4 ms·
In James Damore's case, at least, he engaged in the "problematic behavior" at the workplace - it wasn't like he was participating in a group outside of the work
by jmalicki 6y ago
In James Damore's case, at least, he engaged in the "problematic behavior" at the workplace - it wasn't like he was participating in a group outside of the workplace which then led to him being fired.
Regardless of what your beliefs are, harassing your coworkers about them isn't going to make your coworkers, or bosses, happy.
For a second, forget about the content. "Hey coworkers, your decision to use a NoSQL database is stupid, you VPs should change the way you're doing things" when not asked for comment and when the decision is well outside of your role is always risky, and can quite often lead to conversations where the targets of your rant can say "I can't deal with this person anymore, I'm ready to quit over this."
- dnissley 6y agoIf that's what you think happened, you need to go look at the facts. No harassment occurred. There was no emotional outburst. Only a solemnly worded paper that was written in response to a request for feedback and wasn't even meant to be spread around as much as it did.
- jmalicki 6y agoI did not mention harassment, or an emotional outburst. The most controversial part of cancel culture is the blurred lines - is something in your private life grounds for you losing your job, is a tweet outside of the context of your job grounds for losing your job, etc. If someone wants to boycott sellers of JK Rowling's books for her tweets about transgendered people, that is reasonably called cancel culture. If someone wants to boycott sellers of JK Rowling's books based on hypothetical comments about transgendered people within the books themselves, that is something quite different.
- someguydave 6y ago“Regardless of what your beliefs are, harassing your coworkers about them ” You did mention harassment though?