3 ms·

> 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 discussi

> 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.

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.