6 ms·

The thoughts of one twenty-something engineer posted to an internal message board (for these kinds of discussions I might add) does not create a hostile workpla

by rpiguy 9y ago

The thoughts of one twenty-something engineer posted to an internal message board (for these kinds of discussions I might add) does not create a hostile workplace or harm Google in any way. Basically, in any other context we expect people who have vastly differing views to be able to put them aside and work together. The only exception to this rule seems to be around leftist issues, where if you disagree you are out of luck. You would expect, for example, the Jewish people and the Islamic people at a company to work together. The idea that toleration for one memo form a nobody employee marks an entire company as unwelcome is insane. This zero tolerance attitude is a recipe for disaster.

Blackthorn 9y ago
> The thoughts of one twenty-something engineer posted to an internal message board (for these kinds of discussions I might add) does not create a hostile workplace or harm Google in any way. Considering how all sixteen of my female teammates were pissed off about it, I'm going to go ahead and say you are demonstrably wrong.
- Uhhrrr 9y ago
  How many of them read the memo, as opposed to misleading characterizations of it ("Women can't do engineering", "misogynist", etc)?
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    All of them.
    - rpiguy 9y ago
      >You don't get to determine how people receive a message. You >can only take care to send it in a way that would be >received well. If everyone in a large and diverse group > >receives the message poorly, the problem is not with the >group. >If you're worried about an angry mob firing you, start >communicating with care. This is absolutely false I do get to tell the group how to receive the message. When a group is intolerant the problem is with the group. When people were against interracial marriage and intolerant of other opinions the problem was with the group. When people were against African Americans riding in the front of the bus, the problem was with the intolerant group. No candy coating, sensitivity training, or messaging was required to tell the angry, intolerant mob that they were wrong, just like they are here.
      - Blackthorn 9y ago
        > This is absolutely false I do get to tell the group how to receive the message. I only hope for your sake that you learn otherwise before you put your foot in your mouth in a very big way someday, rather than after.
    - waqf 9y ago
      Suppose that fifteen of them were pissed off and one was not. Would the sixteenth have felt psychologically comfortable in your team expressing the fact that she was not pissed off?
- rpiguy 9y ago
  I am saying that they shouldn't have been so pissed off. The bar shouldn't be so low for defining a hostile workplace. Anyone could then get an intolerant mob together and get someone fired for expressing themselves.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    You don't get to determine how people receive a message. You can only take care to send it in a way that would be received well. If everyone in a large and diverse group receives the message poorly, the problem is not with the group. If you're worried about an angry mob firing you, start communicating with care.
    - wang_li 9y ago
      Apparently one of the things that prompted the memo is that google is not diverse. There are plenty of different skin colors and genders, butit's an ideological echo chamber. Additionally people are not protected from offense in the workplace. They're protected from harassment and an abstract memo that doesn't single out individuals is not harassment.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  Nope. Someone taking offense is not demonstration of anything, other than someone taking offense.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    The post I was responding to said that it did not create a hostile working environment. I explained how it did do that. Are you trying to claim that causing offense to a large group is not creating a hostile working environment?
    - jsnathan 9y ago
      Controversy and hostility are not the same thing.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      It's too fickle a criterion for fairly firing someone. Especially if you consider he likely didn't mean to offend anyone. If you think he did mean to offend people, the firing makes more sense. I don't think "he should have known better" is very fair when neck deep in a discussion about diversity. Sometimes diversity looks like someone not knowing cultural rules.
      - camgunz 9y ago
        Hostile work environments are created because of impact, not intent. It doesn't really matter what you meant to do if your actions made thousands of women feel diminished in the workplace. I also don't think Damore's totally naive when it comes to diversity issues. He did a lot of research and evidently even discussed his concerns with HR. I think it's pretty clear he knew what he was getting into.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        > It doesn't really matter what you meant to do if your actions made thousands of women feel diminished in the workplace. So it's objective and fair? Or it is too fickle but it doesn't matter? > I think it's pretty clear he knew what he was getting into. I think he would have hired a publicist and lawyer before publishing the memo if he knew what was coming.
- Method-X 9y ago
  Some people take offence to the fact humans are related to apes and that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Doesn't mean we should tip toe around their ridiculous sensitivities.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    Does your workplace have a very large group of young Earth creationists? Does it go out of its way to recruit them? If so, have you posted a ten page memo that says that the hiring bar has been lowered by that effort?
    - Method-X 9y ago
      Ok, what happened to Demore would be like me working at a company of young Earth creationists who had an internal message board for discussing controversial religious subjects and then firing me because I brought up natural selection. Is it wrong for me to bring up natural selection or is it wrong for my hypothetical company to entrap me?
      - Blackthorn 9y ago
        That's...a surprisingly good simile. Yes, it would be wrong of you to do that. You remember how in the Big Lebowski, Walter asks The Dude "Well, am I wrong?" and The Dude replies "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole." You don't want to be Walter.
        hueving 9y ago
        So are you literally defending the act of firing people who tell the truth?
        Blackthorn 9y ago
        I'm defending the act of firing people who are assholes. Whether they're telling the truth or not is irrelevant.
- pyronik 9y ago
  How many men take offense to hiring quotas but keep their mouths shut so they don't end up like Damore? You just set up an environment where how someone feels is more important than logic/reason/truth and that is never a good position to be in.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
morgtheborg 9y ago
> for example, the Jewish people and the Islamic people at a company to work together. But you wouldn't expect a Muslin to work with an Jew who had decided to share a memo internally about how she thinks Muslims aren't actually, on average, as well suited for positions at their company and are only present in the percentages they are due to a lower bar to entrance based on their "diversity" quota. At which point any reasonable Muslim would think, "What the fuck. So I'm just a diversity hire? I don't deserve my spot here? You don't think, on average, people like me can do this job as people like you?" Understandably that sounds like a damn hostile environment to put someone in. In the case of sex, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. I know I certainly wouldn't be comfortable working with him in a professional capacity. I would feel like I was being judged every moment to see if I deserved my spot here and that the baseline assumption was no, I don't.
xenadu02 9y ago
> You would expect, for example, the Jewish people and the Islamic people at a company to work together. No one wrote a memo claiming that Google hires too many Jews who don't meet the same quality bar due to diversity efforts. No one wrote a memo claiming Google needs to have mandatory anti-terrorist training because they've recruited a lot of Muslims lately (putting aside the fact that white christian terrorists are far more likely to be your cause of death in the USA). >Basically, in any other context we expect people who have vastly differing views to be able to put them aside and work together. Yeah and the way this works is not to bring up potentially offensive or sensitive topics except with coworkers you know really well. When you do bring it up acknowledge other people's viewpoints and ask lots of questions instead of making grand pronouncements. All workplaces are political. Software development is about working with people and that is inherently a political activity. Took me a very long time to realize that but it is 100% true. The quicker you accept it the further you will go in your career. >The idea that toleration for one memo form a nobody employee marks an entire company as unwelcome is insane. This zero tolerance attitude is a recipe for disaster. What if his memo was arguing that black people aren't suited to be engineers period? What if his memo argued that black people should be sent back to Africa and that the USA should be for white people only? What if he said he only believes this should be the law but so long as it isn't the law we must respect that and treat people equally until the law is changed? Should Google "tolerate" someone being openly racist simply because they haven't called for violence? Let's make this even more abstract: what if an employee openly states they think the company is evil and they disagree with the entire mission and direction of the company? Do you really think they won't spread cynicism and negativity? Do you really think they can be effective? Is there really no risk to morale? Even if he were completely correct (he wasn't) by doing such a sorry ham-fisted job he made himself a liability. Even if he only angered or offended 10 other engineers that alone is reason enough to get rid of him. Hiring and training engineers is expensive. Corporations are not free speech zones. If you become a liability the company will drop you like a hot-potato and don't you ever forget it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wang_li 9y ago

by rpiguy 9y ago

Blackthorn 9y ago

> The thoughts of one twenty-something engineer posted to an internal message board (for these kinds of discussions I might add) does not create a hostile workplace or harm Google in any way. Considering how all sixteen of my female teammates were pissed off about it, I'm going to go ahead and say you are demonstrably wrong.

Uhhrrr 9y ago
How many of them read the memo, as opposed to misleading characterizations of it ("Women can't do engineering", "misogynist", etc)?
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  All of them.
  - rpiguy 9y ago
    >You don't get to determine how people receive a message. You >can only take care to send it in a way that would be >received well. If everyone in a large and diverse group > >receives the message poorly, the problem is not with the >group. >If you're worried about an angry mob firing you, start >communicating with care. This is absolutely false I do get to tell the group how to receive the message. When a group is intolerant the problem is with the group. When people were against interracial marriage and intolerant of other opinions the problem was with the group. When people were against African Americans riding in the front of the bus, the problem was with the intolerant group. No candy coating, sensitivity training, or messaging was required to tell the angry, intolerant mob that they were wrong, just like they are here.
    - Blackthorn 9y ago
      > This is absolutely false I do get to tell the group how to receive the message. I only hope for your sake that you learn otherwise before you put your foot in your mouth in a very big way someday, rather than after.
  - waqf 9y ago
    Suppose that fifteen of them were pissed off and one was not. Would the sixteenth have felt psychologically comfortable in your team expressing the fact that she was not pissed off?
rpiguy 9y ago
I am saying that they shouldn't have been so pissed off. The bar shouldn't be so low for defining a hostile workplace. Anyone could then get an intolerant mob together and get someone fired for expressing themselves.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  You don't get to determine how people receive a message. You can only take care to send it in a way that would be received well. If everyone in a large and diverse group receives the message poorly, the problem is not with the group. If you're worried about an angry mob firing you, start communicating with care.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    Apparently one of the things that prompted the memo is that google is not diverse. There are plenty of different skin colors and genders, butit's an ideological echo chamber. Additionally people are not protected from offense in the workplace. They're protected from harassment and an abstract memo that doesn't single out individuals is not harassment.
mpweiher 9y ago
Nope. Someone taking offense is not demonstration of anything, other than someone taking offense.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  The post I was responding to said that it did not create a hostile working environment. I explained how it did do that. Are you trying to claim that causing offense to a large group is not creating a hostile working environment?
  - jsnathan 9y ago
    Controversy and hostility are not the same thing.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    It's too fickle a criterion for fairly firing someone. Especially if you consider he likely didn't mean to offend anyone. If you think he did mean to offend people, the firing makes more sense. I don't think "he should have known better" is very fair when neck deep in a discussion about diversity. Sometimes diversity looks like someone not knowing cultural rules.
    - camgunz 9y ago
      Hostile work environments are created because of impact, not intent. It doesn't really matter what you meant to do if your actions made thousands of women feel diminished in the workplace. I also don't think Damore's totally naive when it comes to diversity issues. He did a lot of research and evidently even discussed his concerns with HR. I think it's pretty clear he knew what he was getting into.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        > It doesn't really matter what you meant to do if your actions made thousands of women feel diminished in the workplace. So it's objective and fair? Or it is too fickle but it doesn't matter? > I think it's pretty clear he knew what he was getting into. I think he would have hired a publicist and lawyer before publishing the memo if he knew what was coming.
Method-X 9y ago
Some people take offence to the fact humans are related to apes and that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Doesn't mean we should tip toe around their ridiculous sensitivities.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  Does your workplace have a very large group of young Earth creationists? Does it go out of its way to recruit them? If so, have you posted a ten page memo that says that the hiring bar has been lowered by that effort?
  - Method-X 9y ago
    Ok, what happened to Demore would be like me working at a company of young Earth creationists who had an internal message board for discussing controversial religious subjects and then firing me because I brought up natural selection. Is it wrong for me to bring up natural selection or is it wrong for my hypothetical company to entrap me?
    - Blackthorn 9y ago
      That's...a surprisingly good simile. Yes, it would be wrong of you to do that. You remember how in the Big Lebowski, Walter asks The Dude "Well, am I wrong?" and The Dude replies "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole." You don't want to be Walter.
      - hueving 9y ago
        So are you literally defending the act of firing people who tell the truth?
        Blackthorn 9y ago
        I'm defending the act of firing people who are assholes. Whether they're telling the truth or not is irrelevant.
pyronik 9y ago
How many men take offense to hiring quotas but keep their mouths shut so they don't end up like Damore? You just set up an environment where how someone feels is more important than logic/reason/truth and that is never a good position to be in.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

morgtheborg 9y ago

> for example, the Jewish people and the Islamic people at a company to work together. But you wouldn't expect a Muslin to work with an Jew who had decided to share a memo internally about how she thinks Muslims aren't actually, on average, as well suited for positions at their company and are only present in the percentages they are due to a lower bar to entrance based on their "diversity" quota. At which point any reasonable Muslim would think, "What the fuck. So I'm just a diversity hire? I don't deserve my spot here? You don't think, on average, people like me can do this job as people like you?" Understandably that sounds like a damn hostile environment to put someone in. In the case of sex, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. I know I certainly wouldn't be comfortable working with him in a professional capacity. I would feel like I was being judged every moment to see if I deserved my spot here and that the baseline assumption was no, I don't.

xenadu02 9y ago

> You would expect, for example, the Jewish people and the Islamic people at a company to work together. No one wrote a memo claiming that Google hires too many Jews who don't meet the same quality bar due to diversity efforts. No one wrote a memo claiming Google needs to have mandatory anti-terrorist training because they've recruited a lot of Muslims lately (putting aside the fact that white christian terrorists are far more likely to be your cause of death in the USA). >Basically, in any other context we expect people who have vastly differing views to be able to put them aside and work together. Yeah and the way this works is not to bring up potentially offensive or sensitive topics except with coworkers you know really well. When you do bring it up acknowledge other people's viewpoints and ask lots of questions instead of making grand pronouncements. All workplaces are political. Software development is about working with people and that is inherently a political activity. Took me a very long time to realize that but it is 100% true. The quicker you accept it the further you will go in your career. >The idea that toleration for one memo form a nobody employee marks an entire company as unwelcome is insane. This zero tolerance attitude is a recipe for disaster. What if his memo was arguing that black people aren't suited to be engineers period? What if his memo argued that black people should be sent back to Africa and that the USA should be for white people only? What if he said he only believes this should be the law but so long as it isn't the law we must respect that and treat people equally until the law is changed? Should Google "tolerate" someone being openly racist simply because they haven't called for violence? Let's make this even more abstract: what if an employee openly states they think the company is evil and they disagree with the entire mission and direction of the company? Do you really think they won't spread cynicism and negativity? Do you really think they can be effective? Is there really no risk to morale? Even if he were completely correct (he wasn't) by doing such a sorry ham-fisted job he made himself a liability. Even if he only angered or offended 10 other engineers that alone is reason enough to get rid of him. Hiring and training engineers is expensive. Corporations are not free speech zones. If you become a liability the company will drop you like a hot-potato and don't you ever forget it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wang_li 9y ago