5 ms·

It's a despicable thing to destroy someone over an idea, despite the contents of that idea. I think tech workers are easy targets. For instance, we've all hea

It's a despicable thing to destroy someone over an idea, despite the contents of that idea. I think tech workers are easy targets. For instance, we've all heard about the need for diversity in tech, but never hear about accredited investors being < 6 % female and < 1 % black.

bduerst 9y ago
I think what this Advice memo is about isn't the idea itself, but how he poorly he handled the idea. The disruptive way he handled the idea is not protected from being fired in an at-will employment company. Google even worded that in the termination: >Your post advanced and relied on offensive gender stereotypes to suggest that women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men. I want to make clear that our decision is based solely on the part of your post that generalizes and advances stereotypes about women versus men. It is not based in any way on the portions of your post that discuss Google's programs or trainings, or how Google can improve its inclusion of differing political views. Those are important points. I also want to be clear that this is not about you expressing yourself on political issues or having political views that are different than others at the company. Having a different political view is absolutely fine. Advancing gender stereotypes is not.
- ThrowAwayFSp 9y ago
  so saying "women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men" is Heretic now? How about "women cannot be successful as chess masters at the same level than men" also heretic?
- Majora320 9y ago
  Gender stereotypes are sometimes supported by fact (even if they may primarily came into being by anecdote or plain ____ism). When they are, it is not fair to dismiss someone as "advancing gender stereotypes" whenever they make an "on average"-type claim (based on evidence) that happens to align with a gender stereotype; the problem comes when you forget the "on average" part of it (which he did not seem to).
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Again, it's not about the validity of the idea, but how Damore handled himself with it.
bri3d 9y ago
If you mean the well-understood definition of "accredited investor" in the US, this is an objective measure with an objective barrier to entry (expected income and assets), and we DO hear about the need for diversity in this regard every time we hear about women and people of color making less money and advancing more slowly in their careers. On the other hand, software hiring and "tech diversity" is a subjective process with very, very subjective barriers to entry and so we hear about changing this process through human measures. This isn't a very good comparison.
ncallaway 9y ago
> It's a despicable thing to destroy someone over an idea, despite the contents of that idea. Well, if I find out anyone holds nazi ideologies I'm happy to socially "destroy" them over those ideas. I agree that the government shouldn't punish them for those ideas, but I think individual citizens and entities have every right to disassociate and socially punish someone for those ideas. Now, I'm not saying that Damore's ideas are that extreme. However, it puts an upper bound for me on how much I can agree with your statement. There are ideas that I'm fine imposing social punishments on people for believing. I agree that Damore probably shouldn't be "destroyed" for his ideas (for whatever a definition of "destroyed" is that obviously isn't literal destruction), but I don't see why being fired is problematic for the way he shared those ideas in the workplace. Edit: This post previously had a typo that stated: "I agree that Damore probably should be 'destroyed' for his ideas". That was not the original intent, and I've corrected "should" to read "shouldn't"
- monkeywork 9y ago
  That serves to do is cause those who have been destroyed to seek out others like themselves and create an echo chamber where they get more extreme, alternatively it gets others to simply go dark in regards to their thoughts -- they still have them (possibly even more re-enforced because now you have given them an enemy) and they will toe the line until they can get into a position to push back. You stamp this out instead by finding out how the people ended up with those views to begin with, by being able to engage with those who view the world different from you, and by not fueling their hate. Does this work for ever person - no, but it should be at least attempted. (fyi - this is more a general comment about social media slayings that are way too common, I'm not being sympathetic to anyone who considers themselves a nazi).
  - ncallaway 9y ago
    Right. I agree that social media shame parties can overreact to things and create social punishments that I would agree aren't "proportional" (again, for some arbitrary definition of proportional). My general views on this are derived largely from Popper and the paradox of tolerance (though, to be honest, I've more read about his writing that his work itself; it's next on my reading list). I don't think, as a society, we should tolerate intolerant behavior. Which means, again as a society†, I think we should aggressively refuse and reject those with nazi ideologies. As an extension of that, I think we should mildly reject and refuse those with mildly intolerant ideologies. In my utopia, those social consequences would be proportional to the degree of intolerance, and I think you're right and fair to note that social shaming can quickly out-escalate the level of intolerance. †not as a government; all consequences and punishments I'm speaking of should be social consequences and punishments. I'm fairly absolutist when it comes to 1A protections from the government
0x445442 9y ago
Right, nor have I heard anyone mention the monumental irony of a company who makes billions monetizing differences between the sexes and then fires one of its employees for stating there are differences between the sexes.

bduerst 9y ago

I think what this Advice memo is about isn't the idea itself, but how he poorly he handled the idea. The disruptive way he handled the idea is not protected from being fired in an at-will employment company. Google even worded that in the termination: >Your post advanced and relied on offensive gender stereotypes to suggest that women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men. I want to make clear that our decision is based solely on the part of your post that generalizes and advances stereotypes about women versus men. It is not based in any way on the portions of your post that discuss Google's programs or trainings, or how Google can improve its inclusion of differing political views. Those are important points. I also want to be clear that this is not about you expressing yourself on political issues or having political views that are different than others at the company. Having a different political view is absolutely fine. Advancing gender stereotypes is not.

ThrowAwayFSp 9y ago
so saying "women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men" is Heretic now? How about "women cannot be successful as chess masters at the same level than men" also heretic?
Majora320 9y ago
Gender stereotypes are sometimes supported by fact (even if they may primarily came into being by anecdote or plain ____ism). When they are, it is not fair to dismiss someone as "advancing gender stereotypes" whenever they make an "on average"-type claim (based on evidence) that happens to align with a gender stereotype; the problem comes when you forget the "on average" part of it (which he did not seem to).
- bduerst 9y ago
  Again, it's not about the validity of the idea, but how Damore handled himself with it.

bri3d 9y ago

If you mean the well-understood definition of "accredited investor" in the US, this is an objective measure with an objective barrier to entry (expected income and assets), and we DO hear about the need for diversity in this regard every time we hear about women and people of color making less money and advancing more slowly in their careers. On the other hand, software hiring and "tech diversity" is a subjective process with very, very subjective barriers to entry and so we hear about changing this process through human measures. This isn't a very good comparison.

ncallaway 9y ago

> It's a despicable thing to destroy someone over an idea, despite the contents of that idea. Well, if I find out anyone holds nazi ideologies I'm happy to socially "destroy" them over those ideas. I agree that the government shouldn't punish them for those ideas, but I think individual citizens and entities have every right to disassociate and socially punish someone for those ideas. Now, I'm not saying that Damore's ideas are that extreme. However, it puts an upper bound for me on how much I can agree with your statement. There are ideas that I'm fine imposing social punishments on people for believing. I agree that Damore probably shouldn't be "destroyed" for his ideas (for whatever a definition of "destroyed" is that obviously isn't literal destruction), but I don't see why being fired is problematic for the way he shared those ideas in the workplace. Edit: This post previously had a typo that stated: "I agree that Damore probably should be 'destroyed' for his ideas". That was not the original intent, and I've corrected "should" to read "shouldn't"

monkeywork 9y ago
That serves to do is cause those who have been destroyed to seek out others like themselves and create an echo chamber where they get more extreme, alternatively it gets others to simply go dark in regards to their thoughts -- they still have them (possibly even more re-enforced because now you have given them an enemy) and they will toe the line until they can get into a position to push back. You stamp this out instead by finding out how the people ended up with those views to begin with, by being able to engage with those who view the world different from you, and by not fueling their hate. Does this work for ever person - no, but it should be at least attempted. (fyi - this is more a general comment about social media slayings that are way too common, I'm not being sympathetic to anyone who considers themselves a nazi).
- ncallaway 9y ago
  Right. I agree that social media shame parties can overreact to things and create social punishments that I would agree aren't "proportional" (again, for some arbitrary definition of proportional). My general views on this are derived largely from Popper and the paradox of tolerance (though, to be honest, I've more read about his writing that his work itself; it's next on my reading list). I don't think, as a society, we should tolerate intolerant behavior. Which means, again as a society†, I think we should aggressively refuse and reject those with nazi ideologies. As an extension of that, I think we should mildly reject and refuse those with mildly intolerant ideologies. In my utopia, those social consequences would be proportional to the degree of intolerance, and I think you're right and fair to note that social shaming can quickly out-escalate the level of intolerance. †not as a government; all consequences and punishments I'm speaking of should be social consequences and punishments. I'm fairly absolutist when it comes to 1A protections from the government

0x445442 9y ago

Right, nor have I heard anyone mention the monumental irony of a company who makes billions monetizing differences between the sexes and then fires one of its employees for stating there are differences between the sexes.