5 ms·

So it's normal and ok if being wrong got him fired? No matter, as that isn't what got him fired. He was fired because it's good optics in this climate. And I'm

by psyc 9y ago

So it's normal and ok if being wrong got him fired? No matter, as that isn't what got him fired. He was fired because it's good optics in this climate. And I'm asserting the climate isn't good.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Does suggesting that feminism, the civil rights and the LGBT movement are actually jewish-marxists plots to destroy American capitalism in a memo about diversity you distribute at work count as "being wrong"? I mean it is wrong of course. It doesn't even make sense. Which gender Tim Cook prefers to see naked seems unrelated to running an efficient supply chain for one of the largest corporations on the planet. But generally, I'd say that suggesting that people you work with are actually committing treason by asking for fair treatement under the law should be outside of the political pale. Apparently those days have gone though. He does seem like such a nice, well-spoken young conspiracy theorist though.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  He comes off as a reactionary, for sure. Before someone calls out you for strawmanning, he does go there: Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” His entire memo is a distillation of reactionary talking points. That overall impression rather than any single argument is probably what pissed off a lot of his coworkers because these battles are much older than him.
- anon12345690 9y ago
  I've never seen anyone interpret any of that. Also has nothing to do with civil rights but was talking about men and women liking different things, so forcing them in equal ratios does more harm than good. What exactly didnt make sense to you with that?
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    You should read the memo. Apparently lots of people just skimmed it, or read a summary. Your sibling comment quotes the exact footnote text where he references the popular anti-semitic conspiracy theory about "cultural marxism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx... "The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech to a Holocaust denial conference on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt School were "to a man, Jewish", but it is reported that Lind claims not to question whether the Holocaust occurred and suggests he was present in an official capacity for The Free Congress Foundation "to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis""
    - marrs 9y ago
      So being critical of critical theory is anti-semitic now? How very convenient!
- thedevil 9y ago
  > actually jewish-marxists plots Where did you see the word "Jewish". I didn't see it when I read the text, it's not in the relevant footnote, and I did a search and didn't find it. Regarding the Marxist part: I'm not an expert on this but I believe it's called "critical theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory.
  - UncleMeat 9y ago
    "Cultural marxism" and "marxism" are different things. One was a conspiracy theory with anti-semitic roots and one is a framework of academic inquiry. Guess which one damore mentions.
awinder 9y ago
Yes, because he was wrong about something that he had no business or expertise or business position to even be discussing, and because he did it in a very loud way. Damore got what he wanted, he wanted to be a martyr, probably because that was all he was ever going to be good for. He’s the truest of snowflakes, stop giving idiots this platform and maybe they’ll go away.
- arkh 9y ago
  > he did it in a very loud way From what I remember he did not. Someone at Google publicized a document written by Damore on a Google forum.
  - throwaway8075 9y ago
    He did himself. Got ripped to shreds in a forum with folks that I'd expect to be somewhat sympathetic with his cause. He then reworked the doc a bit to be less overtly offensive (the published version is one of these later ones), still got shot down in a friendly way by the sympathetic part of the Google population for bullshit reasoning. Eventually it got wider circulation - not sure by whom, but he certainly didn't object to that. At some point, when managers and friendly inclined folks tell you to shut up at work, you do. If you decide to pursue the topic further, don't whine when people disassociate themselves from you - not for the content of your speech, but for your conduct and the disruption that comes with it.
- traverseda 9y ago
  To me that reads like a lot like credentialism. "Unless you've been formally vetted by the institutions we like you can't participate". It's like a bizzarro-world anti-intellectualism, where you can't read a scientific paper unless you have the right degree in that particular sub-field.
  - awinder 9y ago
    If the alternative to credentialism is idiots like Damore rabble-rousing other total idiots, sign me up for credentialism.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
Maybe he was fired not just because he made the company look bad, but also because he insulted about 30% of his co-workers, and on top of that kept trying to get his memo read by as many people as possible within Google. Banging on about a controversial subject that can cause upset and disruption in a work environment. Does that sound very professional, or something that a smart person would do? And do you really want that kind of person in your team?
- moduspol 9y ago
  > he insulted about 30% of his co-workers He didn't insult anyone, although some amount of his coworkers did feel insulted. The difference between these two things is significant.
  - pc86 9y ago
    I don't think he intended to insult anyone, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to believe that people could be insulted based on what he said. That's the gray area your binary distillation completely ignores. It's a little more nuanced than "he hurt my feelings!"
    - moduspol 9y ago
      I think what he wrote should be judged on the merits of what it said and not how others choose to misinterpret it. Put differently: We are going down a dark road when someone simply being offended by pretty mainstream views mean those views are the problem.
      - pc86 9y ago
        I'm not saying that the views are a problem because people are offended. I'm saying that since people are offended, it's reasonable to take a step back and ask if the views are offensive, and if the intent was to offend. "He didn't mean to offend" doesn't automatically mean that whatever he said was okay. In this particular case I think it was, but there's nothing wrong with stepping back and asking if the underlying views are okay.

by psyc 9y ago

So it's normal and ok if being wrong got him fired? No matter, as that isn't what got him fired. He was fired because it's good optics in this climate. And I'm asserting the climate isn't good.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Does suggesting that feminism, the civil rights and the LGBT movement are actually jewish-marxists plots to destroy American capitalism in a memo about diversity you distribute at work count as "being wrong"? I mean it is wrong of course. It doesn't even make sense. Which gender Tim Cook prefers to see naked seems unrelated to running an efficient supply chain for one of the largest corporations on the planet. But generally, I'd say that suggesting that people you work with are actually committing treason by asking for fair treatement under the law should be outside of the political pale. Apparently those days have gone though. He does seem like such a nice, well-spoken young conspiracy theorist though.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
He comes off as a reactionary, for sure. Before someone calls out you for strawmanning, he does go there: Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” His entire memo is a distillation of reactionary talking points. That overall impression rather than any single argument is probably what pissed off a lot of his coworkers because these battles are much older than him.
anon12345690 9y ago
I've never seen anyone interpret any of that. Also has nothing to do with civil rights but was talking about men and women liking different things, so forcing them in equal ratios does more harm than good. What exactly didnt make sense to you with that?
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  You should read the memo. Apparently lots of people just skimmed it, or read a summary. Your sibling comment quotes the exact footnote text where he references the popular anti-semitic conspiracy theory about "cultural marxism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx... "The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech to a Holocaust denial conference on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt School were "to a man, Jewish", but it is reported that Lind claims not to question whether the Holocaust occurred and suggests he was present in an official capacity for The Free Congress Foundation "to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis""
  - marrs 9y ago
    So being critical of critical theory is anti-semitic now? How very convenient!
thedevil 9y ago
> actually jewish-marxists plots Where did you see the word "Jewish". I didn't see it when I read the text, it's not in the relevant footnote, and I did a search and didn't find it. Regarding the Marxist part: I'm not an expert on this but I believe it's called "critical theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory.
- UncleMeat 9y ago
  "Cultural marxism" and "marxism" are different things. One was a conspiracy theory with anti-semitic roots and one is a framework of academic inquiry. Guess which one damore mentions.

awinder 9y ago

Yes, because he was wrong about something that he had no business or expertise or business position to even be discussing, and because he did it in a very loud way. Damore got what he wanted, he wanted to be a martyr, probably because that was all he was ever going to be good for. He’s the truest of snowflakes, stop giving idiots this platform and maybe they’ll go away.

arkh 9y ago
> he did it in a very loud way From what I remember he did not. Someone at Google publicized a document written by Damore on a Google forum.
- throwaway8075 9y ago
  He did himself. Got ripped to shreds in a forum with folks that I'd expect to be somewhat sympathetic with his cause. He then reworked the doc a bit to be less overtly offensive (the published version is one of these later ones), still got shot down in a friendly way by the sympathetic part of the Google population for bullshit reasoning. Eventually it got wider circulation - not sure by whom, but he certainly didn't object to that. At some point, when managers and friendly inclined folks tell you to shut up at work, you do. If you decide to pursue the topic further, don't whine when people disassociate themselves from you - not for the content of your speech, but for your conduct and the disruption that comes with it.
traverseda 9y ago
To me that reads like a lot like credentialism. "Unless you've been formally vetted by the institutions we like you can't participate". It's like a bizzarro-world anti-intellectualism, where you can't read a scientific paper unless you have the right degree in that particular sub-field.
- awinder 9y ago
  If the alternative to credentialism is idiots like Damore rabble-rousing other total idiots, sign me up for credentialism.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

Maybe he was fired not just because he made the company look bad, but also because he insulted about 30% of his co-workers, and on top of that kept trying to get his memo read by as many people as possible within Google. Banging on about a controversial subject that can cause upset and disruption in a work environment. Does that sound very professional, or something that a smart person would do? And do you really want that kind of person in your team?

moduspol 9y ago
> he insulted about 30% of his co-workers He didn't insult anyone, although some amount of his coworkers did feel insulted. The difference between these two things is significant.
- pc86 9y ago
  I don't think he intended to insult anyone, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to believe that people could be insulted based on what he said. That's the gray area your binary distillation completely ignores. It's a little more nuanced than "he hurt my feelings!"
  - moduspol 9y ago
    I think what he wrote should be judged on the merits of what it said and not how others choose to misinterpret it. Put differently: We are going down a dark road when someone simply being offended by pretty mainstream views mean those views are the problem.
    - pc86 9y ago
      I'm not saying that the views are a problem because people are offended. I'm saying that since people are offended, it's reasonable to take a step back and ask if the views are offensive, and if the intent was to offend. "He didn't mean to offend" doesn't automatically mean that whatever he said was okay. In this particular case I think it was, but there's nothing wrong with stepping back and asking if the underlying views are okay.