4 ms·

> provable false statements They aren't false. > create a toxic work environment for one third of your coworkers The people creating a toxic work environment

> provable false statements They aren't false. > create a toxic work environment for one third of your coworkers The people creating a toxic work environment are those who are attempting to blackball capable, veteran engineers in order to bring incapable and subpar people into the workplace simply because they were born a different gender or skin color. > and 100% grounds for termination. Firing someone for political beliefs is not grounds for termination, and never has been.

YuriNiyazov 9y ago
This right here is actually the source of the problem. The current social environment tells you "here are topics that you have to discuss with utmost sensitivity, even if you are completely confident you are right, and have all the evidence." Your (and presumably, the google employee that got fired) response? "Nah, I am right, so fuck your rules" It doesn't work that way.
craigsmansion 9y ago
> They aren't false. Correct. It's worse: they are irrelevant. It buried the lede of unsubstantiated and toxic conclusions under some marginally related statistics and science. As a whole it wasn't a scientifically sound argument by any metric. > The people creating a toxic work environment are those[..] The people determining whether a working environment is toxic for them is the majority of people working in that environment. Whether you feel it shouldn't be considered toxic is a different matter. > Firing someone for political beliefs is not grounds for termination, and never has been. Anti-social behaviour, whether based on religion, political beliefs, or plainly being a jerk, is always a good reason for termination in larger companies. It's what keeps a work force together. P.S. "subpar people"? Maybe you meant to say "Untermenschen"?
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > toxic conclusions How can a conclusion be "toxic"? A conclusion is either consistent or inconsistent with the evidence at hand.
  - Yetanfou 9y ago
    A conclusion is "toxic" when it poisons the desired outcome and/or goes counter to the narrative. Evidence does not play a major part in this, other than to be quoted when it supports the narrative or dismissed or smeared when it doesn't (viz. Obscurantism [1] and Moral relativism [2]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

YuriNiyazov 9y ago

This right here is actually the source of the problem. The current social environment tells you "here are topics that you have to discuss with utmost sensitivity, even if you are completely confident you are right, and have all the evidence." Your (and presumably, the google employee that got fired) response? "Nah, I am right, so fuck your rules" It doesn't work that way.

craigsmansion 9y ago

> They aren't false. Correct. It's worse: they are irrelevant. It buried the lede of unsubstantiated and toxic conclusions under some marginally related statistics and science. As a whole it wasn't a scientifically sound argument by any metric. > The people creating a toxic work environment are those[..] The people determining whether a working environment is toxic for them is the majority of people working in that environment. Whether you feel it shouldn't be considered toxic is a different matter. > Firing someone for political beliefs is not grounds for termination, and never has been. Anti-social behaviour, whether based on religion, political beliefs, or plainly being a jerk, is always a good reason for termination in larger companies. It's what keeps a work force together. P.S. "subpar people"? Maybe you meant to say "Untermenschen"?

LyndsySimon 9y ago
> toxic conclusions How can a conclusion be "toxic"? A conclusion is either consistent or inconsistent with the evidence at hand.
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  A conclusion is "toxic" when it poisons the desired outcome and/or goes counter to the narrative. Evidence does not play a major part in this, other than to be quoted when it supports the narrative or dismissed or smeared when it doesn't (viz. Obscurantism [1] and Moral relativism [2]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism