5 ms·

Yonatan Zunger also had this to say about the memo [1]. > at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you [...] a good number of t

Yonatan Zunger also had this to say about the memo [1]. > at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you [...] a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face [...] You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment. TL;DR - Yeah I mean, violence against you is totally justified because of what you said -- but if there is violence, it's your fault. Nothing in Damore's memo justifies violence as a response. Zunger just stops short of advocating a violent response. I don't think he's someone I'd ever want to work for, or pay heed to. 1 - https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

xapata 9y ago
Did Zunger assign fault in that statement? I didn't read it like that. It's a prediction, not a prescription. Your summary is misleading. He didn't "justify" violence. Saying that jaywalking is risky is not an ethical statement about cars.
- bjt2n3904 9y ago
  Yes, he did assign fault. The words he used were: "it's your fault". If I'm assaulted in the workplace for a political viewpoint I anonymously posted, the fault is with the assaultee. Not with the assaulted. However, Zunger flips the blame. Didn't you see this coming? You should have known opposing the majority viewpoint would be met with violence. For workplace safety, I have to fire you. Ironically, he seems to blame tolerance on this. It seems the man doesn't understand what the word means. Edit: > Saying that jaywalking is risky is not an ethical statement about cars See my response above to joshuamorton.
  - dcole2929 9y ago
    A) It wasn't posted anoymously and B) yes while it's absolutely the fault of the assailant, the assaulted does bare some blame depending on what was said. If you walk up to someone an say hey your mom is an <insert derogatory term> and get punched in the face. You can't say there wasn't a reasonable expectation of violence as result of your actions. Yonger is quite correct in that intentionally or not, for better or worse, Damore created a situation in which it would be very difficult to put him on a team anywhere. While work place violence is rarely the answer, and I sincerely doubt anyone at google would raise themselves to that level the fact of the matter is that even the risk of that puts Google in an impossible situation.
  - xapata 9y ago
    >> Saying that jaywalking is risky is not an ethical statement about cars > See my response above to joshuamorton. I didn't understand the connection between that response and my assertion.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  Zunger clearly writes that what Damore has done makes people want to punch him in the face. Of writing the memo Zunger says "What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful" and later "its [writing the memo] impact on you: ... a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face." In other words, the impact of writing the memo is that people will want to punch Damore in the face. Zunger's blog post is extremely obnoxious. Not only does Zunger write something like "everything you say is wrong, but I won't explain any specific way you're wrong, or link to any such explanation" he then goes on to explain engineering to a senior engineer, and grossly misrepresents Damore. In addition he clearly does assign fault to Damore for people wanting to punch him.
joshuamorton 9y ago
That's... Not what zunger says. He says people may want to be violent against you because of what you said. He makes no claims about the justification of that violence. He makes a statement of fact, not of judgement.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  In other posts, Zunger does strongly imply justification for violence. See "Tolerance is not a moral precept; it is a peace treaty" headed with a pic of a Degenderette holding a baseball bat..
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    I disagree, but even if true, I'm not really sure why that's relevant here. Zunger's opinion may be that violence toward Damore is justified (I doubt that, but it could be the case). That doesn't change what he said, which was a fact: saying things that deeply hurt people will makes some of them want to punch you. Why does who the author is matter to the truth of that statement?
    - bjt2n3904 9y ago
      The author only matters since he is being cited as someone with insight, and has written a response to the "Google memo" that I found to be particularly telling. In a vacuum, yes. Saying certain things may incite a violent response. But we're not in a vacuum. Let's look at three scenarios, and ask the following questions: Is violence expected? Is violence understandable? Is violence justified? A - While drunk at a bar, a man repeatedly says derogatory things about another man's wife. A fight breaks out between the two of them. B - While at a KKK rally, a young black man calmly discussing afrocentrism is jumped and beaten by a mob. C - While at an LGBT rally, an old white man hostilely quoting Leviticus is jumped and beaten by a mob. In the first scenario, this is targeted harassment. We should anticipate a violent outbreak. If you were to poll a diverse group of people, most people would say the violence was understandable, but not justified. This scenario bears the least similarity to our situation -- although I will make one comment. This is the only scenario where violence could be justified. If the provocateur becomes violent (or makes threats), a violent response MAY be expected, understandable, and justified. In the second and third scenario, violence is an expected result. While some people within these groups may feel the violence was understandable, the real question lies with the groups organizers. I suspect that the LGBT group would denounce violence, even though the man had bad intentions. (I wouldn't expect as much from the KKK.) To relate this to Google, Zunger is a leader. He excuses the violent response of the employees, and blames Damore for inciting the violence. (This is an INCREDIBLY poor position to take.) While it's fair to question whether Damore was the provocateur from example C, or the debater from example B, it's unfair to blame him for a violent response.
zeveb 9y ago
> Zunger just stops short of advocating a violent response. I don't think he's someone I'd ever want to work for, or pay heed to. That's one thing about the number of folks who've publicly stated positions I find abhorrent: I've got a list of folks I won't work with in the future, because I don't wish to support them. I don't know if that's a good thing, though. It doesn't seem wise for society to fracture into different polarised groups refusing to do business with one another. Seems like a recipe for recreating Lebanon's mess. Why can't we go back to the rule of not bringing politics and religion into the office?
- bjt2n3904 9y ago
  Zunger didn't write "this is how I think", he wrote "this is what I'd do". This isn't a matter of supporting someone with a controversial opinion. Zunger goes on in explicit detail about how he would act in response to someone else's opinion.

xapata 9y ago

Did Zunger assign fault in that statement? I didn't read it like that. It's a prediction, not a prescription. Your summary is misleading. He didn't "justify" violence. Saying that jaywalking is risky is not an ethical statement about cars.

bjt2n3904 9y ago
Yes, he did assign fault. The words he used were: "it's your fault". If I'm assaulted in the workplace for a political viewpoint I anonymously posted, the fault is with the assaultee. Not with the assaulted. However, Zunger flips the blame. Didn't you see this coming? You should have known opposing the majority viewpoint would be met with violence. For workplace safety, I have to fire you. Ironically, he seems to blame tolerance on this. It seems the man doesn't understand what the word means. Edit: > Saying that jaywalking is risky is not an ethical statement about cars See my response above to joshuamorton.
- dcole2929 9y ago
  A) It wasn't posted anoymously and B) yes while it's absolutely the fault of the assailant, the assaulted does bare some blame depending on what was said. If you walk up to someone an say hey your mom is an <insert derogatory term> and get punched in the face. You can't say there wasn't a reasonable expectation of violence as result of your actions. Yonger is quite correct in that intentionally or not, for better or worse, Damore created a situation in which it would be very difficult to put him on a team anywhere. While work place violence is rarely the answer, and I sincerely doubt anyone at google would raise themselves to that level the fact of the matter is that even the risk of that puts Google in an impossible situation.
- xapata 9y ago
  >> Saying that jaywalking is risky is not an ethical statement about cars > See my response above to joshuamorton. I didn't understand the connection between that response and my assertion.
ImSkeptical 9y ago
Zunger clearly writes that what Damore has done makes people want to punch him in the face. Of writing the memo Zunger says "What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful" and later "its [writing the memo] impact on you: ... a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face." In other words, the impact of writing the memo is that people will want to punch Damore in the face. Zunger's blog post is extremely obnoxious. Not only does Zunger write something like "everything you say is wrong, but I won't explain any specific way you're wrong, or link to any such explanation" he then goes on to explain engineering to a senior engineer, and grossly misrepresents Damore. In addition he clearly does assign fault to Damore for people wanting to punch him.

joshuamorton 9y ago

That's... Not what zunger says. He says people may want to be violent against you because of what you said. He makes no claims about the justification of that violence. He makes a statement of fact, not of judgement.

Chris2048 9y ago
In other posts, Zunger does strongly imply justification for violence. See "Tolerance is not a moral precept; it is a peace treaty" headed with a pic of a Degenderette holding a baseball bat..
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  I disagree, but even if true, I'm not really sure why that's relevant here. Zunger's opinion may be that violence toward Damore is justified (I doubt that, but it could be the case). That doesn't change what he said, which was a fact: saying things that deeply hurt people will makes some of them want to punch you. Why does who the author is matter to the truth of that statement?
  - bjt2n3904 9y ago
    The author only matters since he is being cited as someone with insight, and has written a response to the "Google memo" that I found to be particularly telling. In a vacuum, yes. Saying certain things may incite a violent response. But we're not in a vacuum. Let's look at three scenarios, and ask the following questions: Is violence expected? Is violence understandable? Is violence justified? A - While drunk at a bar, a man repeatedly says derogatory things about another man's wife. A fight breaks out between the two of them. B - While at a KKK rally, a young black man calmly discussing afrocentrism is jumped and beaten by a mob. C - While at an LGBT rally, an old white man hostilely quoting Leviticus is jumped and beaten by a mob. In the first scenario, this is targeted harassment. We should anticipate a violent outbreak. If you were to poll a diverse group of people, most people would say the violence was understandable, but not justified. This scenario bears the least similarity to our situation -- although I will make one comment. This is the only scenario where violence could be justified. If the provocateur becomes violent (or makes threats), a violent response MAY be expected, understandable, and justified. In the second and third scenario, violence is an expected result. While some people within these groups may feel the violence was understandable, the real question lies with the groups organizers. I suspect that the LGBT group would denounce violence, even though the man had bad intentions. (I wouldn't expect as much from the KKK.) To relate this to Google, Zunger is a leader. He excuses the violent response of the employees, and blames Damore for inciting the violence. (This is an INCREDIBLY poor position to take.) While it's fair to question whether Damore was the provocateur from example C, or the debater from example B, it's unfair to blame him for a violent response.

zeveb 9y ago

> Zunger just stops short of advocating a violent response. I don't think he's someone I'd ever want to work for, or pay heed to. That's one thing about the number of folks who've publicly stated positions I find abhorrent: I've got a list of folks I won't work with in the future, because I don't wish to support them. I don't know if that's a good thing, though. It doesn't seem wise for society to fracture into different polarised groups refusing to do business with one another. Seems like a recipe for recreating Lebanon's mess. Why can't we go back to the rule of not bringing politics and religion into the office?

bjt2n3904 9y ago
Zunger didn't write "this is how I think", he wrote "this is what I'd do". This isn't a matter of supporting someone with a controversial opinion. Zunger goes on in explicit detail about how he would act in response to someone else's opinion.