7 ms·

Nobody is arguing that he is a victim of his "free speech rights" being violated. People are arguing that Google is acting like a thug.

msie 9y ago
If he had only posted it anonymously he wouldn't have put Google in such an awkward position. What do you do with someone that many will not want to work with?
- scarmig 9y ago
  Should Hobby Lobby be able to fire a transman employee who publicly transitions, just because many of his coworkers would not want to work with him?
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    You're comparing simply being to publicly soapboxing. That's an absurd comparison. A more apt comparison is if that trans person disseminated a controversial manifesto about gender theory on company time with company services.
    - scarmig 9y ago
      The person I was responding to stated that a company should fire an employee if other employees don't want to work with him. If we accept offense as the metric by which we decide whether someone should be fired or not, then you bite the bullet and accept the consequences of applying that principle uniformly. You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired, and other people shouldn't. Which may be defensible, but off-topic to this particular thread.
      - michaelchisari 9y ago
        > You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired Spare me the extrapolation. My position is clear: Stupid people should be fired.
        kazagistar 9y ago
        I'm pretty sure that was the position of the "manifesto" as well.
        michaelchisari 9y ago
        Only one person involved showed demonstrable stupidity, though.
      - msie 9y ago
        Some are let go because of differences in opinion on how the company should be run. How is this any different than being offended? Both are differences in opinion. Not saying it's right in some cases.
    - srslack 9y ago
      >controversial manifesto I don't see what's so controversial about the "manifesto." And it's not a manifesto, it's a pro-diversity memo that questions the implication that gender representation in software engineering must be 50/50 or there's clearly some sort of discrimination going on. Perhaps, like the author of the article, you haven't actually read the "manifesto." I'll be charitable and assume that you did: what, in your mind, do you fundamentally believe is controversial in the memo, and is it controversial because it spits in the face of the facts, or is it controversial because they're uncomfortable facts, for you personally?
      - michaelchisari 9y ago
        I have read it, in it's entirety. I'm not going to comment on it's contents, other than I think that it uses very intellectual language to come to very lazy conclusions. But yes, I have read it. It's controversy is in the assertion that there is a class of people at Google who hold positions that they are not deserving of.
        srslack 9y ago
        >It's controversy is in the assertion that there is a class of people at Google who hold positions that they are not deserving of. But that's not what the "manifesto" is asserting, at all. The memo is questioning the wisdom of equal sex representation in a particular career choice, considering biological predispositions. At no point does the manifesto assert that genders, races, or classes of people are holding positions that they do not deserve at Google. What it does assert is that there are biological predispositions, personality types are brought up, and questions the wisdom of an even split of representation, just by considering the rate of women coming out of uni with a related degree. Again: at no point does the author assert your claims. What it does talk about is preferences, and biological predispositions. It also talks in generalities, but mentions individuals. It does not say "all women have these personality types and these interests therefore this explains the gap". It simply says that women are biologically predisposed to certain personality types, and interests, and it MAY explain the gap. If this were true, and even it were not (allowing for other explanations), it would be unwise to operate solely on the assumption that there's some sort of early or late discrimination going on which causes women to avoid entering this particular career.
  - msie 9y ago
    It's wrong but this happens all the time. Maybe not fire in some cases but "buy them out". How does a company operate otherwise?
- msie 9y ago
  The irony of being voted down for my differing opinion is so delicious.
  - dang 9y ago
    Please don't break the HN guidelines by commenting like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

msie 9y ago

If he had only posted it anonymously he wouldn't have put Google in such an awkward position. What do you do with someone that many will not want to work with?

scarmig 9y ago
Should Hobby Lobby be able to fire a transman employee who publicly transitions, just because many of his coworkers would not want to work with him?
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  You're comparing simply being to publicly soapboxing. That's an absurd comparison. A more apt comparison is if that trans person disseminated a controversial manifesto about gender theory on company time with company services.
  - scarmig 9y ago
    The person I was responding to stated that a company should fire an employee if other employees don't want to work with him. If we accept offense as the metric by which we decide whether someone should be fired or not, then you bite the bullet and accept the consequences of applying that principle uniformly. You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired, and other people shouldn't. Which may be defensible, but off-topic to this particular thread.
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      > You seem to be taking the perspective that evil people must be fired Spare me the extrapolation. My position is clear: Stupid people should be fired.
      - kazagistar 9y ago
        I'm pretty sure that was the position of the "manifesto" as well.
        michaelchisari 9y ago
        Only one person involved showed demonstrable stupidity, though.
    - msie 9y ago
      Some are let go because of differences in opinion on how the company should be run. How is this any different than being offended? Both are differences in opinion. Not saying it's right in some cases.
  - srslack 9y ago
    >controversial manifesto I don't see what's so controversial about the "manifesto." And it's not a manifesto, it's a pro-diversity memo that questions the implication that gender representation in software engineering must be 50/50 or there's clearly some sort of discrimination going on. Perhaps, like the author of the article, you haven't actually read the "manifesto." I'll be charitable and assume that you did: what, in your mind, do you fundamentally believe is controversial in the memo, and is it controversial because it spits in the face of the facts, or is it controversial because they're uncomfortable facts, for you personally?
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      I have read it, in it's entirety. I'm not going to comment on it's contents, other than I think that it uses very intellectual language to come to very lazy conclusions. But yes, I have read it. It's controversy is in the assertion that there is a class of people at Google who hold positions that they are not deserving of.
      - srslack 9y ago
        >It's controversy is in the assertion that there is a class of people at Google who hold positions that they are not deserving of. But that's not what the "manifesto" is asserting, at all. The memo is questioning the wisdom of equal sex representation in a particular career choice, considering biological predispositions. At no point does the manifesto assert that genders, races, or classes of people are holding positions that they do not deserve at Google. What it does assert is that there are biological predispositions, personality types are brought up, and questions the wisdom of an even split of representation, just by considering the rate of women coming out of uni with a related degree. Again: at no point does the author assert your claims. What it does talk about is preferences, and biological predispositions. It also talks in generalities, but mentions individuals. It does not say "all women have these personality types and these interests therefore this explains the gap". It simply says that women are biologically predisposed to certain personality types, and interests, and it MAY explain the gap. If this were true, and even it were not (allowing for other explanations), it would be unwise to operate solely on the assumption that there's some sort of early or late discrimination going on which causes women to avoid entering this particular career.
- msie 9y ago
  It's wrong but this happens all the time. Maybe not fire in some cases but "buy them out". How does a company operate otherwise?
msie 9y ago
The irony of being voted down for my differing opinion is so delicious.
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't break the HN guidelines by commenting like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html