3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

camgunz 9y ago
(let me just disclaim right away that I'm pretty liberal) > So it's objective and fair? Or it is too fickle but it doesn't matter? Whatever the ideological or scientific opposite of Damore's memo is, I would never publish it to anyone -- not even a single person -- at work. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that discussing race or gender issues at work is out of bounds, regardless of your position. > I think he would have hired a publicist and lawyer before publishing the memo if he knew what was coming. Aha that's probably true but I'm not talking about the backlash. I'm saying he knew he wasn't just asking to be proven wrong about migratory patterns of ducks. He's aware diversity is a sensitive topic.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > I don't think I'm alone in thinking that discussing race or gender issues at work is out of bounds, regardless of your position. But most tech employers already broach the subject in many ways. It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions, including during work hours, but employees do not. Things like this need to be addressed if we want corporate power to be moderated.
  - camgunz 9y ago
    > But most tech employers already broach the subject in many ways. It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions, including during work hours, but employees do not. What controversial opinions are you talking about?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Well, apparently all this is still controversial. There are rumors that Zuckerberg might be running for office. CEOs and other leaders giving speeches about politics and participating in political demonstrations. Lobbying the government about political issues unrelated to the core business of the company. To be clear, I don't think all those things are necessarily bad. But I think letting corporations and corporate leadership have free reign and a big microphone while expecting employees to censor themselves is inconsistent to say the least.
      - camgunz 9y ago
        No I mean what position does Google have that is controversial? > It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions
    - hueving 9y ago
      Well diversity programs is the obvious one. The fact that Damore wrote the memo and so many agreed shows that they are controversial.

camgunz 9y ago

(let me just disclaim right away that I'm pretty liberal) > So it's objective and fair? Or it is too fickle but it doesn't matter? Whatever the ideological or scientific opposite of Damore's memo is, I would never publish it to anyone -- not even a single person -- at work. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that discussing race or gender issues at work is out of bounds, regardless of your position. > I think he would have hired a publicist and lawyer before publishing the memo if he knew what was coming. Aha that's probably true but I'm not talking about the backlash. I'm saying he knew he wasn't just asking to be proven wrong about migratory patterns of ducks. He's aware diversity is a sensitive topic.

humanrebar 9y ago
> I don't think I'm alone in thinking that discussing race or gender issues at work is out of bounds, regardless of your position. But most tech employers already broach the subject in many ways. It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions, including during work hours, but employees do not. Things like this need to be addressed if we want corporate power to be moderated.
- camgunz 9y ago
  > But most tech employers already broach the subject in many ways. It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions, including during work hours, but employees do not. What controversial opinions are you talking about?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Well, apparently all this is still controversial. There are rumors that Zuckerberg might be running for office. CEOs and other leaders giving speeches about politics and participating in political demonstrations. Lobbying the government about political issues unrelated to the core business of the company. To be clear, I don't think all those things are necessarily bad. But I think letting corporations and corporate leadership have free reign and a big microphone while expecting employees to censor themselves is inconsistent to say the least.
    - camgunz 9y ago
      No I mean what position does Google have that is controversial? > It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions
  - hueving 9y ago
    Well diversity programs is the obvious one. The fact that Damore wrote the memo and so many agreed shows that they are controversial.