4 ms·

Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob woul

Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views.

true_religion 9y ago
> Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document... You are James Damore?
CalChris 9y ago
Actually, companies mostly exist to get work done and CA is an at will state. If you get in the way of getting work done then you likely will get fired. The document was readable by anyone internally and eventually everyone externally. So there was no misrepresentation.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  I encourage folks to start surveilling Google employees in public who take part in civil disobedience for progressive issues, and demand they be fired. Companies exist to get work done, and CA is an at will state. This won't get fixed ("its okay to fire someone if they don't align with my opinions") until everyone has had their proverbial nose bloodied. Disclaimer: Progressive myself.
  - evgen 9y ago
    If they do it on company time perhaps, otherwise you have no case at all.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Your opinions and beliefs aren't just on company time, and that's what this gentleman was fired for; his beliefs after presenting research that accompanied his reasoning. Gulag indeed!
    - koolba 9y ago
      That's the best part! You don't need a case because all employment is at-will. Just enough dirt, or supposed dirt, to frame a person in a negative enough light that the company considers them persona non grata.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    It is ok to fire someone if they don't align with the company's opinions in CA. It really is. Advertisement: Progressive myself.
    - tajen 9y ago
      To check the full extent of CA's reasoning: Is it ok to fire someone who fights for LGBT, black or women's rights, because it doesn't align with a company's opinions?
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        It is.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    It's a real problem that you can't tell the difference between what people do on their own time outside of work, and what they do at work, in a work forum. If JD had posted his diatribe online on his own personal blog, there'd be a lot of discussion about it but he'd probably still be employed at Google. The problem is that he posted his diatribe on a company forum. Legally, he forced the company to fire him and refute his words or else be treated as adopting his words as their own. (And yes, that is how workplace harassment laws work in the US. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress, not Google.)
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      > The problem is that he posted his diatribe on a company forum. Legally, he forced the company to fire him and refute his words or else be treated as adopting his words as their own. (And yes, that is how workplace harassment laws work in the US. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress, not Google.) So, correct me if I'm wrong: You're saying that any comments, writings, or ideas Google leaves up on their internal message boards is them providing implicit support or endorsement of said writings? Because it seems like if that's the case, obtaining the contents of those forums or message boards would provide ample work for a stable of employment lawyers for years. Take note Google employees who are currently feeling fearful and "non-compliant" with Google's corporate stance. Maybe its time to sit down with an employment attorney who works on contingency while rolling through online forum posts.
    - openmosix 9y ago
      Brendan Eich was fired for things he did outside of work. There are plenty of cases of request for retaliation on the professional environment for things done outside of the professional environment (for example, the OpalGate).
    - dictum 9y ago
      > If JD had posted his diatribe online on his own personal blog, there'd be a lot of discussion about it but he'd probably still be employed at Google Not so sure: "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them." https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22violations+of+this+code+outside+these+spaces%22 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22violations+of+this+code+outside...
  - sidlls 9y ago
    It sounds like you don't understand why he was fired. Hint: it wasn't because of his beliefs per se. It was more likely because of his repetition of gender stereotypes that impeded his ability to work effectively with his peers.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      > It was more likely because of his repetition of gender stereotypes I keep hearing this line parroted, but that's not how the situation played out, and you either are inadvertently or maliciously being disingenuous. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but there are facts, and those facts aren't congruent with the narrative.
      - sidlls 9y ago
        How are the facts incongruent with the narrative you object to? Generally people who support this guy focus on only the bits of fact the memo author relied on: they ignore the context and his application of alleged facts. That's what you did, for example.
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        > they ignore the context and his application of alleged facts. You're projecting what isn't there. Again, part of the problem.
        sidlls 9y ago
        No, I'm not projecting anything.
- leifaffles 9y ago
  Yes, there was misrepresentation. Google's CEO said: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.” He said no such thing. This is a cruel smear. Google, including its CEO and VP of Diversity & Newspeak, acted like thugs. And no, this has nothing to do with at-will employment. It has to do with hypocrisy. Google claimed they be open and tolerant, and then they proceeded to directly contradict that ethos by firing Demore and viciously lying about him on the way out the door.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    > Yes, there was misrepresentation. > Google's CEO said: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.” Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech ... On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. Work your rhetorical magic on that.
    - cxseven 9y ago
      Colleagues selected by Google already made the cut, so that's more predictive than gender?
    - engel 9y ago
      He says that if 10% of men and 8% of women are suitable for tech, and google hires unbiased from suitable people, then google should expect a 55:45 gender gap. That doesn't mean that the female colleagues are unsuitable for tech, since they were exactly hired among people who were suitable. He is also not saying that this explains the complete gender gap, just that there is no point in blindly aiming at 50:50 without considering research on the underlying distribution. He may have the research wrong, but otherwise the point seems to stand? EDIT: Of course, this argument only works for a binary 'suitable/not suitable' distinction. If 'tech talent' was said to be normal distributed, with men having a slightly higher expectation, it would follow that the average men above some cut was also better than the average woman above the same cut. So in that way he does attack his colleagues.
- shas3 9y ago
  I think he clarifies this. Two things are germane: 1. Google is "more than just a company." It is more like an old style company-town by now. 2. They are the gatekeepers of all information ever. Perhaps we should hold them to different standards, especially when it comes to opinions and ideologies?
- JSONwebtoken 9y ago
  No misrepresentation? Like Sundar Pichai and the media conveniently conflating neurosis with the completely unrelated theory of neuroticism? Search "Google memo neurosis" and see how many headlines contain "neurosis" when that word or concept was never referred to even once in the 10 pages.
  - alexqgb 9y ago
    Here's a direct quote from the "Personality Differences" section of the screed: "Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." So yeah, it was referenced, specifically, explicitly, and used in direct support of the central argument that the preponderance of men in Google's ranks was biologically determined, meaning a number of Google's D&I initiatives were misguided, at odds with scientific consensus, and should be discontinued.
    - kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
      Neuroticism isn't a vague insult. It's a specific technical term in psychology and is one of the Big Five personality traits—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism People want Damore to have written a PhD level thesis for an internally circulated document but most haven't themselves done even a basic Wikipedia level research before bringing out the pitchforks.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
exabrial 9y ago
Definitely a sign of weak leadership.

true_religion 9y ago

> Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document... You are James Damore?

CalChris 9y ago

Actually, companies mostly exist to get work done and CA is an at will state. If you get in the way of getting work done then you likely will get fired. The document was readable by anyone internally and eventually everyone externally. So there was no misrepresentation.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
I encourage folks to start surveilling Google employees in public who take part in civil disobedience for progressive issues, and demand they be fired. Companies exist to get work done, and CA is an at will state. This won't get fixed ("its okay to fire someone if they don't align with my opinions") until everyone has had their proverbial nose bloodied. Disclaimer: Progressive myself.
- evgen 9y ago
  If they do it on company time perhaps, otherwise you have no case at all.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Your opinions and beliefs aren't just on company time, and that's what this gentleman was fired for; his beliefs after presenting research that accompanied his reasoning. Gulag indeed!
  - koolba 9y ago
    That's the best part! You don't need a case because all employment is at-will. Just enough dirt, or supposed dirt, to frame a person in a negative enough light that the company considers them persona non grata.
- CalChris 9y ago
  It is ok to fire someone if they don't align with the company's opinions in CA. It really is. Advertisement: Progressive myself.
  - tajen 9y ago
    To check the full extent of CA's reasoning: Is it ok to fire someone who fights for LGBT, black or women's rights, because it doesn't align with a company's opinions?
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      It is.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  It's a real problem that you can't tell the difference between what people do on their own time outside of work, and what they do at work, in a work forum. If JD had posted his diatribe online on his own personal blog, there'd be a lot of discussion about it but he'd probably still be employed at Google. The problem is that he posted his diatribe on a company forum. Legally, he forced the company to fire him and refute his words or else be treated as adopting his words as their own. (And yes, that is how workplace harassment laws work in the US. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress, not Google.)
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    > The problem is that he posted his diatribe on a company forum. Legally, he forced the company to fire him and refute his words or else be treated as adopting his words as their own. (And yes, that is how workplace harassment laws work in the US. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress, not Google.) So, correct me if I'm wrong: You're saying that any comments, writings, or ideas Google leaves up on their internal message boards is them providing implicit support or endorsement of said writings? Because it seems like if that's the case, obtaining the contents of those forums or message boards would provide ample work for a stable of employment lawyers for years. Take note Google employees who are currently feeling fearful and "non-compliant" with Google's corporate stance. Maybe its time to sit down with an employment attorney who works on contingency while rolling through online forum posts.
  - openmosix 9y ago
    Brendan Eich was fired for things he did outside of work. There are plenty of cases of request for retaliation on the professional environment for things done outside of the professional environment (for example, the OpalGate).
  - dictum 9y ago
    > If JD had posted his diatribe online on his own personal blog, there'd be a lot of discussion about it but he'd probably still be employed at Google Not so sure: "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them." https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22violations+of+this+code+outside+these+spaces%22 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22violations+of+this+code+outside...
- sidlls 9y ago
  It sounds like you don't understand why he was fired. Hint: it wasn't because of his beliefs per se. It was more likely because of his repetition of gender stereotypes that impeded his ability to work effectively with his peers.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    > It was more likely because of his repetition of gender stereotypes I keep hearing this line parroted, but that's not how the situation played out, and you either are inadvertently or maliciously being disingenuous. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but there are facts, and those facts aren't congruent with the narrative.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      How are the facts incongruent with the narrative you object to? Generally people who support this guy focus on only the bits of fact the memo author relied on: they ignore the context and his application of alleged facts. That's what you did, for example.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        > they ignore the context and his application of alleged facts. You're projecting what isn't there. Again, part of the problem.
        sidlls 9y ago
        No, I'm not projecting anything.
leifaffles 9y ago
Yes, there was misrepresentation. Google's CEO said: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.” He said no such thing. This is a cruel smear. Google, including its CEO and VP of Diversity & Newspeak, acted like thugs. And no, this has nothing to do with at-will employment. It has to do with hypocrisy. Google claimed they be open and tolerant, and then they proceeded to directly contradict that ethos by firing Demore and viciously lying about him on the way out the door.
- CalChris 9y ago
  > Yes, there was misrepresentation. > Google's CEO said: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.” Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech ... On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. Work your rhetorical magic on that.
  - cxseven 9y ago
    Colleagues selected by Google already made the cut, so that's more predictive than gender?
  - engel 9y ago
    He says that if 10% of men and 8% of women are suitable for tech, and google hires unbiased from suitable people, then google should expect a 55:45 gender gap. That doesn't mean that the female colleagues are unsuitable for tech, since they were exactly hired among people who were suitable. He is also not saying that this explains the complete gender gap, just that there is no point in blindly aiming at 50:50 without considering research on the underlying distribution. He may have the research wrong, but otherwise the point seems to stand? EDIT: Of course, this argument only works for a binary 'suitable/not suitable' distinction. If 'tech talent' was said to be normal distributed, with men having a slightly higher expectation, it would follow that the average men above some cut was also better than the average woman above the same cut. So in that way he does attack his colleagues.
shas3 9y ago
I think he clarifies this. Two things are germane: 1. Google is "more than just a company." It is more like an old style company-town by now. 2. They are the gatekeepers of all information ever. Perhaps we should hold them to different standards, especially when it comes to opinions and ideologies?
JSONwebtoken 9y ago
No misrepresentation? Like Sundar Pichai and the media conveniently conflating neurosis with the completely unrelated theory of neuroticism? Search "Google memo neurosis" and see how many headlines contain "neurosis" when that word or concept was never referred to even once in the 10 pages.
- alexqgb 9y ago
  Here's a direct quote from the "Personality Differences" section of the screed: "Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." So yeah, it was referenced, specifically, explicitly, and used in direct support of the central argument that the preponderance of men in Google's ranks was biologically determined, meaning a number of Google's D&I initiatives were misguided, at odds with scientific consensus, and should be discontinued.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
    Neuroticism isn't a vague insult. It's a specific technical term in psychology and is one of the Big Five personality traits—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism People want Damore to have written a PhD level thesis for an internally circulated document but most haven't themselves done even a basic Wikipedia level research before bringing out the pitchforks.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

exabrial 9y ago

Definitely a sign of weak leadership.