13 ms·
I do not agree with a lot of points of that diversity memo but that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author
by sersi 9y ago
I do not agree with a lot of points of that diversity memo but that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired.
Discussion is how people change their opinion. It's by being free to discuss and say what you think that you can exchange ideas with other people you disagree with and maybe change your mind once you understand their view point.
If you close discussion, then those opinions will be more radicalized and will tend to be discussed in echo chambers where people are not afraid of being shamed by their writings.
As Voltaire once said[1] "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it " and I think, forgetting this, is what leads to Trump and to an increase of misogyny.
[1] It's actually apocryphal, he never actually wrote or said that but it does illustrate his philosophy so wouldn't have been out of character for him.
- tchaffee 9y ago> that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired. Here is what CEO said on the about it in his response [1]: "many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions." The author of the original memo wasn't fired because of trying to discuss the topic. He was fired because he violated Google's code of conduct, which expects: "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." If you intimidate enough employees via a widespread memo, you will get fired. I see no problem with that. The freedom to discuss a topic also comes with responsibilities. As an example, would anyone expect to keep their job if they published a memo with "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]." at any big company anywhere in the world? Regardless of scientific basis? It's an absurd expectation, unless you work at a company doing scientific research on that specific subject. [1] https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-sundar-pichai/ https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-...
- Karunamon 9y agoThen perhaps google should not solicit opinions on the matter, as they did in this case?
- humanrebar 9y ago> If you intimidate enough employees via a widespread memo, you will get fired. Which part of the memo was intimidating, harassing, or illegal? Which part promoted biases? > As an example, would anyone expect to keep their job if they published a memo with "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]." No, but that's because of my low expectation of fairness from corporate leadership and middle management, not because I think that opinion is harassing, intimidating, or illegal. I suppose you could argue that it promotes bias, but then you'd have to make the case that it wasn't true. Otherwise it would be reality with the bias, right?
- 9y ago
- didibus 9y agoI'm not convinced by this. Respectful discourse is good, but I'm not sure disrespectful discourse is. I feel sometime that does more harm, because it sends an underlying message, that our moral values allow us to be hateful to others. By encouraging and allowing hateful discourse, I don't think people are able to follow reasonable arguments and think about things fairly. So I see these things turning more so into propaganda speech.