6 ms·

> You are not responsible for those people being offended. This is objectively false, you can get fired for offending people both at your job or outside it.

by kanox 6y ago

kmlx 6y ago
some of those companies don't really deserve to be trading. i remember how back in my youth if i said something offensive against the government i would lose my job and be sent to a forced labour camp. that was during communism. history keeps repeating itself.
- johnsonjo 6y ago
  I mean it’s like people forget the gulags were only like 70 years ago. When people were wrongfully imprisoned for no good reason just to meet police quotas from the soviets government super powers. I definitely don’t disbelieve what you are saying.
mpweiher 6y ago
No, it is absolutely right. The fact that people and companies don't understand this is a separate, though obviously important matter. So you obviously need to be aware of the (imho crazy) environment we are in, but also need to distinguish "might" from "right".
raxxorrax 6y ago
You can be certain that companies who did that will be reprimanded for it by consumers.
- YetAnotherNick 6y ago
  Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    I think it was wrong to fire him and that he genuinely had no ill intend. More detrimental are voices that attest pervasive sexism in the industry and that women are oppressed by computer nerds, but it is no competition. It was in conflict with the goals of management to get more women into tech. I also think such a memo (haven't read it) can put women under more scrutiny, even if it describes general trends that might not be applicable to individuals. I think he is someone who can easily make the distinction in contrast to his accusers and everyone who studied computer science knows the demographics. Discrimination can be ruled out as a main factor easily. But even if the opinion of his accusers is dead wrong on all levels, management has decided that employment is not beneficial anymore. Science or not.
  - Mangalor 6y ago
    Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights. Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work. To me that sounds like no one's essential rights were violated at all.
    - kgwgk 6y ago
      > Damore wrote an essay basically arguing ... Q.E.D.
    - high_derivative 6y ago
      'should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics' He absolutely did no such thing and this is an incredibly disingenuous representation. You can still argue he should be fired without this.
      - worik 6y ago
        I have just reread the first few pages of his memo. I had forgotten, it has been a few years. It is naive, pompous, and offensive to people who have been fighting against the currents of prejudice and bigotry for generations. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo... Perhaps he should not have been fired, but what a prick!
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  they may get reprimanded, but not meaningfully. I mean Shell was complicit (allegedly) in rape and murder https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/feb/12/ogoni-widows-testify-the-hague-shell-alleged-complicity-killings https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/feb/12/o... and they haven't been meaningfully reprimanded by consumers, I doubt someone getting fired for offending some people is going to amount to more than a slap that misses the wrist but moves the hair on the wrist via the vigorous breeze.
koheripbal 6y ago
I love it when people throw the term "objectively false" at anything they disagree with - in this case, the person is sharing their opinion on what should be reality. Someone's opinion on how things should be cannot be objectively false.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  They were describing how they think the world is not how they think it should be.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    how they think the world is != objective reality
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

> You are not responsible for those people being offended. This is objectively false, you can get fired for offending people both at your job or outside it.

by kanox 6y ago

> You are not responsible for those people being offended. This is objectively false, you can get fired for offending people both at your job or outside it.

kmlx 6y ago

some of those companies don't really deserve to be trading. i remember how back in my youth if i said something offensive against the government i would lose my job and be sent to a forced labour camp. that was during communism. history keeps repeating itself.

johnsonjo 6y ago
I mean it’s like people forget the gulags were only like 70 years ago. When people were wrongfully imprisoned for no good reason just to meet police quotas from the soviets government super powers. I definitely don’t disbelieve what you are saying.

mpweiher 6y ago

No, it is absolutely right. The fact that people and companies don't understand this is a separate, though obviously important matter. So you obviously need to be aware of the (imho crazy) environment we are in, but also need to distinguish "might" from "right".

raxxorrax 6y ago

You can be certain that companies who did that will be reprimanded for it by consumers.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago
Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I think it was wrong to fire him and that he genuinely had no ill intend. More detrimental are voices that attest pervasive sexism in the industry and that women are oppressed by computer nerds, but it is no competition. It was in conflict with the goals of management to get more women into tech. I also think such a memo (haven't read it) can put women under more scrutiny, even if it describes general trends that might not be applicable to individuals. I think he is someone who can easily make the distinction in contrast to his accusers and everyone who studied computer science knows the demographics. Discrimination can be ruled out as a main factor easily. But even if the opinion of his accusers is dead wrong on all levels, management has decided that employment is not beneficial anymore. Science or not.
- Mangalor 6y ago
  Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights. Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work. To me that sounds like no one's essential rights were violated at all.
  - kgwgk 6y ago
    > Damore wrote an essay basically arguing ... Q.E.D.
  - high_derivative 6y ago
    'should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics' He absolutely did no such thing and this is an incredibly disingenuous representation. You can still argue he should be fired without this.
    - worik 6y ago
      I have just reread the first few pages of his memo. I had forgotten, it has been a few years. It is naive, pompous, and offensive to people who have been fighting against the currents of prejudice and bigotry for generations. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo... Perhaps he should not have been fired, but what a prick!
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
they may get reprimanded, but not meaningfully. I mean Shell was complicit (allegedly) in rape and murder https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/feb/12/ogoni-widows-testify-the-hague-shell-alleged-complicity-killings https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/feb/12/o... and they haven't been meaningfully reprimanded by consumers, I doubt someone getting fired for offending some people is going to amount to more than a slap that misses the wrist but moves the hair on the wrist via the vigorous breeze.

koheripbal 6y ago

I love it when people throw the term "objectively false" at anything they disagree with - in this case, the person is sharing their opinion on what should be reality. Someone's opinion on how things should be cannot be objectively false.

austhrow743 6y ago
They were describing how they think the world is not how they think it should be.
- ColanR 6y ago
  how they think the world is != objective reality
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]