers. That is wholly unsupported by any reading of his sentence. He literally says he would avoid creating a situation where even the possibility of someone punching him in the face might happen. If he was siding with the face-punchers, why would he avoid that situation?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dcole2929 9y ago
  That's a mischaracterization of his argument. Essentially the author argues that right or wrong the manifesto is especially polarizing and the engineer has essentially made it very difficult for him to work with anyone else at Google moving forward. Zunger in no way states that he condones, or suggests the action of punching the manifesto guy in the face, he just outlines it as a possible reaction, of releasing a company wide manifesto, which could uncharitably be interpreted to call into question the merits of female and other minority engineers.
  - notdonspaulding 9y ago
    Yes, we wouldn't want to mischaracterize what the main thrust of someone's message is by putting up a straw man argument and then criticizing them for it. /s Zunger's response makes it clear that the promulgation of ideas in the memo are unacceptable, but is strangely silent on judging the actions of the hypothetical face-puncher. And as we now know from Google, taking no action is tantamount to endorsing the opinions of those under you.
- JSONwebtoken 9y ago
  It's funny that I read past this line without even thinking about how unusual it is that it needs a source. I've read so many blogposts and tweets about how it's justifiable to punch people in the face over specific disagreements that I'm completely desensitized to the hilarious image of grown, educated adults lashing out just because they're losing an argument. It seems like every time I make a politically controversial post on Reddit and increasingly HN, I can just CTRL-F my comment inbox and assure myself that there's some reference to punching in there.
  - TheTruestKyle 9y ago
    As a person who has been held at gunpoint, threatened to be stabbed, and punched in the face while growing up in a hostile environment, this is hilarious to me. Odds are, these people have never been in physical conflict before and let me tell you, you don't know how you will react until it happens or as Mike Tyson puts it, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Having a black belt in martial arts helped calm those nerves of threatening fights with people you don't know. People please be careful. What I have seen growing up, I am now seeing on the internet. Sometimes you run into the wrong person and it might not end well...
kajecounterhack 9y ago
No, what the whole episode really seems to show is how prejudice that hurts people is viewed as "just words" rather than a tangible / real hurtful thing. You can't curse off your boss. You can't demean people of other genders and races at work. You can't create a hostile workplace environment and expect nothing to happen to you. You can try to cloak it in a longform "civil" or "facts-based" document but ultimately what this man wrote was sexist lies a.k.a a steaming pile of shit. FWIW I don't give flat earthers the time of day or try to humor them as being scientific either. You have to go back to arguing the basic laws of kinematics with them. Sexists are one of the same.
- naturalgradient 9y ago
  This is authoritarian logic. A threat is never just an opinion in authoritarian thinking. It's outside of what constitutes an opinion, it's outside the system. Hence, for the greater good, it must be not just be rejected, it must be destroyed as a moral necessity. If you go down this road, there is only one destination. I can sympathise with your view point. Of course I can. That is my whole point. It takes incredibly mental expenditure to not follow that style of thinking.
  - kajecounterhack 9y ago
    No, it's "treat others the way you want to be treated" logic. A.k.a basic human fucking decency You're misinterpreting freedom here. It's not authoritarian to have rules. The existence of rules and enforcement != authoritarian. If trump makes all the rules absent of the peoples' will, that's authoritarian. If society agrees that you're a net negative and makes a choice to ostracize you, that's the level of freedom we have under democracy. The golden rule isn't a high bar.
  - rifung 9y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your point so please correct me if I misunderstand, but the person wasn't fired for having a different opinion. He was fired for saying things which were deeply hurtful for a large number of employees.
ebola1717 9y ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 https://mobile.twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
- enimodas 9y ago
  i don't get it. Can you explain?
kevinburke 9y ago
A right to free speech doesn't mean you are also free from any consequences for that speech.. ? The Constitution allows you to say whatever you want but your employer's also free to fire you for saying it. As an example, if you say racist things to a customer, your employer should be able to fire you. I have heard people say he should get fired, but I haven't heard anyone saying he should be "expelled from society" or "forever vilified as an outcast."
- influx 9y ago
  Curious if you feel Colin Kaepernick should have been fired and blacklisted for supporting Black Lives Matter? After all, it was only a consequence of free speech from his employers.
  - Mikeb85 9y ago
    He wasn't fired or blacklisted for supporting BLM. His contract ran out and no one wants him because of his terrible performance of late. If it weren't for his political views no one would even be talking about him.
  - sushisource 9y ago
    "Feel he should have been fired" and "Wouldn't throw a fit if he was fired" are different things. Do I think this guy should have been fired? I dunno. Not sure. I need more context. Am I upset he was fired? No. That's Google's choice, regardless of how good a choice it is or isn't.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > Do I think this guy should have been fired? It betrayed a spectacular lack of common sense and judgement for someone in a senior[1] role - which is exactly where you'd want those in spades. Also made his working position untenable since a senior role is going to need to get along and interact with many people. Also, also, his utter disregard for evidence and inability to make logical arguments would give me great pause as to his usefulness as a senior engineer. I'd have fired him first for being an idiot, second for his bullshit "scientism", and third having reprehensible views. [1] Disclaimer: I don't know if "senior" within Google is the same as "VP" in banks, ie just a defacto title you get after a while rather than a mark of actual competency.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gobugat 9y ago
> "for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast" Lol. He is fine. He got fired from one job, will find another one. What you describe however does sound like the price people usually pay for not being white males. So common we don't even think about it any more.
kafkaesq 9y ago
I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast ... Maybe some people are calling for stuff like that. But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here."
- nxsynonym 9y ago
  That's kind of the point though. Google is one of, if not the, biggest player in terms of information served over the internet. If they are willing to censor at this level, how far will they go to protect their public image and suppress discussion they don't agree with?
  - runako 9y ago
    > suppress discussion they don't agree with Worth noting: he could post this publicly on Google+, Blogspot, or any other Google platform. It's only his paycheck that's being suppressed, his views are not.
    - JSONwebtoken 9y ago
      I doubt it. The women threatening to quit over twitter would still do the same thing if a social media post attached to his name and job went viral. Make no mistake, it's his views that he was fired over, not the medium in which he shared them. Google made no indication otherwise.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - bilbo0s 9y ago
    But Google isn't really "censor"-ing anyone. Any more than I "censor" you if you come on to my property and refer to my daughter as the "c"-word. I mean... you can call my daughter whatever you like, I just don't allow you to do it in my house. That's not really censorship no matter how big the house is, that's just something that people should expect to happen. In fact... I think people should find it more strange if my daughter and I did NOT put you out of our house. You can still call her whatever you like outside of our home. You're still free to do that.
slg 9y ago
I would argue it is the opposite of authoritarian, it is mob rule. No one person or centralized authority deemed this person's actions as unacceptable. It was the majority of the community as a whole that deemed his actions as unacceptable. That is certainly a scary thing to see in action, but I think it is a different thing entirely than an authoritarian regime.
- amyjess 9y ago
  I call that society's natural immune system.
  - slg 9y ago
    I like that analogy. The immune system is generally good, but it can do a lot of damage if any number of things go wrong. In the grand scheme of things, being intolerant towards intolerance is certainly on the positive side, but it is still scary seeing the vitriol directed towards whoever is the current target of our internet hate.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      > but it can do a lot of damage if any number of things go wrong. You can argue the current anti-intellectual attitude of a large part of the population is a immune reaction to the political power intellectuals had when their opinion was sought by politicians. You can also argue white supremacism is an immune reaction to what some white populations incorrectly perceive as a threat to their historic prosperity.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    If that's society's natural immune system, then my non-medical-professional opinion is that society has lupus.
  - amazingman 9y ago
    I am fond of the immune system analogy, myself, when it comes to putting environmental (i.e. social) pressure on bad ideas in real time. Like anything else, however, striking the right balance and behaving ethically are vital companions to the application of this pressure. There was no balance here, and the vitriolic mob response was full of unethical behavior. I’m usually at least somewhat amenable to the “but the bad actors are mostly just the outliers” position, as well. In most cases, that’s true. Again, however, not here. Anyone who read the manifesto and the “response” post by Zunger while practicing even a nominal amount of epistemological integrity would have immediately recognized that Zunger’s post was wildly dishonest, did not deal directly with the content of the post at all, and apparently even thought that fantasizing violence against the manifesto author was an acceptable way to respond. It wasn’t. I was and remain extremely disappointed in Bay Area tech culture right now. This “manifesto” —a ridiculous and politically expedient moniker— was a crucial opportunity to have a culture-wide teaching moment and we blew it spectacularly. We could have had a nuanced, intelligent discussion about an extremely personal and difficult topic while also demonstrating to Mr. Damont why his application of the very real, widely accepted science he cited was wrong-headed and possibly even oppressive[1]. But no. We didn’t want to acknowledge the facts at all, and our aversion to doing so was so strong that a witch-hunt was executed instead. Meanwhile, we still seem largely oblivious that we made Mr. Damont’s broader point for him. And for the alt-right. They’re having a field day with this, and it’s all the more infuriating because they’re not wrong this time. [1] e.g. https://contemporarysex.tumblr.com/post/163876071377/doing-anti-diversity-wrong https://contemporarysex.tumblr.com/post/163876071377/doing-a...
amyjess 9y ago
If I were to tell multiple co-workers to their face that they are inferior to me, I would be fired. This guy told a very large amount of his co-workers that they're inferior to him, and he posted it all over the Internet for everyone to see. You'd be hard pressed to find a company where leveling personal attacks against your co-workers isn't a fireable offense. Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from the consequences of his actions. All it means is you can't be jailed or executed for it. You are not entitled to have people continue to have you in their lives. Furthermore, his employer has a right to freedom of association, and they have chosen to exercise that right by ceasing to associate with him. If this is authoritarian, than I will proudly call myself an authoritarian. Perhaps Hobbes was right after all.
- brighteyes 9y ago
  > This guy told a very large amount of his co-workers that they're inferior to him That would be very disturbing, but that's not what's written in the document. Saying that there are average differences between groups, and that therefore people should be treated as individuals, is not at all like saying that all individuals in one group are inferior to another.
  - nowo 9y ago
    Everyone is saying that they are open to discuss this, but as soon as someone says what they think about the paper they are met with dismissal. People interpret his large focus on the biological traits of women, by presenting those traits as the primary cause of the gender gap and without showing causality between those traits and the gender gap as disrespectful. Because it suggests that women are primarily at fault. That he inserted a few disclaimers and tries to avoid responsibility by saying things like "possible" doesn't really make things better but further the feeling that he didn't really care to what degree it was true.
    - brighteyes 9y ago
      Yeah, I agree. He went too far in that direction. I think he was wrong on some facts, and also didn't explain things in the best way. But I think it was wrong of many people to misrepresent what he said (as "women are inferior"), and it was wrong of Google to fire him.
macrael 9y ago
I haven't finished this because it is very long, but it is good. Do you believe in the paradox of tolerance? http://tim.dreamwidth.org/2035407.html http://tim.dreamwidth.org/2035407.html
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  Oh, hmm, I hadn't considered the parallels of the various manifestos. Looks good, ta.
jdavis703 9y ago
> What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. How is this any different than if I was to exercise my "free speech" to insult my CEO and found myself fired? This was a private corporation, operating in an at-will employment state. Now if the government had taken steps to censor speech, one could argue that we're in an authoritarian regime. But workplaces have always (at least since I've been working), been places where we voluntarily subject ourselves to private authority, or else quit or are fired.
- slavak 9y ago
  I think the problem people have with this is that Google was (and still is) promoting themselves as a place where expressing differing opinions is welcome and encouraged, and the internal forum where he posted this was apparently used and promoted as just that. (A sort of "Google-only Reddit," as some Googlers describe it.) I think it's widely accepted that work is generally a place where discussion of politics and gender relations is not appropriate. I know I do my best to avoid arguments on those topics at work, and that's fine. But when your employer explicitly encourages carrying out this kind of discussion in specific work-only forums, and then turns around and punishes you for it when some people throw a hissy-fit, that's gonna leave a bad taste in many people's mouths. To use your example, if I insulted my CEO and got fired for it no one would be surprised. But if my CEO was soliciting honest feedback on their performance and then I got fired for pointing out some stuff they dropped the ball on, I'd be (understandably, I think) quite upset.

int_19h 9y ago

> Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand. Could you give a link to that rant?

tylersmith 9y ago
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
- paapi__gudiya 9y ago
  This whole episode has been so disgusting and shows how regressive and authoritarian the mainstream tech community is. People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view? If you can resort to violence against someone and get away with it, you're the oppressor in the society, not the oppressed. Sundar, Yonatan and their likes are so privileged and delusional. These people have no issue with a war-criminal like Kissinger being invited to talk at Google but have such serious issues with a software engineer writing his views.
  - amyjess 9y ago
    As a woman, I could not work with an outspoken misogynist. As a lesbian, I could not work with an outspoken homophobe. As a Jew, I could not work with an outspoken antisemite. Forcing minorities and women to work with people who are bigoted against them is a recipe for a lawsuit.
    - macspoofing 9y ago
      This guy isn't a racist or a misogynist. A better example is an atheist working with an evangelical. Both the atheist and the evangelical will have very strong opinions on each others' belief systems.
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in his profession because their biology makes the inherently less interested in it?
        stagbeetle 9y ago
        This is a false equivalency. A better statement would be: "Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in church organizations because their beliefs makes the inherently less interested in it?" The answer would be yes. But it's not a good example.
        rbanffy 9y ago
        Is your argument that software engineering is a religion women don't believe in?
        stagbeetle 9y ago
        My argument is that one's religious beliefs dictate what sort of organizations one will be a part of, just the same a person's physiological makeup will dictate his profession of choice.
ambulancechaser 9y ago
> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment. https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  I'm not seeing the bit about where he says he'd understand about the people punching him in the face? In fact, he's saying that he wouldn't assign people to work with him for fear of that - which I would take to mean he disagrees with the action.
  - notdonspaulding 9y ago
    He's saying that he would keep those of his employees who, when presented with a viewpoint which they consider offensive, would punch their coworkers in the face from having to be in any kind of a working relationship with someone because of the viewpoints which they hold. He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers. That is wholly unsupported by any reading of his sentence. He literally says he would avoid creating a situation where even the possibility of someone punching him in the face might happen. If he was siding with the face-punchers, why would he avoid that situation?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dcole2929 9y ago
That's a mischaracterization of his argument. Essentially the author argues that right or wrong the manifesto is especially polarizing and the engineer has essentially made it very difficult for him to work with anyone else at Google moving forward. Zunger in no way states that he condones, or suggests the action of punching the manifesto guy in the face, he just outlines it as a possible reaction, of releasing a company wide manifesto, which could uncharitably be interpreted to call into question the merits of female and other minority engineers.
- notdonspaulding 9y ago
  Yes, we wouldn't want to mischaracterize what the main thrust of someone's message is by putting up a straw man argument and then criticizing them for it. /s Zunger's response makes it clear that the promulgation of ideas in the memo are unacceptable, but is strangely silent on judging the actions of the hypothetical face-puncher. And as we now know from Google, taking no action is tantamount to endorsing the opinions of those under you.
JSONwebtoken 9y ago
It's funny that I read past this line without even thinking about how unusual it is that it needs a source. I've read so many blogposts and tweets about how it's justifiable to punch people in the face over specific disagreements that I'm completely desensitized to the hilarious image of grown, educated adults lashing out just because they're losing an argument. It seems like every time I make a politically controversial post on Reddit and increasingly HN, I can just CTRL-F my comment inbox and assure myself that there's some reference to punching in there.
- TheTruestKyle 9y ago
  As a person who has been held at gunpoint, threatened to be stabbed, and punched in the face while growing up in a hostile environment, this is hilarious to me. Odds are, these people have never been in physical conflict before and let me tell you, you don't know how you will react until it happens or as Mike Tyson puts it, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Having a black belt in martial arts helped calm those nerves of threatening fights with people you don't know. People please be careful. What I have seen growing up, I am now seeing on the internet. Sometimes you run into the wrong person and it might not end well...

kajecounterhack 9y ago

No, what the whole episode really seems to show is how prejudice that hurts people is viewed as "just words" rather than a tangible / real hurtful thing. You can't curse off your boss. You can't demean people of other genders and races at work. You can't create a hostile workplace environment and expect nothing to happen to you. You can try to cloak it in a longform "civil" or "facts-based" document but ultimately what this man wrote was sexist lies a.k.a a steaming pile of shit. FWIW I don't give flat earthers the time of day or try to humor them as being scientific either. You have to go back to arguing the basic laws of kinematics with them. Sexists are one of the same.

naturalgradient 9y ago
This is authoritarian logic. A threat is never just an opinion in authoritarian thinking. It's outside of what constitutes an opinion, it's outside the system. Hence, for the greater good, it must be not just be rejected, it must be destroyed as a moral necessity. If you go down this road, there is only one destination. I can sympathise with your view point. Of course I can. That is my whole point. It takes incredibly mental expenditure to not follow that style of thinking.
- kajecounterhack 9y ago
  No, it's "treat others the way you want to be treated" logic. A.k.a basic human fucking decency You're misinterpreting freedom here. It's not authoritarian to have rules. The existence of rules and enforcement != authoritarian. If trump makes all the rules absent of the peoples' will, that's authoritarian. If society agrees that you're a net negative and makes a choice to ostracize you, that's the level of freedom we have under democracy. The golden rule isn't a high bar.
- rifung 9y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point so please correct me if I misunderstand, but the person wasn't fired for having a different opinion. He was fired for saying things which were deeply hurtful for a large number of employees.

ebola1717 9y ago

https://mobile.twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 https://mobile.twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312

enimodas 9y ago
i don't get it. Can you explain?

kevinburke 9y ago

A right to free speech doesn't mean you are also free from any consequences for that speech.. ? The Constitution allows you to say whatever you want but your employer's also free to fire you for saying it. As an example, if you say racist things to a customer, your employer should be able to fire you. I have heard people say he should get fired, but I haven't heard anyone saying he should be "expelled from society" or "forever vilified as an outcast."

influx 9y ago
Curious if you feel Colin Kaepernick should have been fired and blacklisted for supporting Black Lives Matter? After all, it was only a consequence of free speech from his employers.
- Mikeb85 9y ago
  He wasn't fired or blacklisted for supporting BLM. His contract ran out and no one wants him because of his terrible performance of late. If it weren't for his political views no one would even be talking about him.
- sushisource 9y ago
  "Feel he should have been fired" and "Wouldn't throw a fit if he was fired" are different things. Do I think this guy should have been fired? I dunno. Not sure. I need more context. Am I upset he was fired? No. That's Google's choice, regardless of how good a choice it is or isn't.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > Do I think this guy should have been fired? It betrayed a spectacular lack of common sense and judgement for someone in a senior[1] role - which is exactly where you'd want those in spades. Also made his working position untenable since a senior role is going to need to get along and interact with many people. Also, also, his utter disregard for evidence and inability to make logical arguments would give me great pause as to his usefulness as a senior engineer. I'd have fired him first for being an idiot, second for his bullshit "scientism", and third having reprehensible views. [1] Disclaimer: I don't know if "senior" within Google is the same as "VP" in banks, ie just a defacto title you get after a while rather than a mark of actual competency.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gobugat 9y ago

> "for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast" Lol. He is fine. He got fired from one job, will find another one. What you describe however does sound like the price people usually pay for not being white males. So common we don't even think about it any more.

kafkaesq 9y ago

I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast ... Maybe some people are calling for stuff like that. But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here."

nxsynonym 9y ago
That's kind of the point though. Google is one of, if not the, biggest player in terms of information served over the internet. If they are willing to censor at this level, how far will they go to protect their public image and suppress discussion they don't agree with?
- runako 9y ago
  > suppress discussion they don't agree with Worth noting: he could post this publicly on Google+, Blogspot, or any other Google platform. It's only his paycheck that's being suppressed, his views are not.
  - JSONwebtoken 9y ago
    I doubt it. The women threatening to quit over twitter would still do the same thing if a social media post attached to his name and job went viral. Make no mistake, it's his views that he was fired over, not the medium in which he shared them. Google made no indication otherwise.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  But Google isn't really "censor"-ing anyone. Any more than I "censor" you if you come on to my property and refer to my daughter as the "c"-word. I mean... you can call my daughter whatever you like, I just don't allow you to do it in my house. That's not really censorship no matter how big the house is, that's just something that people should expect to happen. In fact... I think people should find it more strange if my daughter and I did NOT put you out of our house. You can still call her whatever you like outside of our home. You're still free to do that.

slg 9y ago

I would argue it is the opposite of authoritarian, it is mob rule. No one person or centralized authority deemed this person's actions as unacceptable. It was the majority of the community as a whole that deemed his actions as unacceptable. That is certainly a scary thing to see in action, but I think it is a different thing entirely than an authoritarian regime.

amyjess 9y ago
I call that society's natural immune system.
- slg 9y ago
  I like that analogy. The immune system is generally good, but it can do a lot of damage if any number of things go wrong. In the grand scheme of things, being intolerant towards intolerance is certainly on the positive side, but it is still scary seeing the vitriol directed towards whoever is the current target of our internet hate.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    > but it can do a lot of damage if any number of things go wrong. You can argue the current anti-intellectual attitude of a large part of the population is a immune reaction to the political power intellectuals had when their opinion was sought by politicians. You can also argue white supremacism is an immune reaction to what some white populations incorrectly perceive as a threat to their historic prosperity.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  If that's society's natural immune system, then my non-medical-professional opinion is that society has lupus.
- amazingman 9y ago
  I am fond of the immune system analogy, myself, when it comes to putting environmental (i.e. social) pressure on bad ideas in real time. Like anything else, however, striking the right balance and behaving ethically are vital companions to the application of this pressure. There was no balance here, and the vitriolic mob response was full of unethical behavior. I’m usually at least somewhat amenable to the “but the bad actors are mostly just the outliers” position, as well. In most cases, that’s true. Again, however, not here. Anyone who read the manifesto and the “response” post by Zunger while practicing even a nominal amount of epistemological integrity would have immediately recognized that Zunger’s post was wildly dishonest, did not deal directly with the content of the post at all, and apparently even thought that fantasizing violence against the manifesto author was an acceptable way to respond. It wasn’t. I was and remain extremely disappointed in Bay Area tech culture right now. This “manifesto” —a ridiculous and politically expedient moniker— was a crucial opportunity to have a culture-wide teaching moment and we blew it spectacularly. We could have had a nuanced, intelligent discussion about an extremely personal and difficult topic while also demonstrating to Mr. Damont why his application of the very real, widely accepted science he cited was wrong-headed and possibly even oppressive[1]. But no. We didn’t want to acknowledge the facts at all, and our aversion to doing so was so strong that a witch-hunt was executed instead. Meanwhile, we still seem largely oblivious that we made Mr. Damont’s broader point for him. And for the alt-right. They’re having a field day with this, and it’s all the more infuriating because they’re not wrong this time. [1] e.g. https://contemporarysex.tumblr.com/post/163876071377/doing-anti-diversity-wrong https://contemporarysex.tumblr.com/post/163876071377/doing-a...

amyjess 9y ago

If I were to tell multiple co-workers to their face that they are inferior to me, I would be fired. This guy told a very large amount of his co-workers that they're inferior to him, and he posted it all over the Internet for everyone to see. You'd be hard pressed to find a company where leveling personal attacks against your co-workers isn't a fireable offense. Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from the consequences of his actions. All it means is you can't be jailed or executed for it. You are not entitled to have people continue to have you in their lives. Furthermore, his employer has a right to freedom of association, and they have chosen to exercise that right by ceasing to associate with him. If this is authoritarian, than I will proudly call myself an authoritarian. Perhaps Hobbes was right after all.

brighteyes 9y ago
> This guy told a very large amount of his co-workers that they're inferior to him That would be very disturbing, but that's not what's written in the document. Saying that there are average differences between groups, and that therefore people should be treated as individuals, is not at all like saying that all individuals in one group are inferior to another.
- nowo 9y ago
  Everyone is saying that they are open to discuss this, but as soon as someone says what they think about the paper they are met with dismissal. People interpret his large focus on the biological traits of women, by presenting those traits as the primary cause of the gender gap and without showing causality between those traits and the gender gap as disrespectful. Because it suggests that women are primarily at fault. That he inserted a few disclaimers and tries to avoid responsibility by saying things like "possible" doesn't really make things better but further the feeling that he didn't really care to what degree it was true.
  - brighteyes 9y ago
    Yeah, I agree. He went too far in that direction. I think he was wrong on some facts, and also didn't explain things in the best way. But I think it was wrong of many people to misrepresent what he said (as "women are inferior"), and it was wrong of Google to fire him.

macrael 9y ago

I haven't finished this because it is very long, but it is good. Do you believe in the paradox of tolerance? http://tim.dreamwidth.org/2035407.html http://tim.dreamwidth.org/2035407.html

zimpenfish 9y ago
Oh, hmm, I hadn't considered the parallels of the various manifestos. Looks good, ta.

jdavis703 9y ago

> What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. How is this any different than if I was to exercise my "free speech" to insult my CEO and found myself fired? This was a private corporation, operating in an at-will employment state. Now if the government had taken steps to censor speech, one could argue that we're in an authoritarian regime. But workplaces have always (at least since I've been working), been places where we voluntarily subject ourselves to private authority, or else quit or are fired.

slavak 9y ago
I think the problem people have with this is that Google was (and still is) promoting themselves as a place where expressing differing opinions is welcome and encouraged, and the internal forum where he posted this was apparently used and promoted as just that. (A sort of "Google-only Reddit," as some Googlers describe it.) I think it's widely accepted that work is generally a place where discussion of politics and gender relations is not appropriate. I know I do my best to avoid arguments on those topics at work, and that's fine. But when your employer explicitly encourages carrying out this kind of discussion in specific work-only forums, and then turns around and punishes you for it when some people throw a hissy-fit, that's gonna leave a bad taste in many people's mouths. To use your example, if I insulted my CEO and got fired for it no one would be surprised. But if my CEO was soliciting honest feedback on their performance and then I got fired for pointing out some stuff they dropped the ball on, I'd be (understandably, I think) quite upset.