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 workp

> 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.

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.