31 ms·

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech co

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anything, their position will be radicalized. For example, from classical liberal to alt-right. Yes, they'll stop expressing their opinion in public. But they'll express their opinion, with a vengeance, in the only place where one can do so in secrecy without fear of witch-hunting mobs: the voting booth. Yes, that explains Trump.

idibidiart 9y ago
Sexism is not free speech.
relics443 9y ago
Are you saying that Trump was only elected because he was appealing to the alt-right? Surely that was part of it, but why is everyone so eager to "blame" it on the marginalized alt-right? Is it a scare tactic for 2020 /r
- Const-me 9y ago
  I’m not saying that, and the GP mentions alt right just as one possible outcome. But I think Trump is definitely more right than left, at least compared to Clinton. This might have contributed to his victory.
  - Super_Jambo 9y ago
    'More right' Clinton is a neo-liberal and Trump is a lunatic. It's pretty hard to put that into a left-right economic spectrum.
michaelchisari 9y ago
We'll see how the trend moves going forward, but even after capturing (by rhetoric if not act) the white house, the alt-right continues to be a radical fringe, and suffers from serious internal contradictions that make any serious movement building doomed. The movement has attracted the attention of a lot of white nationalists, anti-semites and hardline fascists (amren, natall, kss), while also attracting a new wave of online-prominent trolls and shit-stirrers. But what happens when the 4chan poster with the anime pillow who denies the holocaust just to get a rise out of the libcucks crosses paths with an actual hardline anti-semite who is interested in building an even-more-final solution? To use a colloquialism, what happens when the rubber meets the road? Do the fascists tolerate what they would consider to be total degeneracy for the sake of finally building a mass movement? Does the online troll recognize that what was an ironic joke for him is a hard reality for others, and move to push their real-life activism away from those types of groups? This is what I mean by internal contradictions, the kind that can kill a mass movement before it even starts. So while there is a common refrain of "this is why Trump won, and the movement of contrarians, devils advocates, trolls, anti-pc crusaders, people who tweet about white genocide, stormfront regulars and conspiracy theorists is only going to grow if you being offensive towards them", the reality is much, much more complicated. Trust in Trump has plummeted, even amongst his core. The vote is very quickly slipping out of the grasp of the Right, and was always a race against time demographically to begin with. And if you're in a position where you can't win through democratic means, you have to use other means (boycotts, protests, organizing, etc). And the alt-right is utterly lamed by it's own hand before that race has even started.
- Const-me 9y ago
  Very likely you’re right about the current state of alt right movement (I live in Europe and haven’t been monitoring the subject). But GP only mentioned alt-rights as an example of where might the voters turn their preferences. Even at Google where James worked, many employees agree with his memo (36%), and the majority, 54% of them think the memo is harmless and was OK to share: https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/press-f-for-james-damore-the-only-set-of-balls-left-at-google/ https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/press-f-for-ja... After Google fired him, these 54% will inevitably think about what other ideas they think are harmless might cause them to be fired. Not exactly comforting thoughts.
fsaneq2 9y ago
EDIT: Removed comment. See better response below.
- CobrastanJorji 9y ago
  That's a really weird conclusion to draw based on that statistic. Another way to say the same thing would be "Donald Trump performed more poorly in California than any other Republican candidate since 1936." (I see he removed his comment. For posterity, he argued that Donald Trump got "almost a third" of the votes in California and, therefore, liberals were on the decline).
  - 9point6 9y ago
    The difference spin makes.
  - fsaneq2 9y ago
    My point was more that it was surprising to me that someone as vilified as Trump still got almost a third of the votes in CA, but I agree that your point makes that look substantially weaker, so I retract it.
KirinDave 9y ago
It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing. Mad someone for touching your bum? Speak up. You spoke up? Now you're ruining the work environment and being unfair. In this memo's case, perhaps you're mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action (e.g., don't worry I am sure if we set up pair programming that will make it fair for you social women types)? Well it's your fault for not arguing against it. Oh you spoke up and that person got fired for violating some pretty basic corproate policy? Well congrats now it's your fault they're radicalized. Now Trump is inevitable, thanks for putting him in power, I hope North Korea nukes your house! The only solution that ever seems to be okay is stand there and smile as people say, do, and justify unfair things. Or maybe sit there and "debate" with them as they spout tired 1970s-debunked rhetoric about communication skills and and meticulisly avoid the idea that benefits might take any shape or form beyond what they themselves want this year. As for that "memo", I still don't get why the underlying premise that Google's level of technical competitiveness was hurt by these policies is taken without a critical eye. That's a pretty big assertion for a company who's essentially leading numerous areas in the world's tech markets and research fields.
- kentrado 9y ago
  >Mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action? He never said that. Could you cite the portion where he literally says women are less capable?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    He says women will benefit from making coding more social. Pair programming. Remember?
iuguy 9y ago
I made the grave mistake of trying to express that point on Twitter. Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time, but it's a dumpster fire right now full of raging people who don't understand what you've just said. I was in SV last year for a couple of months during the election, and everyone I met were all paid up members of the church of political correctness up front, but when you spoke to these people in private there were a lot of people who were secretly conservative, but "It's Silicon Valley and you can't be a Republican out here". I'm reminded of Chomsky's words in his book, The Common Good: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum" Where things have gone drastically wrong here are that the spectrum is now so tiny that any debate within that spectrum is now impossible. It becomes almost impossible to depolarize the situation and widen that spectrum, and that's going to lead to everything you more eloquently put above, if not more.
- toyg 9y ago
  > Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time Understatement of the century. How on earth can you expect to have "nuanced debate" with only 140 characters?
  - kogepathic 9y ago
    > How on earth can you expect to have "nuanced debate" with only 140 characters? Oh come now, it seems to work fine for Trump! /s
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Sad!
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        I was downvoted! Sad!
    - marrs 9y ago
dandare 9y ago
I totally agree, this will add tons of ammunition to all kinds of sexists, racists and extremists. Damore made several well sourced arguments that you are welcome to disagree with. But instead of discussion, counter arguments and "embracing diversity" he was silenced and probably illegally sacked. This will strengthen the position of all kind of haters and populists and if you think it's not a big deal, yes, go and check who is your president.
SidiousL 9y ago
It's funny how some companies now literally enforce a "don't ask don't tell" policy when it comes to some points of view. In the academia it is probably even worse than in the industry. Except this time, it's the left that is "promoting" hiding your true self. You may say that for the army it was the government doing it, which makes it worse. In a sense I agree. However, in the case of private employers it touches on a more consequential right for us as a society: the right to free speech. Maybe people should be more accepting of somebody's views on controversial topics as diversity, gun rights and abortion, as they are to gay people in the military.
manicdee 9y ago
That's a gross oversimplification of the issue. Would the same outcome have happened if this guy had posted his manifesto on a blog outside the office, rather than distributing it to colleagues at work? Would the same outcome have happened if the various arguments in the manifesto had been individual articles on a personal blog over a period of time? Would the same outcome have happened if the manifesto hadn't been explicitly critical about diversity hiring at Google, and rather had been generally critical about EEO law at the state and federal level? There are so many ways this situation could have been different, but the lesson you choose to take from it is "don't express your opinion in public"? That's what really explains Trump.
- dictum 9y ago
  > Would the same outcome have happened if this guy had posted his manifesto on a blog outside the office, rather than distributing it to colleagues at work? Yes. The only thing that could have prevented his firing was to have never published it under his real name (and this is not completely safe). Since it's an internal issue, I think he did the right thing in this aspect: he published it in the internal forum, instead of dragging the dirty laundry for the world to see. Most codes of conduct explictly apply all their conditions to venues that are not related to the project itself, so I doubt the outrage would be different if he published it elsewhere, under a pseudonym, and was IDed later.
- ordu 9y ago
  > That's a gross oversimplification of the issue. It is the way most people think. The only way of thinking available for them. So this conclusions is exactly what they draw from the story. > the lesson you choose to take from it is "don't express your opinion in public"? That's what really explains Trump. I'm not sure that Const-me took _this_ lesson, but the point is: the most people took this lesson. The reality works this way. Therefore this lesson is the true one, it is like self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people belive in it, than it is true.
GVIrish 9y ago
> Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. This is an example of people taking exactly the wrong lesson from this situation. The guy wasn't fired for having a 'dissenting opinion'. He was fired because he basically said women are underrepresented in IT because they are biologically unsuited for it. If someone's 'opinion' is that phrenology explains why black people are underrepresented in tech they'd meet with a similar fate There are a lot of situations these days where people are expressing opinions at work that are insensitive to or outright disparage another group of people, then getting shocked when they're fired. The problem is that tolerance in the workplace of bigotry towards any group is rapidly eroding and some people don't know where the line of appropriateness is. They've never had to think much about the impact of their opinions on minorities and women so they're almost blind about what is over the line. The thing is that many people who get into these situations have at least some idea that what they're gonna say is offensive. They'll preface things with, "I'm not racist but..." but continue right on saying it. Like they know on some level it's offensive but they don't consider that 'hey, maybe I'm in the wrong and I shouldn't go there'. 'No, it must be that liberals are out to censor me and destroy free speech'. It's funny that some people point to a situation like this and say, "This is why we have Trump." If people voted for someone who routinely espoused racist and misogynist attitudes as a reaction to being criticized, that pretty much means they actually are bigots on some level. If you're not a bigot, the reasons to vote for him would be his policies, not his crude and prejudiced 'political incorrectness'
- dx034 9y ago
  > He was fired because he basically said women are underrepresented in IT because they are biologically unsuited for it. I don't understand why people keep repeating that statement. He said that biological differences explain the different ratios of men and women, NOT that women are not suited for tech jobs. He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. That is a huge difference. It doesn't disqualify any woman working at Google. It just means that the goal to reach 50% women could lead to a worse outcome. Disclaimer: I don't necessarily support his claims, nor do I support his memo as such. I just think that it's worth thinking about and that there should be more scientific studies to explore this. Diversity campaigns should be based on science, not on populism.
cf 9y ago
People can express any opinion they want in public. Inside a company isn't public. Also while you do have a right to an opinion you don't have a right to it going unchallenged and questioned. Also how can you be so sure he wasn't alt-right already. "Classic liberal" is essentially the closest you are allowed to get in public.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > People can express any opinion they want in public. Inside a company isn't public. Also while you do have a right to an opinion you don't have a right to it going unchallenged and questioned. It's grossly misrepresenting the response to the memo to imply it was just a matter of challenging and questioning. A quick read of any of the forums where it's being discussed makes that clear, and remember how the author was fired? A lot of the issue people have with the response is precisely that it wasn't making a substantive attempt to actually question or challenge the memo's content.
  - cf 9y ago
    I'm sorry you didn't feel any of the challenges had substance. They were still challenged.
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      You're misrepresenting what I said
timgrahamtech 9y ago
Then the goal is making him understand that he got fired for how he expressed those opinions. He didn't just talk to HR or his manager, he published a rant for all the world to see making it the CEO's problem. Anyone who publishes an incoherent 10 page manifesto insulting their coworkers and trashing their company's policies can reasonably expect to get fired. It doesn't matter if any of the bosses agree or disagree with the opinions expressed; it's just an unprofessional thing to do. To be honest, he was the bully in this situation. I have more concern for the women at Google who could fear losing their jobs and the means to support their families. If a coworker of mine started publicly saying that I'm not genetically qualified for the work I do, I would be worried for my job. However, I don't think those women would become radicalized over this. Why? Because intelligent professional people don't become radicalized when other people disagree with their opinions. A note about Trump: I grew up in a red state and lived and worked in two others. I never spent more than a few months in a blue state so I don't know how it is there, but in Trump country people openly and aggressively express all sorts of opinions without fear of recrimination. There may be a few voices of dissent, but there are no "witch-hunting mobs" forcing them to keep their views a secret. I think this scenario Giulio describes fits better to Brendan Eich who was essentially forced out of Mozilla over his views. But Brendan didn't become radicalized. He picked himself up and founded a new company, because that's what professionals do.
- js8 9y ago
  "Anyone who publishes an incoherent 10 page manifesto insulting their coworkers and trashing their company's policies can reasonably expect to get fired. It doesn't matter if any of the bosses agree or disagree with the opinions expressed; it's just an unprofessional thing to do." I agree completely. Just like these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_77 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_77 Very unprofessional!
  - timgrahamtech 9y ago
    Ale mluvim cesky a to znam dobre. You're actually going to compare Google's hiring policies to the oppression of a eastern bloc state? Do prdel.
scandox 9y ago
If a person is engaging in reasonable dissent then why is this true: "If anything, their position will be radicalized."? The (true) implication is that their reasonable dissent actually is a bland cover for a position that is much more radical once it is reduced to its core propositions.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  > If a person is engaging in reasonable dissent then why is this true: "If anything, their position will be radicalized."? Uhmmmm.... because they get fired for deviating from the party line, not for being unreasonable. How can you skip that "detail"? In this case, it seems to be even lamer than that, seems like he was not fired for the memo, but the reaction to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977750 > Damore said he initially shared the memo a month ago, but "no one high up ever came to me and said, 'No, don't do this,' even though there were many people who looked at it," Damore told Bloomberg. "It was only after it got viral that upper management started shaming me and eventually firing me." So, what's hiding under this leaving out crucial parts and misrepresenting in the context of destroying people while paying lip service to being for people being unafraid? Anyone else seeing this? > The (true) implication is that their reasonable dissent actually is a bland cover for a position that is much more radical once it is reduced to its core propositions. This is so incredibly sinister and you don't even know it. Here's an example: a kid has a legitimate grievance, or at least legitimately thinks it does, but when it brings it up modestly, non-radically, it gets hit in the face. Now it will do something "bad", like cuss or somehow act out, because it is not allowed to place the grievance where it should be -- and then that is used to excuse that initial oppression or however you want to call it. Another example is SS officers despising people in concentration camps for being the diseased husks they turned them into, seeing this as a confirmation for their inferiority. Roll your eyes how much you want at that, chose whatever example you want, but that is the mechanism, that is an apt analogy just as much as bad parenting. Heck, get hung up on me somehow equating the Holocaust with a kid getting hit, I really don't care because people who don't want to understand always find something. Granted, even being fired is no excuse to be radicalized. He's not a little kid, and he's not being made physically sick. But he also has a mob against him, plus the support of many he actually might not want want to be a martyr for (I mean, does anyone even allow for the fact that he is not some kind of closeted alt-right monster?), and that's more pressure than someone who was not on the receiving end of stuff like this can imagine, so I'll call that a wash. The point isn't (to me) "would he be justified to go loopy now", but "was this an okay reaction by the stronger party, and should this be normalized". My answer is no, and no. But not because it might lead to things I don't want, because it itself is already something I don't want either. Kinda of like I don't think corporations shouldn't turn street kids into sausage "because it would lead to a backlash and therefore make bad financial sense", but because it'd be evil. And I might not even want to sit with people who want the right thing for the wrong reason, because this is some very fundamental and serious stuff IMO. If the memo caused a shit storm or went viral amongst assholes or both, but the memo itself was not grounds for termination or even internal criticism, then the spineful thing to do for Google would have been to have the discussion, not fire the guy, drop him like a hot potato, and then patting themselves on the shoulder for it. That's disgusting. They have just proven in action what a human life is worth to them, the rest is lip service, plus a whole lot of distortions which are the main hard data points so far.
minipci1321 9y ago
Didn't read his memo, am not interested in the debate, and am not saying he should be fired or kept. That said, I'd think that he was fired not because of his opinions, but because he seems to have done an irreparable damage to Google's image: for good or bad reasons, people will react strongly and negatively to the publication of his memo, and whatever Google does -- keeps him or lets him go -- this negative impact will stick. EDIT: many, many people will react negatively.
- syshum 9y ago
  >> but because he seems to have done an irreparable damage to Google's image The same can be said for the firing, it is also doing irreparable damage to Google's image, likely more so than the publication of the memo
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  The memo wasn't published. It was leaked. Whoever leaked it is the one who damaged Google's reputation. They then damaged it more when they claimed they respect diversity and then fired the guy in response to mob outrage. The damage to Google's reputation here is on them. Almost by definition.
  - minipci1321 9y ago
    You are correct, but letting this outside is only the first item on the list of consequences. Next comes -- many, many people inside Google probably stopped working productively and are still absorbing-the-shock/digesting/battling/persuading/discussing/ruminating-alone -- again, for good or bad reasons, but many of them. The leaker didn't do that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- virtualized 9y ago
fiblye 9y ago
And when the consequences become obvious, the media will continue to complain about how shitty Western men are and how we need to crack down on them hard and fast. And it'll just keep snowballing, unless people realize we need to stop and try talking with people we disagree with, instead of doing our best to crush their every outlet to express themselves before they grow bitter and reactionary. The media can't stop talking about how the internet is "dangerous" because men are being radicalized on it and we don't know why. It's more of a "no shit" situation due them having to hide their every against-the-grain opinion in real life. But yeah, let's start sending the police in on dumb shit that people say on Twitter. [1] That'll really make people reconsider their opinions and not further rationalize their anger. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-f...
- mnglkhn2 9y ago
  Talking assumes reasoning. Or, when you are in a power grab, reasoning is the last thing you want to do. The left does want the power not the talking.
  - Brockenstein 9y ago
    And the people on the wrong side of history want to talk and talk and talk. They want to stall for time. And every individual who doesn't get a shot to talk and shape the culture feels like they've been robbed and their ideas and beliefs suppressed. They're just ignorant of the fact that these issues have been talked about, at length, ad nauseam, for decades, centuries even. And they don't understand that they don't have anything new to offer, they only have their ignorance. There's no particular reason to tolerate it forever. And when folks who are apparently ignorant of the subject history get pissy because no one has the time to entertain their ignorant BS, that's a personal problem. Rail against it all you want, it's a losing battle.
    - mnglkhn2 9y ago
      :) Your comment must be something that came out of an AI bot: right down the middle, ambiguous to the max. Saying nothing with so many words :) and with the right amount of righteous indignation. Love it! It proves my point actually.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
archagon 9y ago
I find it disturbing that somebody would even consider switching to the alt-right over this. Do people not have deeply-held beliefs anymore? Personally, that is a line that I would never, under any circumstance, cross, even if I was the one who got fired and blacklisted. It is a non-negotiable position.
- beobab 9y ago
  You are right to find it disturbing. It is disturbing. Once it becomes dangerous to express your ideas, then people with contrary ideas will either be crushed or rebellious. There is a stupendously thin line between a sane person and an insane one. It is possible to break minds, and the vitriol that can be poured out from the depths of the internet is quite sufficient to break the typical human being. Some people start off closer to the edge than others. I'm glad I do not know the true extent of the outrage that this subject has unleashed, but I'll wager it includes credible death threats considering the size of the audience that it has reached. If you pour hate over something long enough, it will bear fruit.
- protomyth 9y ago
  It’s not that someone would switch to the alt-right, it’s that the definition of belief is moving the line so others are defining you as alt-right. As an example, Ben Shapiro is by statements and beliefs not alt-right. He was attacked by them quite a bit. Yet, people have started calling him alt-right in media and forums. I too would never cross that line, but I believe others will be happy to redraw that line regardless of my actual beliefs. This is what happens when others can slap labels on you and there is no real debate.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    "Alt-right" means "Nazi" now. It didn't always. Somebody dragged Richard Spencer out from whatever rock he lives under and into the public eye, specifically for the purpose of changing that meaning - or, as you have it, moving that line.
    - archagon 9y ago
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Does that explain how Trump won the Republican primary? The alternative explanation of large parts of the population being heavily divorced from reality seems to fit better. That is the respectable right-wing position on the memo, correct? That it's just science facts that the left can't handle? Like Obama being a secret muslim that wasn't born in America. Like him trying to destroy American industry by going along with a Chinese Hoax about climate change. That trade wars with Canada and Mexico are good for American jobs? That you can't even wish people Merry Christmas anymore. That Hillary Clinton and Obama literally smell of sulphur. That one third of the population doesn't believe in evolution. That there was "no racism before Obama". To me, that explains Trump far better. Whatever tiny sliver of people were going to vote Democrat but got upset about being called sexists and so actually became fascists is only marginal at best. But apparently everyone is too "Politically Correct" to talk about this large group of people who've abandoned reality and instead we need to listen to their concerns (which apparently translates into giving tax cuts to billionaires and dumping pollution into the air and water). The memo writer was calling for people with these kind of "conservative" viewpoints to be given affirmative action at Google after all.
virtualized 9y ago
I see another problem: If you can't be openly sexist (or whatever you call it), you will still be in secret.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I see yet another problem: if you're a rational person who happens to hold wrong beliefs on the topic, you will have less chance to discover and correct your mistake, because the only way the others are willing to engage with you is with stupidity and violence. This low standard of discourse hurts everyone.
  - doubleshame 9y ago
    Except... wait for it... the employer: Google. Employees at work: shouldn't be discussing issues that distract them; shouldn't be socializing with each other because work and personal life should obviously be separate; they should just keep their heads down and keep working. There's no doubting that all recent controvertial topics have led to the ideas that: divide up society into individuals afraid to express their opinions; human expression is not an important goal and that the workspace where you spend most of your time is ONLY to do the job like a machine.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Recent discussions have unearthed this plot twist: Google soliticed employees' opinion on the topic. They asked people what they think, then sacked an employee who did what they asked.
      - hhhsdfnn888 9y ago
        Really? Cause I read it as Google hosts a forum for non-PC discourse. But that's not the same as "solicited". It's optional and not a requirement. And when the company has a desire to move in a direction, and it's being openly undermined, employees that undermine it get fired. The only reason this is so visible is because of the gender content. Otherwise, this is standard operating procedure in corporate America.
jondubois 9y ago
Suppression of free speech is the most dangerous - Eventually people reach a breaking point and then they snap all at once. I think that is a cause of extremely violent events like WW2 and most revolutions. Oppressed people start quietly labelling who their enemies are (often without proper justification) and wait for consensus to build. After this, although I disagree with the engineer, I don't think that Google is the kind of company I would want to work for. This event is eerily reminiscent of a comment I made on HN 2 months ago about big corporations and suppression of free speech (see last line): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14527934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14527934 I think that if these companies get too big and keep suppressing free speech, eventually they will get mutinied from the inside.
- falcolas 9y ago
  I'm not sure any mutiny will have a chance of survival, for one simple reason - too many people want to work for those companies, even if only to have that company on their resume. If a mutiny did occur, all the company would need to do is fire the loudest voices in the name of diversity, let the rest quit quietly, and replace them with the millions still banging at the doors to get in. You'd need someone at a C level solidly on your side for a mutiny to succeed, and you don't usually get to a career C level by having strong ideological stances (aside from, perhaps, a strong love of capitalism and how it lines your pockets).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
So, I've done some work in finance, and I just, don't see it. At the major banks you've got literal hours of training about the things you can and cannot say with association with the firm and with its image. Fuck whatever you think about diversity and playing nice with the feelings of everyone, the brand damage alone would (and did in Google's case) have gotten James fired if he was working in the "real world". Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. You want to cost your company thousands, if not millions, in bad PR maybe don't expect to have a job when you come in monday morning. There's nothing to be gained in appeasing bad science and faulty logic just because you're scared of populists.
- throwaway12124 9y ago
  It'll be interesting to see whether any of the leakers that caused that bad PR are actually fired. Seems doubtful.
hhhsdfnn888 9y ago
Spoken like an extremist. Everyone knew they could be fired from GM decades ago for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Everyone knew they could be ostracized by their community for being divorced, having an abortion, yadda yadda in the 1950s-1960s nuclear family model. Did it turn into violent uprising? Violence stemming from this are a symptom of greater social ills. The Google situation is one instance, not some inflection point. The people that will radicalize on this already are. They'll just go "more" radical. No one is owed anything by anyone else. There is no law of the universe requiring this. Having grown up fuck poor and fighting my way into a decent coding gig the last couple years, all these whiny Googlers should grow the eff up. American Exceptionalism has hit the end of the line, and the spoiled brats it created are going to get angry and turn against everyone that gave them what they have. Fine, let them. Tear it out down out of petulant spite. Then what do they have? We're cogs in a corporate machine. It's like Trump voters suddenly going OOPSY, WTF? As if no one was telling them this. People been saying this for years. And some whiny brats who drank the kool-aid are finally waking up to this. Welcome to reality.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. Totally agree, but it was like this. Religion and politics never mixed while working, outside a small circle of friends. Even then, if one was "offended" and complained, you'd be screwed. But Google did the right thing--if you ask 100 top corp lawyers, advisors and politicians. Better to fire a guy than having to deal with the wrath of the side currently winning the debate. In the end Google is there to make money for its shareholders: not to advance workplace free speech or to deliver the most useful results for its users. Google will probable spend a few million to fight and then settle this case. It will feel like losing a dime to the average person.
mikeash 9y ago
It's weird how many people are eager to blame the left for Trump. Can we not blame the people who actually voted for him? They weren't forced to choose the asshole con-man to be our leader. And this is the "party of personal responsibility."
norea-armozel 9y ago
Honest question, do you really think that their opinions weren't already extreme in light of the fact that the science on the differences between the sexes (and the races, tangentially) aren't significant enough to define hiring practices? I ask because I think we're seeing not a backlash from corporations because they're anti-science but because they're anti-scientism. We've had two centuries of science being misused to excuse unscientific policies in law and even corporate policy (and to some extent we still do this). Google, in my opinion, is right to ignore the science on the differences between groups of people because the science at this point speaks very broad terms and worse still it doesn't define social and moral goods. Science is good at describing a thing but not describing what should be done with the thing it describes, that's for philosophers, law makers, and preachers to do. And folks like Damore fall into the tar pit of scientism where they try to describe concepts of morality and philosophy in disguise when they claim they describe things in terms of a science. There's nothing scientific about fairness. It's just something we feel is fair in a given era. A century ago giving women an equal say in society whether by vote or employment would've been seen as unfair. Today? It's totally fair and expected. How that changed I won't go into but the fact is the change occurred independent of science (as it should). Science works best when it attempts to be as value free as possible. But hiring practices aren't in the sphere of science and Damore should have known this well before he wrote his letter. He should've focused on fairness and defined fairness in scope of being an employee (potential and actual). That way his point might've been accepted because at the end of his letter he spells it out as a matter of judging people on individual ability. So the rest of his letter is actually useless and hides that important point he made. All because he got caught in the trap of scientism.
tossit248 9y ago
Anecdote to support this comment: I feel as if could be called slightly right of center. That being said, I use logic to evaluate different issues then rank them in importance to me. In November, I voted for a third party candidate because I had serious issues with both main party candidates. That said, I seriously considered tossing aside my moral issues with Clinton and voting for her as a vote against Trump because I saw a scenario (which ended up happening) where Trump could win. Nine months later, my position has completely flipped. If Trump runs in three years, I am seriously considering voting for him as a "fuck you" vote due to the reaction to his election and Presidency over the last 9 months. I grew up and live in a rust belt city that used to be a manufacturing center. The complete slander, and misunderstanding, of the people I grew up and live with is incredibly difficult for me to swallow. I'm sure that everyone would love a former President who is campaigning for his wife coming into their back yard and disgustedly refer to them as "coal people," while expecting their vote. [1] When it is repeatedly espoused that we don't understand what we voted for, or when a SF elite tells a us that we need to be fixed to attract people with the right ideas [2], or that we should simply move to a place where there are jobs (friends, family, and community be damned) it gets harder and harder to explain that it isn't that simple. And when we try to explain what we feel or we believe we are told that someone else has it worse and to just adjust so that we can be accepted. I'm tired of being labeled as a racist or homophobic and being told my opinions are so obviously wrong, they are not even worth discussing. So, yes. There are definitely people who aren't going to speak out, who are going to toe the line, and then they will cast a giant "fuck you" vote come November 2020. I might be one of them, but I will probably end up voting 3rd party again instead of letting my emotions get the best of me. As an aside, follow Chris Arnade [3/4] on twitter. He does great work covering the Rust Belt and similar areas in a balanced perspective. [1] http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/09/09/hundreds-gather-in-homewood-for-president-bill-clintons-visit/ http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/09/09/hundreds-gather-in... [2] https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/melinda_byerley.jpg https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/melinda_bye... [3] https://mobile.twitter.com/Chris_arnade https://mobile.twitter.com/Chris_arnade [4] https://www.theguardian.com/profile/chris-arnade https://www.theguardian.com/profile/chris-arnade
jshevek 9y ago
> But they won't change their position. If anything, their position will be radicalized. For example, from classical liberal to alt-right. You make an excellent point. I am a lifelong feminist, anti-racist, pro-LBTQ atheist who passionately desires a fair, just, egalitarian world. In the last three years I've discovered: Many conservatives actually share my fundamental values, and do so with more integrity than most liberals I have known. I seek out honest, rational, factual people to listen to - only to have the media and my liberal friends try, absurdly, to defame them as "alt right" What does "alt right" even mean, any more? I understand its racist origins, but going by actual usage, it appears to include "good people, with good intentions, who also value reason and evidence" Edit: To clarify the relevance of this to your comment - I would never have been exposed to so many views on the right if it hadn't been for the irrational, hateful, totalitarian intolerance that I've experienced in recent years from some parts of the left. Not all, obviously!

idibidiart 9y ago

Sexism is not free speech.

relics443 9y ago

Are you saying that Trump was only elected because he was appealing to the alt-right? Surely that was part of it, but why is everyone so eager to "blame" it on the marginalized alt-right? Is it a scare tactic for 2020 /r

Const-me 9y ago
I’m not saying that, and the GP mentions alt right just as one possible outcome. But I think Trump is definitely more right than left, at least compared to Clinton. This might have contributed to his victory.
- Super_Jambo 9y ago
  'More right' Clinton is a neo-liberal and Trump is a lunatic. It's pretty hard to put that into a left-right economic spectrum.

michaelchisari 9y ago

We'll see how the trend moves going forward, but even after capturing (by rhetoric if not act) the white house, the alt-right continues to be a radical fringe, and suffers from serious internal contradictions that make any serious movement building doomed. The movement has attracted the attention of a lot of white nationalists, anti-semites and hardline fascists (amren, natall, kss), while also attracting a new wave of online-prominent trolls and shit-stirrers. But what happens when the 4chan poster with the anime pillow who denies the holocaust just to get a rise out of the libcucks crosses paths with an actual hardline anti-semite who is interested in building an even-more-final solution? To use a colloquialism, what happens when the rubber meets the road? Do the fascists tolerate what they would consider to be total degeneracy for the sake of finally building a mass movement? Does the online troll recognize that what was an ironic joke for him is a hard reality for others, and move to push their real-life activism away from those types of groups? This is what I mean by internal contradictions, the kind that can kill a mass movement before it even starts. So while there is a common refrain of "this is why Trump won, and the movement of contrarians, devils advocates, trolls, anti-pc crusaders, people who tweet about white genocide, stormfront regulars and conspiracy theorists is only going to grow if you being offensive towards them", the reality is much, much more complicated. Trust in Trump has plummeted, even amongst his core. The vote is very quickly slipping out of the grasp of the Right, and was always a race against time demographically to begin with. And if you're in a position where you can't win through democratic means, you have to use other means (boycotts, protests, organizing, etc). And the alt-right is utterly lamed by it's own hand before that race has even started.

Const-me 9y ago
Very likely you’re right about the current state of alt right movement (I live in Europe and haven’t been monitoring the subject). But GP only mentioned alt-rights as an example of where might the voters turn their preferences. Even at Google where James worked, many employees agree with his memo (36%), and the majority, 54% of them think the memo is harmless and was OK to share: https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/press-f-for-james-damore-the-only-set-of-balls-left-at-google/ https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/press-f-for-ja... After Google fired him, these 54% will inevitably think about what other ideas they think are harmless might cause them to be fired. Not exactly comforting thoughts.

fsaneq2 9y ago

EDIT: Removed comment. See better response below.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago
That's a really weird conclusion to draw based on that statistic. Another way to say the same thing would be "Donald Trump performed more poorly in California than any other Republican candidate since 1936." (I see he removed his comment. For posterity, he argued that Donald Trump got "almost a third" of the votes in California and, therefore, liberals were on the decline).
- 9point6 9y ago
  The difference spin makes.
- fsaneq2 9y ago
  My point was more that it was surprising to me that someone as vilified as Trump still got almost a third of the votes in CA, but I agree that your point makes that look substantially weaker, so I retract it.

KirinDave 9y ago

It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing. Mad someone for touching your bum? Speak up. You spoke up? Now you're ruining the work environment and being unfair. In this memo's case, perhaps you're mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action (e.g., don't worry I am sure if we set up pair programming that will make it fair for you social women types)? Well it's your fault for not arguing against it. Oh you spoke up and that person got fired for violating some pretty basic corproate policy? Well congrats now it's your fault they're radicalized. Now Trump is inevitable, thanks for putting him in power, I hope North Korea nukes your house! The only solution that ever seems to be okay is stand there and smile as people say, do, and justify unfair things. Or maybe sit there and "debate" with them as they spout tired 1970s-debunked rhetoric about communication skills and and meticulisly avoid the idea that benefits might take any shape or form beyond what they themselves want this year. As for that "memo", I still don't get why the underlying premise that Google's level of technical competitiveness was hurt by these policies is taken without a critical eye. That's a pretty big assertion for a company who's essentially leading numerous areas in the world's tech markets and research fields.

kentrado 9y ago
>Mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action? He never said that. Could you cite the portion where he literally says women are less capable?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- KirinDave 9y ago
  He says women will benefit from making coding more social. Pair programming. Remember?

iuguy 9y ago

I made the grave mistake of trying to express that point on Twitter. Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time, but it's a dumpster fire right now full of raging people who don't understand what you've just said. I was in SV last year for a couple of months during the election, and everyone I met were all paid up members of the church of political correctness up front, but when you spoke to these people in private there were a lot of people who were secretly conservative, but "It's Silicon Valley and you can't be a Republican out here". I'm reminded of Chomsky's words in his book, The Common Good: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum" Where things have gone drastically wrong here are that the spectrum is now so tiny that any debate within that spectrum is now impossible. It becomes almost impossible to depolarize the situation and widen that spectrum, and that's going to lead to everything you more eloquently put above, if not more.

toyg 9y ago
> Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time Understatement of the century. How on earth can you expect to have "nuanced debate" with only 140 characters?
- kogepathic 9y ago
  > How on earth can you expect to have "nuanced debate" with only 140 characters? Oh come now, it seems to work fine for Trump! /s
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Sad!
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      I was downvoted! Sad!
  - marrs 9y ago

dandare 9y ago

I totally agree, this will add tons of ammunition to all kinds of sexists, racists and extremists. Damore made several well sourced arguments that you are welcome to disagree with. But instead of discussion, counter arguments and "embracing diversity" he was silenced and probably illegally sacked. This will strengthen the position of all kind of haters and populists and if you think it's not a big deal, yes, go and check who is your president.

SidiousL 9y ago

It's funny how some companies now literally enforce a "don't ask don't tell" policy when it comes to some points of view. In the academia it is probably even worse than in the industry. Except this time, it's the left that is "promoting" hiding your true self. You may say that for the army it was the government doing it, which makes it worse. In a sense I agree. However, in the case of private employers it touches on a more consequential right for us as a society: the right to free speech. Maybe people should be more accepting of somebody's views on controversial topics as diversity, gun rights and abortion, as they are to gay people in the military.

manicdee 9y ago

That's a gross oversimplification of the issue. Would the same outcome have happened if this guy had posted his manifesto on a blog outside the office, rather than distributing it to colleagues at work? Would the same outcome have happened if the various arguments in the manifesto had been individual articles on a personal blog over a period of time? Would the same outcome have happened if the manifesto hadn't been explicitly critical about diversity hiring at Google, and rather had been generally critical about EEO law at the state and federal level? There are so many ways this situation could have been different, but the lesson you choose to take from it is "don't express your opinion in public"? That's what really explains Trump.

dictum 9y ago
> Would the same outcome have happened if this guy had posted his manifesto on a blog outside the office, rather than distributing it to colleagues at work? Yes. The only thing that could have prevented his firing was to have never published it under his real name (and this is not completely safe). Since it's an internal issue, I think he did the right thing in this aspect: he published it in the internal forum, instead of dragging the dirty laundry for the world to see. Most codes of conduct explictly apply all their conditions to venues that are not related to the project itself, so I doubt the outrage would be different if he published it elsewhere, under a pseudonym, and was IDed later.
ordu 9y ago
> That's a gross oversimplification of the issue. It is the way most people think. The only way of thinking available for them. So this conclusions is exactly what they draw from the story. > the lesson you choose to take from it is "don't express your opinion in public"? That's what really explains Trump. I'm not sure that Const-me took _this_ lesson, but the point is: the most people took this lesson. The reality works this way. Therefore this lesson is the true one, it is like self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people belive in it, than it is true.

GVIrish 9y ago

> Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. This is an example of people taking exactly the wrong lesson from this situation. The guy wasn't fired for having a 'dissenting opinion'. He was fired because he basically said women are underrepresented in IT because they are biologically unsuited for it. If someone's 'opinion' is that phrenology explains why black people are underrepresented in tech they'd meet with a similar fate There are a lot of situations these days where people are expressing opinions at work that are insensitive to or outright disparage another group of people, then getting shocked when they're fired. The problem is that tolerance in the workplace of bigotry towards any group is rapidly eroding and some people don't know where the line of appropriateness is. They've never had to think much about the impact of their opinions on minorities and women so they're almost blind about what is over the line. The thing is that many people who get into these situations have at least some idea that what they're gonna say is offensive. They'll preface things with, "I'm not racist but..." but continue right on saying it. Like they know on some level it's offensive but they don't consider that 'hey, maybe I'm in the wrong and I shouldn't go there'. 'No, it must be that liberals are out to censor me and destroy free speech'. It's funny that some people point to a situation like this and say, "This is why we have Trump." If people voted for someone who routinely espoused racist and misogynist attitudes as a reaction to being criticized, that pretty much means they actually are bigots on some level. If you're not a bigot, the reasons to vote for him would be his policies, not his crude and prejudiced 'political incorrectness'

dx034 9y ago
> He was fired because he basically said women are underrepresented in IT because they are biologically unsuited for it. I don't understand why people keep repeating that statement. He said that biological differences explain the different ratios of men and women, NOT that women are not suited for tech jobs. He explicitely did not say (nor mean) that a woman can't be a good software engineer. Just that on average, more men than women will show the features needed for software engineers. That is a huge difference. It doesn't disqualify any woman working at Google. It just means that the goal to reach 50% women could lead to a worse outcome. Disclaimer: I don't necessarily support his claims, nor do I support his memo as such. I just think that it's worth thinking about and that there should be more scientific studies to explore this. Diversity campaigns should be based on science, not on populism.

cf 9y ago

People can express any opinion they want in public. Inside a company isn't public. Also while you do have a right to an opinion you don't have a right to it going unchallenged and questioned. Also how can you be so sure he wasn't alt-right already. "Classic liberal" is essentially the closest you are allowed to get in public.

jamesrcole 9y ago
> People can express any opinion they want in public. Inside a company isn't public. Also while you do have a right to an opinion you don't have a right to it going unchallenged and questioned. It's grossly misrepresenting the response to the memo to imply it was just a matter of challenging and questioning. A quick read of any of the forums where it's being discussed makes that clear, and remember how the author was fired? A lot of the issue people have with the response is precisely that it wasn't making a substantive attempt to actually question or challenge the memo's content.
- cf 9y ago
  I'm sorry you didn't feel any of the challenges had substance. They were still challenged.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    You're misrepresenting what I said

timgrahamtech 9y ago

Then the goal is making him understand that he got fired for how he expressed those opinions. He didn't just talk to HR or his manager, he published a rant for all the world to see making it the CEO's problem. Anyone who publishes an incoherent 10 page manifesto insulting their coworkers and trashing their company's policies can reasonably expect to get fired. It doesn't matter if any of the bosses agree or disagree with the opinions expressed; it's just an unprofessional thing to do. To be honest, he was the bully in this situation. I have more concern for the women at Google who could fear losing their jobs and the means to support their families. If a coworker of mine started publicly saying that I'm not genetically qualified for the work I do, I would be worried for my job. However, I don't think those women would become radicalized over this. Why? Because intelligent professional people don't become radicalized when other people disagree with their opinions. A note about Trump: I grew up in a red state and lived and worked in two others. I never spent more than a few months in a blue state so I don't know how it is there, but in Trump country people openly and aggressively express all sorts of opinions without fear of recrimination. There may be a few voices of dissent, but there are no "witch-hunting mobs" forcing them to keep their views a secret. I think this scenario Giulio describes fits better to Brendan Eich who was essentially forced out of Mozilla over his views. But Brendan didn't become radicalized. He picked himself up and founded a new company, because that's what professionals do.

js8 9y ago
"Anyone who publishes an incoherent 10 page manifesto insulting their coworkers and trashing their company's policies can reasonably expect to get fired. It doesn't matter if any of the bosses agree or disagree with the opinions expressed; it's just an unprofessional thing to do." I agree completely. Just like these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_77 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_77 Very unprofessional!
- timgrahamtech 9y ago
  Ale mluvim cesky a to znam dobre. You're actually going to compare Google's hiring policies to the oppression of a eastern bloc state? Do prdel.

scandox 9y ago

If a person is engaging in reasonable dissent then why is this true: "If anything, their position will be radicalized."? The (true) implication is that their reasonable dissent actually is a bland cover for a position that is much more radical once it is reduced to its core propositions.

thinkfurther 9y ago
> If a person is engaging in reasonable dissent then why is this true: "If anything, their position will be radicalized."? Uhmmmm.... because they get fired for deviating from the party line, not for being unreasonable. How can you skip that "detail"? In this case, it seems to be even lamer than that, seems like he was not fired for the memo, but the reaction to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977750 > Damore said he initially shared the memo a month ago, but "no one high up ever came to me and said, 'No, don't do this,' even though there were many people who looked at it," Damore told Bloomberg. "It was only after it got viral that upper management started shaming me and eventually firing me." So, what's hiding under this leaving out crucial parts and misrepresenting in the context of destroying people while paying lip service to being for people being unafraid? Anyone else seeing this? > The (true) implication is that their reasonable dissent actually is a bland cover for a position that is much more radical once it is reduced to its core propositions. This is so incredibly sinister and you don't even know it. Here's an example: a kid has a legitimate grievance, or at least legitimately thinks it does, but when it brings it up modestly, non-radically, it gets hit in the face. Now it will do something "bad", like cuss or somehow act out, because it is not allowed to place the grievance where it should be -- and then that is used to excuse that initial oppression or however you want to call it. Another example is SS officers despising people in concentration camps for being the diseased husks they turned them into, seeing this as a confirmation for their inferiority. Roll your eyes how much you want at that, chose whatever example you want, but that is the mechanism, that is an apt analogy just as much as bad parenting. Heck, get hung up on me somehow equating the Holocaust with a kid getting hit, I really don't care because people who don't want to understand always find something. Granted, even being fired is no excuse to be radicalized. He's not a little kid, and he's not being made physically sick. But he also has a mob against him, plus the support of many he actually might not want want to be a martyr for (I mean, does anyone even allow for the fact that he is not some kind of closeted alt-right monster?), and that's more pressure than someone who was not on the receiving end of stuff like this can imagine, so I'll call that a wash. The point isn't (to me) "would he be justified to go loopy now", but "was this an okay reaction by the stronger party, and should this be normalized". My answer is no, and no. But not because it might lead to things I don't want, because it itself is already something I don't want either. Kinda of like I don't think corporations shouldn't turn street kids into sausage "because it would lead to a backlash and therefore make bad financial sense", but because it'd be evil. And I might not even want to sit with people who want the right thing for the wrong reason, because this is some very fundamental and serious stuff IMO. If the memo caused a shit storm or went viral amongst assholes or both, but the memo itself was not grounds for termination or even internal criticism, then the spineful thing to do for Google would have been to have the discussion, not fire the guy, drop him like a hot potato, and then patting themselves on the shoulder for it. That's disgusting. They have just proven in action what a human life is worth to them, the rest is lip service, plus a whole lot of distortions which are the main hard data points so far.

minipci1321 9y ago

Didn't read his memo, am not interested in the debate, and am not saying he should be fired or kept. That said, I'd think that he was fired not because of his opinions, but because he seems to have done an irreparable damage to Google's image: for good or bad reasons, people will react strongly and negatively to the publication of his memo, and whatever Google does -- keeps him or lets him go -- this negative impact will stick. EDIT: many, many people will react negatively.

syshum 9y ago
>> but because he seems to have done an irreparable damage to Google's image The same can be said for the firing, it is also doing irreparable damage to Google's image, likely more so than the publication of the memo
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
peoplewindow 9y ago
The memo wasn't published. It was leaked. Whoever leaked it is the one who damaged Google's reputation. They then damaged it more when they claimed they respect diversity and then fired the guy in response to mob outrage. The damage to Google's reputation here is on them. Almost by definition.
- minipci1321 9y ago
  You are correct, but letting this outside is only the first item on the list of consequences. Next comes -- many, many people inside Google probably stopped working productively and are still absorbing-the-shock/digesting/battling/persuading/discussing/ruminating-alone -- again, for good or bad reasons, but many of them. The leaker didn't do that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
virtualized 9y ago

fiblye 9y ago

And when the consequences become obvious, the media will continue to complain about how shitty Western men are and how we need to crack down on them hard and fast. And it'll just keep snowballing, unless people realize we need to stop and try talking with people we disagree with, instead of doing our best to crush their every outlet to express themselves before they grow bitter and reactionary. The media can't stop talking about how the internet is "dangerous" because men are being radicalized on it and we don't know why. It's more of a "no shit" situation due them having to hide their every against-the-grain opinion in real life. But yeah, let's start sending the police in on dumb shit that people say on Twitter. [1] That'll really make people reconsider their opinions and not further rationalize their anger. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-f...

mnglkhn2 9y ago
Talking assumes reasoning. Or, when you are in a power grab, reasoning is the last thing you want to do. The left does want the power not the talking.
- Brockenstein 9y ago
  And the people on the wrong side of history want to talk and talk and talk. They want to stall for time. And every individual who doesn't get a shot to talk and shape the culture feels like they've been robbed and their ideas and beliefs suppressed. They're just ignorant of the fact that these issues have been talked about, at length, ad nauseam, for decades, centuries even. And they don't understand that they don't have anything new to offer, they only have their ignorance. There's no particular reason to tolerate it forever. And when folks who are apparently ignorant of the subject history get pissy because no one has the time to entertain their ignorant BS, that's a personal problem. Rail against it all you want, it's a losing battle.
  - mnglkhn2 9y ago
    :) Your comment must be something that came out of an AI bot: right down the middle, ambiguous to the max. Saying nothing with so many words :) and with the right amount of righteous indignation. Love it! It proves my point actually.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

archagon 9y ago

I find it disturbing that somebody would even consider switching to the alt-right over this. Do people not have deeply-held beliefs anymore? Personally, that is a line that I would never, under any circumstance, cross, even if I was the one who got fired and blacklisted. It is a non-negotiable position.

beobab 9y ago
You are right to find it disturbing. It is disturbing. Once it becomes dangerous to express your ideas, then people with contrary ideas will either be crushed or rebellious. There is a stupendously thin line between a sane person and an insane one. It is possible to break minds, and the vitriol that can be poured out from the depths of the internet is quite sufficient to break the typical human being. Some people start off closer to the edge than others. I'm glad I do not know the true extent of the outrage that this subject has unleashed, but I'll wager it includes credible death threats considering the size of the audience that it has reached. If you pour hate over something long enough, it will bear fruit.
protomyth 9y ago
It’s not that someone would switch to the alt-right, it’s that the definition of belief is moving the line so others are defining you as alt-right. As an example, Ben Shapiro is by statements and beliefs not alt-right. He was attacked by them quite a bit. Yet, people have started calling him alt-right in media and forums. I too would never cross that line, but I believe others will be happy to redraw that line regardless of my actual beliefs. This is what happens when others can slap labels on you and there is no real debate.
- throwanem 9y ago
  "Alt-right" means "Nazi" now. It didn't always. Somebody dragged Richard Spencer out from whatever rock he lives under and into the public eye, specifically for the purpose of changing that meaning - or, as you have it, moving that line.
  - archagon 9y ago

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Does that explain how Trump won the Republican primary? The alternative explanation of large parts of the population being heavily divorced from reality seems to fit better. That is the respectable right-wing position on the memo, correct? That it's just science facts that the left can't handle? Like Obama being a secret muslim that wasn't born in America. Like him trying to destroy American industry by going along with a Chinese Hoax about climate change. That trade wars with Canada and Mexico are good for American jobs? That you can't even wish people Merry Christmas anymore. That Hillary Clinton and Obama literally smell of sulphur. That one third of the population doesn't believe in evolution. That there was "no racism before Obama". To me, that explains Trump far better. Whatever tiny sliver of people were going to vote Democrat but got upset about being called sexists and so actually became fascists is only marginal at best. But apparently everyone is too "Politically Correct" to talk about this large group of people who've abandoned reality and instead we need to listen to their concerns (which apparently translates into giving tax cuts to billionaires and dumping pollution into the air and water). The memo writer was calling for people with these kind of "conservative" viewpoints to be given affirmative action at Google after all.

virtualized 9y ago

I see another problem: If you can't be openly sexist (or whatever you call it), you will still be in secret.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
I see yet another problem: if you're a rational person who happens to hold wrong beliefs on the topic, you will have less chance to discover and correct your mistake, because the only way the others are willing to engage with you is with stupidity and violence. This low standard of discourse hurts everyone.
- doubleshame 9y ago
  Except... wait for it... the employer: Google. Employees at work: shouldn't be discussing issues that distract them; shouldn't be socializing with each other because work and personal life should obviously be separate; they should just keep their heads down and keep working. There's no doubting that all recent controvertial topics have led to the ideas that: divide up society into individuals afraid to express their opinions; human expression is not an important goal and that the workspace where you spend most of your time is ONLY to do the job like a machine.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Recent discussions have unearthed this plot twist: Google soliticed employees' opinion on the topic. They asked people what they think, then sacked an employee who did what they asked.
    - hhhsdfnn888 9y ago
      Really? Cause I read it as Google hosts a forum for non-PC discourse. But that's not the same as "solicited". It's optional and not a requirement. And when the company has a desire to move in a direction, and it's being openly undermined, employees that undermine it get fired. The only reason this is so visible is because of the gender content. Otherwise, this is standard operating procedure in corporate America.

jondubois 9y ago

Suppression of free speech is the most dangerous - Eventually people reach a breaking point and then they snap all at once. I think that is a cause of extremely violent events like WW2 and most revolutions. Oppressed people start quietly labelling who their enemies are (often without proper justification) and wait for consensus to build. After this, although I disagree with the engineer, I don't think that Google is the kind of company I would want to work for. This event is eerily reminiscent of a comment I made on HN 2 months ago about big corporations and suppression of free speech (see last line): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14527934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14527934 I think that if these companies get too big and keep suppressing free speech, eventually they will get mutinied from the inside.

falcolas 9y ago
I'm not sure any mutiny will have a chance of survival, for one simple reason - too many people want to work for those companies, even if only to have that company on their resume. If a mutiny did occur, all the company would need to do is fire the loudest voices in the name of diversity, let the rest quit quietly, and replace them with the millions still banging at the doors to get in. You'd need someone at a C level solidly on your side for a mutiny to succeed, and you don't usually get to a career C level by having strong ideological stances (aside from, perhaps, a strong love of capitalism and how it lines your pockets).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

So, I've done some work in finance, and I just, don't see it. At the major banks you've got literal hours of training about the things you can and cannot say with association with the firm and with its image. Fuck whatever you think about diversity and playing nice with the feelings of everyone, the brand damage alone would (and did in Google's case) have gotten James fired if he was working in the "real world". Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. You want to cost your company thousands, if not millions, in bad PR maybe don't expect to have a job when you come in monday morning. There's nothing to be gained in appeasing bad science and faulty logic just because you're scared of populists.

throwaway12124 9y ago
It'll be interesting to see whether any of the leakers that caused that bad PR are actually fired. Seems doubtful.

hhhsdfnn888 9y ago

Spoken like an extremist. Everyone knew they could be fired from GM decades ago for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Everyone knew they could be ostracized by their community for being divorced, having an abortion, yadda yadda in the 1950s-1960s nuclear family model. Did it turn into violent uprising? Violence stemming from this are a symptom of greater social ills. The Google situation is one instance, not some inflection point. The people that will radicalize on this already are. They'll just go "more" radical. No one is owed anything by anyone else. There is no law of the universe requiring this. Having grown up fuck poor and fighting my way into a decent coding gig the last couple years, all these whiny Googlers should grow the eff up. American Exceptionalism has hit the end of the line, and the spoiled brats it created are going to get angry and turn against everyone that gave them what they have. Fine, let them. Tear it out down out of petulant spite. Then what do they have? We're cogs in a corporate machine. It's like Trump voters suddenly going OOPSY, WTF? As if no one was telling them this. People been saying this for years. And some whiny brats who drank the kool-aid are finally waking up to this. Welcome to reality.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. Totally agree, but it was like this. Religion and politics never mixed while working, outside a small circle of friends. Even then, if one was "offended" and complained, you'd be screwed. But Google did the right thing--if you ask 100 top corp lawyers, advisors and politicians. Better to fire a guy than having to deal with the wrath of the side currently winning the debate. In the end Google is there to make money for its shareholders: not to advance workplace free speech or to deliver the most useful results for its users. Google will probable spend a few million to fight and then settle this case. It will feel like losing a dime to the average person.

mikeash 9y ago

It's weird how many people are eager to blame the left for Trump. Can we not blame the people who actually voted for him? They weren't forced to choose the asshole con-man to be our leader. And this is the "party of personal responsibility."

norea-armozel 9y ago

Honest question, do you really think that their opinions weren't already extreme in light of the fact that the science on the differences between the sexes (and the races, tangentially) aren't significant enough to define hiring practices? I ask because I think we're seeing not a backlash from corporations because they're anti-science but because they're anti-scientism. We've had two centuries of science being misused to excuse unscientific policies in law and even corporate policy (and to some extent we still do this). Google, in my opinion, is right to ignore the science on the differences between groups of people because the science at this point speaks very broad terms and worse still it doesn't define social and moral goods. Science is good at describing a thing but not describing what should be done with the thing it describes, that's for philosophers, law makers, and preachers to do. And folks like Damore fall into the tar pit of scientism where they try to describe concepts of morality and philosophy in disguise when they claim they describe things in terms of a science. There's nothing scientific about fairness. It's just something we feel is fair in a given era. A century ago giving women an equal say in society whether by vote or employment would've been seen as unfair. Today? It's totally fair and expected. How that changed I won't go into but the fact is the change occurred independent of science (as it should). Science works best when it attempts to be as value free as possible. But hiring practices aren't in the sphere of science and Damore should have known this well before he wrote his letter. He should've focused on fairness and defined fairness in scope of being an employee (potential and actual). That way his point might've been accepted because at the end of his letter he spells it out as a matter of judging people on individual ability. So the rest of his letter is actually useless and hides that important point he made. All because he got caught in the trap of scientism.

tossit248 9y ago

Anecdote to support this comment: I feel as if could be called slightly right of center. That being said, I use logic to evaluate different issues then rank them in importance to me. In November, I voted for a third party candidate because I had serious issues with both main party candidates. That said, I seriously considered tossing aside my moral issues with Clinton and voting for her as a vote against Trump because I saw a scenario (which ended up happening) where Trump could win. Nine months later, my position has completely flipped. If Trump runs in three years, I am seriously considering voting for him as a "fuck you" vote due to the reaction to his election and Presidency over the last 9 months. I grew up and live in a rust belt city that used to be a manufacturing center. The complete slander, and misunderstanding, of the people I grew up and live with is incredibly difficult for me to swallow. I'm sure that everyone would love a former President who is campaigning for his wife coming into their back yard and disgustedly refer to them as "coal people," while expecting their vote. [1] When it is repeatedly espoused that we don't understand what we voted for, or when a SF elite tells a us that we need to be fixed to attract people with the right ideas [2], or that we should simply move to a place where there are jobs (friends, family, and community be damned) it gets harder and harder to explain that it isn't that simple. And when we try to explain what we feel or we believe we are told that someone else has it worse and to just adjust so that we can be accepted. I'm tired of being labeled as a racist or homophobic and being told my opinions are so obviously wrong, they are not even worth discussing. So, yes. There are definitely people who aren't going to speak out, who are going to toe the line, and then they will cast a giant "fuck you" vote come November 2020. I might be one of them, but I will probably end up voting 3rd party again instead of letting my emotions get the best of me. As an aside, follow Chris Arnade [3/4] on twitter. He does great work covering the Rust Belt and similar areas in a balanced perspective. [1] http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/09/09/hundreds-gather-in-homewood-for-president-bill-clintons-visit/ http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/09/09/hundreds-gather-in... [2] https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/melinda_byerley.jpg https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/melinda_bye... [3] https://mobile.twitter.com/Chris_arnade https://mobile.twitter.com/Chris_arnade [4] https://www.theguardian.com/profile/chris-arnade https://www.theguardian.com/profile/chris-arnade

jshevek 9y ago

> But they won't change their position. If anything, their position will be radicalized. For example, from classical liberal to alt-right. You make an excellent point. I am a lifelong feminist, anti-racist, pro-LBTQ atheist who passionately desires a fair, just, egalitarian world. In the last three years I've discovered: Many conservatives actually share my fundamental values, and do so with more integrity than most liberals I have known. I seek out honest, rational, factual people to listen to - only to have the media and my liberal friends try, absurdly, to defame them as "alt right" What does "alt right" even mean, any more? I understand its racist origins, but going by actual usage, it appears to include "good people, with good intentions, who also value reason and evidence" Edit: To clarify the relevance of this to your comment - I would never have been exposed to so many views on the right if it hadn't been for the irrational, hateful, totalitarian intolerance that I've experienced in recent years from some parts of the left. Not all, obviously!