3 ms·

<He was encouraged to give feedback like this so that the company could react to internal problems and self correct before they became worse. I never got that.

<He was encouraged to give feedback like this so that the company could react to internal problems and self correct before they became worse. I never got that. Ty. But isnt one of the mechanisms to get feedback making input anonymous? Did they ask for authored input? Really? About diversity?

yebyen 9y ago
From what I gathered, yes. Unquestionably! In a message board with the name "pc-considered-harmful" What did they think was going to get posted onto that board, if not this memo?
- jshevek 9y ago
  In retrospect, it almost seems like they were fishing for people who have 'unsavory opinions' so they can force them to attend diversity training (even the name is Orwellian) and fire them if it doesn't work out.
  - losteverything 9y ago
    Do i have this right? Google: "we want to hear how you think? It's safe." Googler: "you suck." Google: "just kidding. It's not safe. Bye bye." Seems like dirty pool. Is that what occurred?
  - yebyen 9y ago
    I can really feel for people who were offended by this memo. Who were the target of this memo, or the "butt" of it. I'm really sorry that this is where we are at. But the parts of the memo that I read were hard to paint as non-factual if read with a clear head and objective mind. Every one claim I read that pointed at a specific part and said the writing here was putting forward a horrible opinion that nobody should hold, let alone express in company of others; those clauses were cited with sources and facts to show that the author's expression was of fact, or of research that justified policies and not of a personal opinion. It is vitriol and easy to read "wrong," and as I read and re-read the parts that are most quoted, I can understand how people are so offended. But it is text, not violence, and it is through text and honest discourses that progress can be made! "You don't have to apologise for your feelings," I want to tell them, "but put those down for a second so we can get something done alright?" The part I read that in isolation, I will agree wholeheartedly is a terrible sentiment, I was able to step back and read factually instead and see where he was saying, in not so many words, "it's not my idea, this is what the research says, and that fact plus inequality is why we got these also sexist policies, a new kind of the old kind of discrimination." You can't simply punish a man for living in the time he was born, and call it fair; expect that nobody should address the facts on paper, a discriminatory policy, the elephant in the room, or whatever. "Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining." Please note I did not read the whole memo, but that was the gist of it that I got. We will never get to a time where we can talk about how "now we are in perfect equality, and there's no more injustice, though it was not always so;" if we can't freely talk about the ways in which we are not, equals, including honest and full discussion of programs and policies that enforce and perpetuate that inequality. That being said, it seems that lines are being drawn and certain justifications or arguments are on that side of the line. I can fully understand how one on the receiving end of this kind of fire and vitriol might rightly react. I do think he has a case for slander at least against the leadership. He has been smeared, I have no doubt of that from just reading the CEOs statement, but with the caveat that I don't know him personally and he could really be all those things. I'm just going off the document.
- dromedary512 9y ago
  For the record, "go/pc-considered-harmful" is not a message board but is rather an internal URL convenience link that the author (or someone else) created specifically for this document. Anyone can create one of these for anything they like (as long as it's not already taken) but these links only resolve inside the corporate network.
  - yebyen 9y ago
    Oh! That answers a lot of questions. What was the board it was posted to called, though? I've heard about this board where people are encouraged to talk about topics that are potentially controversial, but I haven't been following this story too very closely (as you've just proven.)

yebyen 9y ago

From what I gathered, yes. Unquestionably! In a message board with the name "pc-considered-harmful" What did they think was going to get posted onto that board, if not this memo?

jshevek 9y ago
In retrospect, it almost seems like they were fishing for people who have 'unsavory opinions' so they can force them to attend diversity training (even the name is Orwellian) and fire them if it doesn't work out.
- losteverything 9y ago
  Do i have this right? Google: "we want to hear how you think? It's safe." Googler: "you suck." Google: "just kidding. It's not safe. Bye bye." Seems like dirty pool. Is that what occurred?
- yebyen 9y ago
  I can really feel for people who were offended by this memo. Who were the target of this memo, or the "butt" of it. I'm really sorry that this is where we are at. But the parts of the memo that I read were hard to paint as non-factual if read with a clear head and objective mind. Every one claim I read that pointed at a specific part and said the writing here was putting forward a horrible opinion that nobody should hold, let alone express in company of others; those clauses were cited with sources and facts to show that the author's expression was of fact, or of research that justified policies and not of a personal opinion. It is vitriol and easy to read "wrong," and as I read and re-read the parts that are most quoted, I can understand how people are so offended. But it is text, not violence, and it is through text and honest discourses that progress can be made! "You don't have to apologise for your feelings," I want to tell them, "but put those down for a second so we can get something done alright?" The part I read that in isolation, I will agree wholeheartedly is a terrible sentiment, I was able to step back and read factually instead and see where he was saying, in not so many words, "it's not my idea, this is what the research says, and that fact plus inequality is why we got these also sexist policies, a new kind of the old kind of discrimination." You can't simply punish a man for living in the time he was born, and call it fair; expect that nobody should address the facts on paper, a discriminatory policy, the elephant in the room, or whatever. "Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining." Please note I did not read the whole memo, but that was the gist of it that I got. We will never get to a time where we can talk about how "now we are in perfect equality, and there's no more injustice, though it was not always so;" if we can't freely talk about the ways in which we are not, equals, including honest and full discussion of programs and policies that enforce and perpetuate that inequality. That being said, it seems that lines are being drawn and certain justifications or arguments are on that side of the line. I can fully understand how one on the receiving end of this kind of fire and vitriol might rightly react. I do think he has a case for slander at least against the leadership. He has been smeared, I have no doubt of that from just reading the CEOs statement, but with the caveat that I don't know him personally and he could really be all those things. I'm just going off the document.
dromedary512 9y ago
For the record, "go/pc-considered-harmful" is not a message board but is rather an internal URL convenience link that the author (or someone else) created specifically for this document. Anyone can create one of these for anything they like (as long as it's not already taken) but these links only resolve inside the corporate network.
- yebyen 9y ago
  Oh! That answers a lot of questions. What was the board it was posted to called, though? I've heard about this board where people are encouraged to talk about topics that are potentially controversial, but I haven't been following this story too very closely (as you've just proven.)