3 ms·

People who are color blind see things differently too. That doesn't mean red doesn't exist; just that they can't see it. It should be obvious though that Damor

People who are color blind see things differently too. That doesn't mean red doesn't exist; just that they can't see it. It should be obvious though that Damore wasn't fired for his views per se. There's probably plenty of people still at Google with similar views. He was fired because he aired views in a way that upset a lot of people, and Google is a business that needs to manage a workplace that's collegial and cooperative. Firing Damore was more practical than firing the 20% of the Google workforce that didn't want to work with him anymore.

bmcusick 9y ago
Just to expand on that, I want to point out that there's two ways to look at people who choose to air controversial opinions. 1) Say they're wrong. Argue the facts. Point out that historically speaking, similar predictions or theories have been presented by others and none of them have proven to be correct. 2) Point out that in an organization the size of Google, even an organization like Google that hires very academic and smart people, only a percentage of them care to debate a particular set of views. Another (larger) percentage are just going to write you off because they don't have the time or the inclination to discuss that thing; they have too many other things on their plate. So you're kind of a moron for antagonizing xx% of the people you need to work with on a daily basis. You're deliberately breaking the "No Brilliant Jerks" rule. So the professional consequences should be perfectly predictable before you ever opened your mouth, and no one is at fault but you for getting fired.
- whiskyseagull 9y ago
  Point 2 is a red herring. No one is arguing that it wasn't in Google's short term interests to suppress thoughts that were controversial to a large part of it's work force. The debate, at least on the surface, is about whether his arguments have merit. Underneath all that is the real debate: should we able to express ugly, unpleasant, or unfortunate truths in public as facts? The left lately seems to want certain things to be beyond discussion, and that list seems to grow as time goes on.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > should we able to express ugly, unpleasant, or unfortunate truths in public as facts? Truths, yes, but what Damore had was pseudoscientific guff.
  - bmcusick 9y ago
    > Underneath all that is the real debate: should we able to express ugly, unpleasant, or unfortunate truths in public as facts? I think "the fact" that Damore continues to air his views in public, and no one is stopping him from doing so, is proof that we have this freedom in spades. The fact that the people at Google don't want to work with Damore anymore is also freedom. Would you force Googlers to work with someone they disagree with so strongly that they cannot be civil?
    - whiskyseagull 9y ago
      Of course he still has the legal right to do it. The US hasn't gone so far yet, as other western countries have, to ban "hate" speech, and he hedged his arguments well enough that it would be hard to ban that kind of talk outright without exposing that you really don't care about the arguments, but that it's really about that he's daring to make them at all. That's why, in my opinion, he draws so much seething hatred - he was too careful about hedging and inviting discussion for the left to be able to dismiss him easily as a dumb retrograde hate monger, but they didn't want to address the arguments on the merits either (yes, I'm aware that there were exceptions, no need to list them, this is about the left as a whole). His speech has been effectively banned because he's been made a pariah and dismissed. Of course the left hasn't completely won yet, so he's found a home in some parts of the right. But that's not the point, it's about what the left ultimately wants, and what we should expect if it wins. This serves as an example - the left is happy and comfortable when certain controversial points are suppressed and their advocates exiled. "Would you force Googlers to work with someone they disagree with so strongly that they cannot be civil?" Why can't they be civil? Is there a line where uncivil behavior is permitted because someone's thoughts offend you?
      - alphabettsy 9y ago
LyndsySimon 9y ago
> People who are color blind see things differently too. That doesn't mean red doesn't exist; just that they can't see it. Right - color blindness is a recognized disability. > He was fired because he aired views in a way that upset a lot of people, and Google is a business that needs to manage a workplace that's collegial and cooperative. Firing Damore was more practical than firing the 20% of the Google workforce that didn't want to work with him anymore. Could it be argued that Damore's method in airing his views was in fact due to his being on the Autism spectrum, and therefore protected under the ADA as a disability (just like color blindness)? If so, would that mean that Google's firing of Damore - due to an action resulting from his disability - might have violated the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of the ADA? To be clear, I'm not stating that I believe this is the case; I'm just considering other angles from which to view the events.
- bmcusick 9y ago
  Very creative! I'm a lawyer, but not an ADA lawyer. Interesting idea though.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    Cool! I've always been interested in law, but it doesn't much interest me as a career. I am interested in going back to school with the intent of becoming an attorney later in life, though, so it's encouraging to hear that my crazy ideas aren't completely off-base.
- vorotato 9y ago
  [IANAL] That's an interesting question. I think Google would have a reasonable argument toward damore creating hostile environment toward a group with a protected status. They then could argue he was unfit for employment. Obviously a jury would then decide, but historical precedent says that no it would not constitute a failure to provide reasonable accommodation because he was unfit for employment. "Nevertheless, some employees with ASD and related conditions continue to struggle to show that they are qualified for employment.90 Courts continue to assert that the ability to communicate appropriately with customers and coworkers is an essential function of the jobs in question.91 Particularly in cases dealing with employees who have contact with the public or collaborative interaction with colleagues, communication challenges typical for those with autism have been sufficient to derail class coverage.92 This may prove to be a significant hurdle in litigation for employees with ASD in the future." source: http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Hensel.pdf http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Hensel.pdf

bmcusick 9y ago

Just to expand on that, I want to point out that there's two ways to look at people who choose to air controversial opinions. 1) Say they're wrong. Argue the facts. Point out that historically speaking, similar predictions or theories have been presented by others and none of them have proven to be correct. 2) Point out that in an organization the size of Google, even an organization like Google that hires very academic and smart people, only a percentage of them care to debate a particular set of views. Another (larger) percentage are just going to write you off because they don't have the time or the inclination to discuss that thing; they have too many other things on their plate. So you're kind of a moron for antagonizing xx% of the people you need to work with on a daily basis. You're deliberately breaking the "No Brilliant Jerks" rule. So the professional consequences should be perfectly predictable before you ever opened your mouth, and no one is at fault but you for getting fired.

whiskyseagull 9y ago
Point 2 is a red herring. No one is arguing that it wasn't in Google's short term interests to suppress thoughts that were controversial to a large part of it's work force. The debate, at least on the surface, is about whether his arguments have merit. Underneath all that is the real debate: should we able to express ugly, unpleasant, or unfortunate truths in public as facts? The left lately seems to want certain things to be beyond discussion, and that list seems to grow as time goes on.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > should we able to express ugly, unpleasant, or unfortunate truths in public as facts? Truths, yes, but what Damore had was pseudoscientific guff.
- bmcusick 9y ago
  > Underneath all that is the real debate: should we able to express ugly, unpleasant, or unfortunate truths in public as facts? I think "the fact" that Damore continues to air his views in public, and no one is stopping him from doing so, is proof that we have this freedom in spades. The fact that the people at Google don't want to work with Damore anymore is also freedom. Would you force Googlers to work with someone they disagree with so strongly that they cannot be civil?
  - whiskyseagull 9y ago
    Of course he still has the legal right to do it. The US hasn't gone so far yet, as other western countries have, to ban "hate" speech, and he hedged his arguments well enough that it would be hard to ban that kind of talk outright without exposing that you really don't care about the arguments, but that it's really about that he's daring to make them at all. That's why, in my opinion, he draws so much seething hatred - he was too careful about hedging and inviting discussion for the left to be able to dismiss him easily as a dumb retrograde hate monger, but they didn't want to address the arguments on the merits either (yes, I'm aware that there were exceptions, no need to list them, this is about the left as a whole). His speech has been effectively banned because he's been made a pariah and dismissed. Of course the left hasn't completely won yet, so he's found a home in some parts of the right. But that's not the point, it's about what the left ultimately wants, and what we should expect if it wins. This serves as an example - the left is happy and comfortable when certain controversial points are suppressed and their advocates exiled. "Would you force Googlers to work with someone they disagree with so strongly that they cannot be civil?" Why can't they be civil? Is there a line where uncivil behavior is permitted because someone's thoughts offend you?
    - alphabettsy 9y ago

LyndsySimon 9y ago

> People who are color blind see things differently too. That doesn't mean red doesn't exist; just that they can't see it. Right - color blindness is a recognized disability. > He was fired because he aired views in a way that upset a lot of people, and Google is a business that needs to manage a workplace that's collegial and cooperative. Firing Damore was more practical than firing the 20% of the Google workforce that didn't want to work with him anymore. Could it be argued that Damore's method in airing his views was in fact due to his being on the Autism spectrum, and therefore protected under the ADA as a disability (just like color blindness)? If so, would that mean that Google's firing of Damore - due to an action resulting from his disability - might have violated the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of the ADA? To be clear, I'm not stating that I believe this is the case; I'm just considering other angles from which to view the events.

bmcusick 9y ago
Very creative! I'm a lawyer, but not an ADA lawyer. Interesting idea though.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  Cool! I've always been interested in law, but it doesn't much interest me as a career. I am interested in going back to school with the intent of becoming an attorney later in life, though, so it's encouraging to hear that my crazy ideas aren't completely off-base.
vorotato 9y ago
[IANAL] That's an interesting question. I think Google would have a reasonable argument toward damore creating hostile environment toward a group with a protected status. They then could argue he was unfit for employment. Obviously a jury would then decide, but historical precedent says that no it would not constitute a failure to provide reasonable accommodation because he was unfit for employment. "Nevertheless, some employees with ASD and related conditions continue to struggle to show that they are qualified for employment.90 Courts continue to assert that the ability to communicate appropriately with customers and coworkers is an essential function of the jobs in question.91 Particularly in cases dealing with employees who have contact with the public or collaborative interaction with colleagues, communication challenges typical for those with autism have been sufficient to derail class coverage.92 This may prove to be a significant hurdle in litigation for employees with ASD in the future." source: http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Hensel.pdf http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Hensel.pdf