5 ms·

I don't know why, but nowadays more often than not I see people ostracised and punished for different beliefs rather than discussed and argued with. I know firi

by f055 9y ago

I don't know why, but nowadays more often than not I see people ostracised and punished for different beliefs rather than discussed and argued with. I know firing and shutting people down is the easier thing to do in the short term, but discussing and understanding, maybe even convincing or reaching a consensus, is something really good in the long term. It all feels like the balanced, centric attitude has been lost for the exclusive extreme right or left approach. How did we get here?

krapp 9y ago
But... there was a great deal of discussion about this. You can still find the threads here, every possible aspect of this was argued up and down. It doesn't require an "extreme" approach to disagree with him or his assertions, although it is true that most people who agreed with, or disagreed with, Damore's essay didn't bother to actually read it, or engage with the content. The extremists showed up first, as they tend to, and strawman fought strawman for the high ground, then came the more reasoned, well-researched and thought out criticisms. Google, however, is a business and isn't obligated to "reach a consensus" on anything, or to try to convince an employee about anything regarding their political views. What Google did was a business decision, because the bad publicity his essay created and its effect on Google's work environment.
- abnry 9y ago
  We still need to remember that Google bills itself as a company open to new and challenging ideas. Leadership matters and even if the decision to fire was based purely on publicity and work environment concerns, Google showed it cares more about a certain ideology and keeping its employees happy in their ideology than actually having debate.
  - krapp 9y ago
    It is possible that Google is hypocritical in that the public culture it projects doesn't match its actual corporate culture, but they would hardly be the first company for which that was the case. But it's also possible that Damore wouldn't have been fired if the memo he published hadn't gone viral. I don't know one way or the other but that seemed to me to be more about damage control than suppression of political views.
alphabettsy 9y ago
There’s absolutely nothing new about that. On major topics there were public witch hunts and blacklists, ex McCarthyism. This guy didn’t engage in debate though, he posted a memo that really doesn’t open a door to dialogue. And as someone who runs an organization, the workplace is not the place for an open debate on gender and diversity. That’s only appropriate for a closed door session. His decision to quickly go on to make a round of videos with Alt-right activists and anti-feminists spoke volumes in my opionion. He didn’t try to engage with people with alternate views, he engaged with people that hold even more extreme views.
- vorotato 9y ago
  Genuinely concerning that people are trying to shut down your discussion, right after supporting a complaint that people are trying to shut down discussion.
- abnry 9y ago
  What does "open a door to dialogue" even mean?
  - alphabettsy 9y ago
    Putting up a note on your roommates door to complain about their loud sex then leaving does not invite a discussion. Asking if you can talk about it later does.
vorotato 9y ago
So his beliefs could be constituted creating a hostile environment for other employees. It's not a new thing. You're free to share your ideas, except the idea that your other employees should not be there because of a protected status such as religion, race, gender etc. It's a liability for Google to keep that employee on if they are unwilling to recant the statement as they would be enabling discrimination. It's been this way since 1964.

by f055 9y ago

krapp 9y ago

But... there was a great deal of discussion about this. You can still find the threads here, every possible aspect of this was argued up and down. It doesn't require an "extreme" approach to disagree with him or his assertions, although it is true that most people who agreed with, or disagreed with, Damore's essay didn't bother to actually read it, or engage with the content. The extremists showed up first, as they tend to, and strawman fought strawman for the high ground, then came the more reasoned, well-researched and thought out criticisms. Google, however, is a business and isn't obligated to "reach a consensus" on anything, or to try to convince an employee about anything regarding their political views. What Google did was a business decision, because the bad publicity his essay created and its effect on Google's work environment.

abnry 9y ago
We still need to remember that Google bills itself as a company open to new and challenging ideas. Leadership matters and even if the decision to fire was based purely on publicity and work environment concerns, Google showed it cares more about a certain ideology and keeping its employees happy in their ideology than actually having debate.
- krapp 9y ago
  It is possible that Google is hypocritical in that the public culture it projects doesn't match its actual corporate culture, but they would hardly be the first company for which that was the case. But it's also possible that Damore wouldn't have been fired if the memo he published hadn't gone viral. I don't know one way or the other but that seemed to me to be more about damage control than suppression of political views.

alphabettsy 9y ago

There’s absolutely nothing new about that. On major topics there were public witch hunts and blacklists, ex McCarthyism. This guy didn’t engage in debate though, he posted a memo that really doesn’t open a door to dialogue. And as someone who runs an organization, the workplace is not the place for an open debate on gender and diversity. That’s only appropriate for a closed door session. His decision to quickly go on to make a round of videos with Alt-right activists and anti-feminists spoke volumes in my opionion. He didn’t try to engage with people with alternate views, he engaged with people that hold even more extreme views.

vorotato 9y ago
Genuinely concerning that people are trying to shut down your discussion, right after supporting a complaint that people are trying to shut down discussion.
abnry 9y ago
What does "open a door to dialogue" even mean?
- alphabettsy 9y ago
  Putting up a note on your roommates door to complain about their loud sex then leaving does not invite a discussion. Asking if you can talk about it later does.

vorotato 9y ago

So his beliefs could be constituted creating a hostile environment for other employees. It's not a new thing. You're free to share your ideas, except the idea that your other employees should not be there because of a protected status such as religion, race, gender etc. It's a liability for Google to keep that employee on if they are unwilling to recant the statement as they would be enabling discrimination. It's been this way since 1964.