4 ms·

> It's open, but you'll be fired. A gross mischaracterization. Open never means anyone can just say whatever comes to mind. "Open discussion??? Oh goody!!! Ki

> It's open, but you'll be fired. A gross mischaracterization. Open never means anyone can just say whatever comes to mind. "Open discussion??? Oh goody!!! Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews! Wait, what??? You're firing me? Whaaaaaaa, look at me tears, you promised open discussion!!! I'm suing, all woe is me!" I'm confident you're not that naive, and I hope you can see the point of my exaggeration. Everything, even open discussion, has limits. The CEO made it clear which parts of the memo were ok (almost every part of it). And which parts violated the code of conduct. Violate the code of conduct, and you're fired. Sed lex, dura lex. Everything has limits. So the discussion then is about what those limits should be. > If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment, It's not. There are almost endless things you can talk about at work that aren't considered harassment or intimidation. There isn't a little rule book to guide you. It's up to you as an adult to to have adult relationships with your co-workers and to figure out for yourself what other people are comfortable hearing and what they consider harassment. I'm sure you already know that you can't tell a female employee she has bigger than average tits, no matter how factual it is or even if it's just "talking about something". But the more subtle points are up to you to work out with your co-workers. Be enough of an jerk to enough people by just "talking about something", and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. This has been the reality since humans have had emotions. Every adult with an ounce of understanding about human relationships knows that there is a lot of stuff you can't talk about at work. > which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017 Where did you get this idea that you ever had some kind of right at some point in history to talk about whatever you want to talk about at work - with no care towards how it makes your fellow employees feel? For most of America's business history you could get your butt thrown out the door just for saying something the boss doesn't like. You're actually slightly more protected in USA 2017, but a smart boss will find a way if he doesn't like what you say. So will your co-workers. I guess at one point in USA history you could more easily get away with sexually harassing female employees. Safe to say that's not the point in history you're trying to return to? If I'm right, can you describe the point in history you are trying to return to and why it was better? What was ok then that isn't ok now? Specific examples please? > All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is. I guess we should be afraid... of.... something? Your revenge? Back up your vague threat with what you predict will actually happen or with what you plan on doing.

mistermann 9y ago
Well, how does one tell the difference between: "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." and: "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." Is there a definition for what constitutes "harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination"? I think anyone interested in not having a note placed into their HR file now knows it is perhaps not a good idea to ask such questions. > Everything, even open discussion, has limits. Exactly - the author of the manifesto is free to discuss these concerns with his manager and have them ignored, or leave. They shall not be discussed publicly, or else. Anyone that said "Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews!" wouldn't be taken seriously, because such ideas are obviously false. The content of this manifesto cannot be dismissed so easily, if it could I suspect someone would have done it and intellectually humiliated this person using superior ideas. The problem is, that's not possible in this case. Hence, in the spirit of equality and harmony, there's really only one practical approach, the one that was taken. I'd rebut some of your other specific points, but as much fun as these arguments are, they don't really serve any purpose. For me, it comes down to whether we want to live in a society where we acknowledge reality, or not. Where people debate ideas, or not.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  > how does one tell the difference between... By talking to people and using your people skills. > Is there a definition for what constitutes "harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination"? Yes. It's not a written definition. It's a living and changing definition created by the people who work there and how YOU make them feel. You need to use your people skills in order to extract the definition from your co-workers. > wouldn't be taken seriously, because such ideas are obviously false. This is the core of your misunderstanding. The scientific merit of ideas has zero relationship to whether or not you are harassing someone. Anyone who said the offensive things I wrote wouldn't be taken seriously and would be fired because they are offensive. True or not. Obviously true or not. And for all you know, whoever said the above does work for cheap Jews (my apologies if I've offended anyone with this language - I love Jews like everyone else and I hope you can understand I'm using this for illustration purposes only). > For me, it comes down to whether we want to live in a society where we acknowledge reality, or not. Where people debate ideas, or not. Look Mom! We are freely debating something right here, right in society! Don't confuse "Google" (an employer) with "society". No one is forcing you to work at Google nor for your employment status to be determined by their code of conduct. Even HN has a code of conduct, and yet you seem to be ok debating things here.

mistermann 9y ago

Well, how does one tell the difference between: "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." and: "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." Is there a definition for what constitutes "harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination"? I think anyone interested in not having a note placed into their HR file now knows it is perhaps not a good idea to ask such questions. > Everything, even open discussion, has limits. Exactly - the author of the manifesto is free to discuss these concerns with his manager and have them ignored, or leave. They shall not be discussed publicly, or else. Anyone that said "Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews!" wouldn't be taken seriously, because such ideas are obviously false. The content of this manifesto cannot be dismissed so easily, if it could I suspect someone would have done it and intellectually humiliated this person using superior ideas. The problem is, that's not possible in this case. Hence, in the spirit of equality and harmony, there's really only one practical approach, the one that was taken. I'd rebut some of your other specific points, but as much fun as these arguments are, they don't really serve any purpose. For me, it comes down to whether we want to live in a society where we acknowledge reality, or not. Where people debate ideas, or not.

tchaffee 9y ago
> how does one tell the difference between... By talking to people and using your people skills. > Is there a definition for what constitutes "harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination"? Yes. It's not a written definition. It's a living and changing definition created by the people who work there and how YOU make them feel. You need to use your people skills in order to extract the definition from your co-workers. > wouldn't be taken seriously, because such ideas are obviously false. This is the core of your misunderstanding. The scientific merit of ideas has zero relationship to whether or not you are harassing someone. Anyone who said the offensive things I wrote wouldn't be taken seriously and would be fired because they are offensive. True or not. Obviously true or not. And for all you know, whoever said the above does work for cheap Jews (my apologies if I've offended anyone with this language - I love Jews like everyone else and I hope you can understand I'm using this for illustration purposes only). > For me, it comes down to whether we want to live in a society where we acknowledge reality, or not. Where people debate ideas, or not. Look Mom! We are freely debating something right here, right in society! Don't confuse "Google" (an employer) with "society". No one is forcing you to work at Google nor for your employment status to be determined by their code of conduct. Even HN has a code of conduct, and yet you seem to be ok debating things here.