3 ms·

> If Google has a mono-culture that's not open to debate about gender and diversity issues, it's neither my business nor my concern 1. Many people feel discrim

> If Google has a mono-culture that's not open to debate about gender and diversity issues, it's neither my business nor my concern 1. Many people feel discriminated against due to these affirmative action policies. If there were policies set in stone saying white men got precedence over black women, would you say "who the hell cares?" 2. The opinions expressed by that Googler are held by many people employed in the company. The fact that the company would sooner fire him instead of discussing the points he raised and explain why he's wrong seems to confirm his claim that there is an echo chamber, which isn't exactly conducive to a meritocratic structure. 3. Google is an incredibly large multinational corporation. What happens there will set precedent for companies around the world. If AA weakens there, it's a sign that corporate policies may change globally.

khazhoux 9y ago
> 2. The opinions expressed by that Googler are held by many people employed in the company. The fact that the company would sooner fire him instead of discussing the points he raised and explain why he's wrong seems to confirm his claim that there is an echo chamber, which isn't exactly conducive to a meritocratic structure. I have to imagine Sundar was flooded with emails saying "fire him or I quit." I also imagine there were less-incendiary ways for him to propose his viewpoints. He could have left out his obviously-controversial "facts" (which most people with common sense, I claim, would know were gonna piss people off), or he could have talked directly to HR or his manager or even to Sundar about the diversity policies. The way it played out, he chose probably the most explosive exposition and forum. So Sundar had a right to fire him just on those grounds: not for the opinions expressed, but for the effect of enraging the entire company, and likewise for not having the common sense NOT to piss off all your co-workers. In fact, he did say the firing was for creating a toxic work environment.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > I have to imagine Sundar was flooded with emails saying "fire him or I quit." In a company as large and diverse as Google, there will always be people like that during any public outrage. What's telling is that Google gave in to the desires of that particular kind of person. The fired Googler raised his viewpoint in an internal forum designed for that kind of conversation in a respectable manner and with citations. The fact that doing so enraged the entire company tells of a culture that is unable or unwilling to question itself. In such a defensive culture, doing something "enraging" is required to expose the cultural bubble.
  - khazhoux 9y ago
    Nod. So then perhaps this is an extension of what we've seen from college campuses in the last couple of years, with undergrads demanding teachers be fired for expressing (usually quite sane) opinions and policies.
- tnone 9y ago
  He didn't aim to piss off all his coworkers, he posted a memo in an internal forum designated for that explicit purpose, i.e. "skeptics". It was the sjw-types clutching pearls who sent it around and who leaked it to the press. Damore engaged within the reasonable rules of debate. The people who disagreed turned it into a witch hunt and the media piled on with misrepresentation. Damore is not the only person with agency at Google. Pinning it all on him as a scapegoat is ridiculous.
mcguire 9y ago
"On Tuesday, a 4chan-related Twitter account posted screenshots of fourteen Twitter profiles of Google employees, ranging from rank-and-file engineers to Sundar Pichai himself. Every Googler targeted was either a woman, trans man, or a man of color. This tweet may not have been the origin point of this list of Googlers, but it was spread widely. "Danielle Brown, only recently named the VP of diversity at Google, was included in the first set of eight screenshots. By Monday, she had already locked her Twitter account after receiving an onslaught of abuse. "That same collection of eight screenshots made its way onto former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos’ Facebook on Wednesday. "The targeting of those specific Googlers might have been the work of outsiders, but anxieties are running high inside the company because of the publication of screenshots from the internal Google+ on alt-right channels. On Tuesday, Gizmodo reported that a meme depicting whistleblowers being beaten was being shared on an internal meme generator. "On Sunday, alt-right blogger Vox Day published screenshots from the internal Google+, showing employees criticizing the Damore memo. On Monday, Breitbart published an even larger set of internal screenshots. Names and profile pictures were not redacted. "What really gets me is that when Googlers leaked these screenshots, they knew this was the element of the internet they were leaking it to," a former Google employee tells The Verge. "They knew they were subjecting their colleagues to this type of abuse."" https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16128518/google-town-hall-meeting-canceled-online-harassment https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16128518/google-town-hall... On the one hand, given the "discussion", firing the guy who lit the match is starting to look more reasonable. On the other, the little tiny Libertarian on my shoulder keeps saying, "a company should be free to hire or fire anyone they want." ["If there were policies set in stone saying white men got precedence over black women, would you say "who the hell cares?"" In a company made up of 80% black women? Probably.]
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Blaming the fired Googler for threats made is like blaming climate scientists for environmental terrorism. There's no evidence that he made any of those threats, merely made an argument using plenty of citations that suggested career choices may be affected by biology. The fact that he was fired for questioning a company policy for something definitely arguable speaks of the echo chamber he mentioned.

khazhoux 9y ago

> 2. The opinions expressed by that Googler are held by many people employed in the company. The fact that the company would sooner fire him instead of discussing the points he raised and explain why he's wrong seems to confirm his claim that there is an echo chamber, which isn't exactly conducive to a meritocratic structure. I have to imagine Sundar was flooded with emails saying "fire him or I quit." I also imagine there were less-incendiary ways for him to propose his viewpoints. He could have left out his obviously-controversial "facts" (which most people with common sense, I claim, would know were gonna piss people off), or he could have talked directly to HR or his manager or even to Sundar about the diversity policies. The way it played out, he chose probably the most explosive exposition and forum. So Sundar had a right to fire him just on those grounds: not for the opinions expressed, but for the effect of enraging the entire company, and likewise for not having the common sense NOT to piss off all your co-workers. In fact, he did say the firing was for creating a toxic work environment.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> I have to imagine Sundar was flooded with emails saying "fire him or I quit." In a company as large and diverse as Google, there will always be people like that during any public outrage. What's telling is that Google gave in to the desires of that particular kind of person. The fired Googler raised his viewpoint in an internal forum designed for that kind of conversation in a respectable manner and with citations. The fact that doing so enraged the entire company tells of a culture that is unable or unwilling to question itself. In such a defensive culture, doing something "enraging" is required to expose the cultural bubble.
- khazhoux 9y ago
  Nod. So then perhaps this is an extension of what we've seen from college campuses in the last couple of years, with undergrads demanding teachers be fired for expressing (usually quite sane) opinions and policies.
tnone 9y ago
He didn't aim to piss off all his coworkers, he posted a memo in an internal forum designated for that explicit purpose, i.e. "skeptics". It was the sjw-types clutching pearls who sent it around and who leaked it to the press. Damore engaged within the reasonable rules of debate. The people who disagreed turned it into a witch hunt and the media piled on with misrepresentation. Damore is not the only person with agency at Google. Pinning it all on him as a scapegoat is ridiculous.

mcguire 9y ago

"On Tuesday, a 4chan-related Twitter account posted screenshots of fourteen Twitter profiles of Google employees, ranging from rank-and-file engineers to Sundar Pichai himself. Every Googler targeted was either a woman, trans man, or a man of color. This tweet may not have been the origin point of this list of Googlers, but it was spread widely. "Danielle Brown, only recently named the VP of diversity at Google, was included in the first set of eight screenshots. By Monday, she had already locked her Twitter account after receiving an onslaught of abuse. "That same collection of eight screenshots made its way onto former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos’ Facebook on Wednesday. "The targeting of those specific Googlers might have been the work of outsiders, but anxieties are running high inside the company because of the publication of screenshots from the internal Google+ on alt-right channels. On Tuesday, Gizmodo reported that a meme depicting whistleblowers being beaten was being shared on an internal meme generator. "On Sunday, alt-right blogger Vox Day published screenshots from the internal Google+, showing employees criticizing the Damore memo. On Monday, Breitbart published an even larger set of internal screenshots. Names and profile pictures were not redacted. "What really gets me is that when Googlers leaked these screenshots, they knew this was the element of the internet they were leaking it to," a former Google employee tells The Verge. "They knew they were subjecting their colleagues to this type of abuse."" https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16128518/google-town-hall-meeting-canceled-online-harassment https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16128518/google-town-hall... On the one hand, given the "discussion", firing the guy who lit the match is starting to look more reasonable. On the other, the little tiny Libertarian on my shoulder keeps saying, "a company should be free to hire or fire anyone they want." ["If there were policies set in stone saying white men got precedence over black women, would you say "who the hell cares?"" In a company made up of 80% black women? Probably.]

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Blaming the fired Googler for threats made is like blaming climate scientists for environmental terrorism. There's no evidence that he made any of those threats, merely made an argument using plenty of citations that suggested career choices may be affected by biology. The fact that he was fired for questioning a company policy for something definitely arguable speaks of the echo chamber he mentioned.