3 ms·

>Saying someone has racist ideas is a loaded accusation. I think it's fair to ask for elaboration. Except I didn't accuse James of having racist ideas, I point

>Saying someone has racist ideas is a loaded accusation. I think it's fair to ask for elaboration. Except I didn't accuse James of having racist ideas, I pointed out that his opinions are toxic to his coworkers. I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's true that he attempts to check himself throughout the paper, but it's contradictory because he then proceeds to take it too far. It's the equivalent of saying, "I'm for diversity, but...." and then demonstrating he's not for diversity by arguing against it. Which is why this paper is a rambling rant from someone who chose to commit career suicide for his opinion, and it's surprising that the media is still focused on it.

humanrebar 9y ago
"Racist ideas" was the wrong term to use. That was a typo. Apologies. Is "sexist ideas" fair? "Bigoted ideas"? That seems to be the implication when labeling ideas about gender "toxic". The colloquial language around this sort of thing is imprecise. That brings me to my next point: > ...and then demonstrating he's not for diversity by arguing against it. The paper seems contradictory because people have definitions in mind for words like "diversity". But not everyone has the same definitions in mind. He can be for diversity of thought and want to encourage that with discussion of structural changes while still preferring a world with more women in tech. This position is not the Google HR definition of "diversity", but it's clearly part of his idea of diversity.
- bduerst 9y ago
  I'm not sure what invoking semantics on the word "Diversity" has to with this, especially since you thought I accused James of being racist (which I didn't). Despite his leaked rant, you don't know what his definition of diversity is, nor do you know what Google HR's definition is. All you know is that he was let go, the details of which are not leaked. You seem to be reading a bit more into this, which is probably why the media is still writing about it. There's something for everyone to confirm their beliefs in the paper, whether it's to defend or attack it, and you're demonstrating that with the repeated word games.
  - havetocharge 9y ago
    You nailed it with your earlier comment about how James' firing had more to do with the fact that a great deal of people has interpreted his post as offensive rather whether being offensive was his ultimate intent. His memo was not clearly written, caused a scene, and damage to the brand. If he had some great idea, he has done it a disservice, and his supporters should blame him for such bad writing, rather than Google for doing the rational thing.

humanrebar 9y ago

"Racist ideas" was the wrong term to use. That was a typo. Apologies. Is "sexist ideas" fair? "Bigoted ideas"? That seems to be the implication when labeling ideas about gender "toxic". The colloquial language around this sort of thing is imprecise. That brings me to my next point: > ...and then demonstrating he's not for diversity by arguing against it. The paper seems contradictory because people have definitions in mind for words like "diversity". But not everyone has the same definitions in mind. He can be for diversity of thought and want to encourage that with discussion of structural changes while still preferring a world with more women in tech. This position is not the Google HR definition of "diversity", but it's clearly part of his idea of diversity.

bduerst 9y ago
I'm not sure what invoking semantics on the word "Diversity" has to with this, especially since you thought I accused James of being racist (which I didn't). Despite his leaked rant, you don't know what his definition of diversity is, nor do you know what Google HR's definition is. All you know is that he was let go, the details of which are not leaked. You seem to be reading a bit more into this, which is probably why the media is still writing about it. There's something for everyone to confirm their beliefs in the paper, whether it's to defend or attack it, and you're demonstrating that with the repeated word games.
- havetocharge 9y ago
  You nailed it with your earlier comment about how James' firing had more to do with the fact that a great deal of people has interpreted his post as offensive rather whether being offensive was his ultimate intent. His memo was not clearly written, caused a scene, and damage to the brand. If he had some great idea, he has done it a disservice, and his supporters should blame him for such bad writing, rather than Google for doing the rational thing.