9 ms·

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

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.
  - js8 9y ago
    Yes, because it is the same argument. The GP didn't talk about about hiring policies, he talked about institutional criticism. The subject of the criticism is irrelevant.
    - pi_qed 9y ago
      That's an insult to Jan Palach. I doubt any of the critics of Google have the same level of conviction.
int_19h 9y ago
In one of the previous discussions, it was said that it was published in an internal social network, in a group that was specifically dedicated to diversity hiring at Google. Is that incorrect?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Moreover, as it was uncovered in previous discussions, it was a response to Google soliticing opinion of employees about their diversity programs.
Aeolun 9y ago
Publishing something on an internal board that's aimed at discussing diversity is hardly 'publishing the rant for all the world to see'. I just don't get how people who're obviously upset about this memo and must therefore have spent some time reading up about it (right? Right?!) still get this basic fact wrong. This guy expressed his opinions, and a witch hunting mob, because that's what it was, descended on him from all over the internet to rip his reputation to shreds for things he didn't do or write (most of the outrage was about 'perceived' slights). It's just sad... The worst part was that it validated a lot of what he said, and people somehow just don't see the irony in that.
- timgrahamtech 9y ago
  Let's not pretend he didn't know what he was doing. There are textbook examples about people who blast off a rant to the entire company and then are somehow surprised when it becomes public (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1315452/Bosss-angry-email-sends-shares-plunging.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...).
  - rtx 9y ago
    Again he didn't share it with the entire company.
    - dcole2929 9y ago
      He shared it in a forum that any and everyone in the company can access, and is intended to be able to access. That's essentially the same thing. This wasn't a private email chain that was leaked but an intentional dissemination by the engineer to google's employees at large.
  - alexknvl 9y ago
    It wasn't even meant for the entire company. He gave it to a small community of people within Google who later distributed it across the company AFAIU from his interview with Jordan Peterson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU).
syshum 9y ago
>>he published a rant for all the world to see making it the CEO's problem. Except he did not publish it, My understanding it put it on a internal system shared with a few people, other people inside google shared it more and more people inside of google until another Google Employee sent it to Motherboard or Gizmodo who published it for the world to see. So then would you support Google firing who ever sent internal communications to a "news" organization which is likely in violation of company policy?
- timgrahamtech 9y ago
  Would he have been fired if he had instead expressed these views to his manager in a room with closed door? I'm not aware of any executives of large institutions that are perfectly happy with leaks. They just usually aren't dumb enough to pretend that a rant like this wouldn't get leaked.
  - syshum 9y ago
    You have a vastly different definition of rant than I do, aside from that why do you believe this should only be discussed behind closed doors, that is infact one of the points the author was attempting to explorer the idea that with in google anyone that did not have left political leaning felt they were not allowed to express those positions with in the company. You seem to agree
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
averagewall 9y ago
> If a coworker of mine started publicly saying that I'm not genetically qualified for the work I do Why are you changing the meaning of what he wrote? He didn't say that at all. He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. If you choose to misunderstand what someone said, when they did a good job of explaining it clearly, then I think you shouldn't spread that misunderstanding around in a way that will hurt people, as it hurt this guy.
- Lukasa 9y ago
  > He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. Since when does that excuse anything? If he'd written "Jews are, in general, hateful monsters. Not the Jews who work here, they're great, but most of the rest" does that statement become acceptable? More importantly, Mr Damore does not know all the women at Google personally. He cannot. So when he says "In general, women are less suited to/interested in programming careers", he cannot possibly implicitly mean "but clearly that does not apply to every woman currently employed at Google, who were all hired because they are the best in the world at their jobs". Damore asserts that Google practices discriminatory hiring practices. For this to be true, Google must have at least once hired a woman where a better male candidate was available, and more importantly must do so more often than they do the reverse. If you are going to make general statements about a group of people, then you should not be surprised when individuals in that group assume you mean that statement to apply to them.
  - bluecalm 9y ago
    I say: black people are more suited to be NBA players. This is obvious looking at black players % in the league in comparison to the total population as well as the fact that black people are poorer on average and get less opportunities (or even chances for proper nutrition, let alone training). Should white NBA players be offended by that statement? The answer is obvious: they shouldn't as that only means they were the ones on the tail of the genetic distribution and made it anyway or maybe even they overcome disadvantages to get there. Now I say: women are in general less likely to be interested in tech and less likely to become good programmers because they are, on average, less competitive and less likely to devote themselves to solitude practice which is often necessary to become a very good coder. Should women, who already made it to Google be offended? Of course they shouldn't for the same reasons as above. We can however do something with this information: we can try changing tech world to be more welcoming to women. This way we can avoid sexist hiring practices (gender quotas are clear discrimination) while still achieving more diverse environment. Those are the points of the manifesto. Being offended by that is the problem of those taking offence as it doesn't speak well about their ability to reason about distributions of traits in a population.

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.
- js8 9y ago
  Yes, because it is the same argument. The GP didn't talk about about hiring policies, he talked about institutional criticism. The subject of the criticism is irrelevant.
  - pi_qed 9y ago
    That's an insult to Jan Palach. I doubt any of the critics of Google have the same level of conviction.

int_19h 9y ago

In one of the previous discussions, it was said that it was published in an internal social network, in a group that was specifically dedicated to diversity hiring at Google. Is that incorrect?

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Moreover, as it was uncovered in previous discussions, it was a response to Google soliticing opinion of employees about their diversity programs.

Aeolun 9y ago

Publishing something on an internal board that's aimed at discussing diversity is hardly 'publishing the rant for all the world to see'. I just don't get how people who're obviously upset about this memo and must therefore have spent some time reading up about it (right? Right?!) still get this basic fact wrong. This guy expressed his opinions, and a witch hunting mob, because that's what it was, descended on him from all over the internet to rip his reputation to shreds for things he didn't do or write (most of the outrage was about 'perceived' slights). It's just sad... The worst part was that it validated a lot of what he said, and people somehow just don't see the irony in that.

timgrahamtech 9y ago
Let's not pretend he didn't know what he was doing. There are textbook examples about people who blast off a rant to the entire company and then are somehow surprised when it becomes public (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1315452/Bosss-angry-email-sends-shares-plunging.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...).
- rtx 9y ago
  Again he didn't share it with the entire company.
  - dcole2929 9y ago
    He shared it in a forum that any and everyone in the company can access, and is intended to be able to access. That's essentially the same thing. This wasn't a private email chain that was leaked but an intentional dissemination by the engineer to google's employees at large.
- alexknvl 9y ago
  It wasn't even meant for the entire company. He gave it to a small community of people within Google who later distributed it across the company AFAIU from his interview with Jordan Peterson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU).

syshum 9y ago

>>he published a rant for all the world to see making it the CEO's problem. Except he did not publish it, My understanding it put it on a internal system shared with a few people, other people inside google shared it more and more people inside of google until another Google Employee sent it to Motherboard or Gizmodo who published it for the world to see. So then would you support Google firing who ever sent internal communications to a "news" organization which is likely in violation of company policy?

timgrahamtech 9y ago
Would he have been fired if he had instead expressed these views to his manager in a room with closed door? I'm not aware of any executives of large institutions that are perfectly happy with leaks. They just usually aren't dumb enough to pretend that a rant like this wouldn't get leaked.
- syshum 9y ago
  You have a vastly different definition of rant than I do, aside from that why do you believe this should only be discussed behind closed doors, that is infact one of the points the author was attempting to explorer the idea that with in google anyone that did not have left political leaning felt they were not allowed to express those positions with in the company. You seem to agree
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

averagewall 9y ago

> If a coworker of mine started publicly saying that I'm not genetically qualified for the work I do Why are you changing the meaning of what he wrote? He didn't say that at all. He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. If you choose to misunderstand what someone said, when they did a good job of explaining it clearly, then I think you shouldn't spread that misunderstanding around in a way that will hurt people, as it hurt this guy.

Lukasa 9y ago
> He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. Since when does that excuse anything? If he'd written "Jews are, in general, hateful monsters. Not the Jews who work here, they're great, but most of the rest" does that statement become acceptable? More importantly, Mr Damore does not know all the women at Google personally. He cannot. So when he says "In general, women are less suited to/interested in programming careers", he cannot possibly implicitly mean "but clearly that does not apply to every woman currently employed at Google, who were all hired because they are the best in the world at their jobs". Damore asserts that Google practices discriminatory hiring practices. For this to be true, Google must have at least once hired a woman where a better male candidate was available, and more importantly must do so more often than they do the reverse. If you are going to make general statements about a group of people, then you should not be surprised when individuals in that group assume you mean that statement to apply to them.
- bluecalm 9y ago
  I say: black people are more suited to be NBA players. This is obvious looking at black players % in the league in comparison to the total population as well as the fact that black people are poorer on average and get less opportunities (or even chances for proper nutrition, let alone training). Should white NBA players be offended by that statement? The answer is obvious: they shouldn't as that only means they were the ones on the tail of the genetic distribution and made it anyway or maybe even they overcome disadvantages to get there. Now I say: women are in general less likely to be interested in tech and less likely to become good programmers because they are, on average, less competitive and less likely to devote themselves to solitude practice which is often necessary to become a very good coder. Should women, who already made it to Google be offended? Of course they shouldn't for the same reasons as above. We can however do something with this information: we can try changing tech world to be more welcoming to women. This way we can avoid sexist hiring practices (gender quotas are clear discrimination) while still achieving more diverse environment. Those are the points of the manifesto. Being offended by that is the problem of those taking offence as it doesn't speak well about their ability to reason about distributions of traits in a population.