3 ms·

They appear completely related to what is heresy to discuss at Google. The section starts off with "Some takeaways from this whole fiasco" "Here are some of t

by taysic 9y ago

They appear completely related to what is heresy to discuss at Google. The section starts off with "Some takeaways from this whole fiasco" "Here are some of those politically correct assertions that take on almost religious-like qualities..." And thus appear to be completely linked to the topic of the Google "fiasco". Very confusing way to present the article if they are not relevant. College is a very different place than a workplace. I am not required to interact with anyone on my college campus. Additionally, a workplace works best without the friction of being a place for the discussion of politics or controversial topics. Let alone "innocuous" jokes. The author is upset that he is not greeted with hugs and applause for his memo. So what? I only read the first part - and I'm no expert on these topics but I haven't experienced any exceptionalism within this profession as a woman. To the contrary, my code is out there in the open ready for scrutiny all the time. I truly believe this is a meritocratic profession. My understanding is that companies aim to hire equally qualified workers from more backgrounds of diversity. Even better, they have an economic incentive to do so. Many of the time the people writing these things are looking for something to complain about. I haven't worked at Google but I haven't experienced this to be imbalanced in the way it's being portrayed. I guess you can say the memo was put out there, and a discussion was had.

RealityNow 9y ago
Apologies if the presentation was unclear, will see if I can make that clearer. > Additionally, a workplace works best without the friction of being a place for the discussion of politics or controversial topics. Let alone "innocuous" jokes. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I prefer workplaces, or any environment for that matter, where we all respect each other enough to be open to the discussion of any topic and not easily offended over stupid meaningless jokes. That does not mean that one has to share their political beliefs or be pestered to engage in controversial debate - but a culture where everyone has to watch out for every little thing they say because any non-PC mark could be misconstrued and used as grounds for firing simply because someone deemed it offensive is intellectually hostile, unhealthy, and not the type of environment I want to be in. > The author is upset that he is not greeted with hugs and applause for his memo. So what? That's not why the author is upset. The author got fired.
- taysic 9y ago
  The author was fired but I certainly wouldn't describe the reason as due to "any little thing they say". Most of the time people are fired for harassment, which can be nuanced but a normal company compliance training can get one up to speed. The author was probably fired for going through the wrong channel to voice this. Now not only has he attacked his company but he also alienated his female coworkers who may feel he finds them potentially undeserving of their jobs or in excess supply, as implied by the article. Sounds wonderful for the work environment, no? At the end of the day, Google is a company out to make money and build good culture in their company. I respect your desire to surround yourself by those who aren't easily offended or too PC and I trust you will find many friends like that. However, that isn't really appropriate for the workplace where it's not your right to be treated well for any behavior. Its an interesting topic to discuss but personally I think progress is with diversity. Not just for society but it benefits companies as well. I think they are seeing that and ultimately they are allowed to do what they wish.
  - RealityNow 9y ago
    The channel he voiced the memo was apparently opt-in, thus I don't see that as inappropriate. If an opposing viewpoint backed by facts and evidence make you feel alienated, then the problem is not with the person who presented the facts. Affirmative action by definition discriminates in favor of women and underrepresented racial minorities, and this is simply a fact - the very definition of affirmative action itself. I'm a huge proponent of diversity in the sense of embracing people with different perspectives and ideas. Deciding that you need X% of females and Y% of colored people does not make you a proponent of diversity, except in the shallow sense of wanting some set of racial representation. The strongest advocates of this form of racial diversity in my experience tend to actually be the most hostile towards diversity of opinions - like all the people deeming this memo sexist who fail to bring up any coherent argument backing up their claims (since most of them never read the document). And one of the points of the memo was that we need to de-moralize diversity and allow people to have an honest discussion over it (which he ironically got fired over). Diversity of thought > Diversity of appearance

by taysic 9y ago

RealityNow 9y ago

Apologies if the presentation was unclear, will see if I can make that clearer. > Additionally, a workplace works best without the friction of being a place for the discussion of politics or controversial topics. Let alone "innocuous" jokes. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I prefer workplaces, or any environment for that matter, where we all respect each other enough to be open to the discussion of any topic and not easily offended over stupid meaningless jokes. That does not mean that one has to share their political beliefs or be pestered to engage in controversial debate - but a culture where everyone has to watch out for every little thing they say because any non-PC mark could be misconstrued and used as grounds for firing simply because someone deemed it offensive is intellectually hostile, unhealthy, and not the type of environment I want to be in. > The author is upset that he is not greeted with hugs and applause for his memo. So what? That's not why the author is upset. The author got fired.

taysic 9y ago
The author was fired but I certainly wouldn't describe the reason as due to "any little thing they say". Most of the time people are fired for harassment, which can be nuanced but a normal company compliance training can get one up to speed. The author was probably fired for going through the wrong channel to voice this. Now not only has he attacked his company but he also alienated his female coworkers who may feel he finds them potentially undeserving of their jobs or in excess supply, as implied by the article. Sounds wonderful for the work environment, no? At the end of the day, Google is a company out to make money and build good culture in their company. I respect your desire to surround yourself by those who aren't easily offended or too PC and I trust you will find many friends like that. However, that isn't really appropriate for the workplace where it's not your right to be treated well for any behavior. Its an interesting topic to discuss but personally I think progress is with diversity. Not just for society but it benefits companies as well. I think they are seeing that and ultimately they are allowed to do what they wish.
- RealityNow 9y ago
  The channel he voiced the memo was apparently opt-in, thus I don't see that as inappropriate. If an opposing viewpoint backed by facts and evidence make you feel alienated, then the problem is not with the person who presented the facts. Affirmative action by definition discriminates in favor of women and underrepresented racial minorities, and this is simply a fact - the very definition of affirmative action itself. I'm a huge proponent of diversity in the sense of embracing people with different perspectives and ideas. Deciding that you need X% of females and Y% of colored people does not make you a proponent of diversity, except in the shallow sense of wanting some set of racial representation. The strongest advocates of this form of racial diversity in my experience tend to actually be the most hostile towards diversity of opinions - like all the people deeming this memo sexist who fail to bring up any coherent argument backing up their claims (since most of them never read the document). And one of the points of the memo was that we need to de-moralize diversity and allow people to have an honest discussion over it (which he ironically got fired over). Diversity of thought > Diversity of appearance