Politics Google employee writes memo stating Google is anti-diversity of thoughts/political ideas

[Denny Crane]

The people in here defending this ass hat need to check themselves.

Minstrel.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The people in here defending this ass hat need to check themselves.

I'm curious what the memo author said that you find so deplorable.

 

[dviss1]

I'm curious what the memo author said that you find so deplorable.

Whenever you blanket statement a whole demographic you are deplorable.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Whenever you blanket statement a whole demographic you are deplorable.

I missed where he blanket-statemented a whole demographic. Would you be willing to point that out for me?

Most of what I read was qualified as "on average", and that his observations were qualified with this statement: "Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are 'just.' I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes"

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I missed where he blanket-statemented a whole demographic. Would you be willing to point that out for me?

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel.

Denny: "There may be some merit to some bits of his manifesto"

You defended him, you just hold a corporate-friendly viewpoint that anyone should be fired at any time if the corporation is displeased.

I finally motivated myself to read through it and my thoughts are: it's fairly generic "evolutionary psychology/biology" theory that tends to affirm traditional gender roles, even though we no longer live in the environment that the evolution took place in (and a lot of the claims in evolutionary psychology are dubious at best to begin with). He's also one-sided: he notes that there's overlap between men and women (which blows the whole concept of what "men and women are good at" out of the water because we self-select for what we're good at individually, not as a sex) but he only seems to recognize it as it relates to how it harms men (people see lack of aggression in demanding raises/promotions as a women's issue, but there are non-aggressive men too!).

Overall, I think it's a muddled and not very strong case and I don't agree with it at all. I still don't think he should have been fired, because I don't think he was being maliciously sexist or racist. I recognize that Google had every right to fire him, but I don't think it's all that beneficial to fire people because they harbor ideas you or I disagree with.

 

[dviss1]

I missed where he blanket-statemented a whole demographic. Would you be willing to point that out for me?

Most of what I read was qualified as "on average", and that his observations were qualified with this statement: "Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are 'just.' I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes"

That fool has no training, schooling, etc and I'm not sure there is any available to make a statement like that. On average women are more neurotic? GTFO...

 

[dviss1]

Overall, I think it's a muddled and not very strong case and I don't agree with it at all. I still don't think he should have been fired, because I don't think he was being maliciously sexist or racist. I recognize that Google had every right to fire him, but I don't think it's all that beneficial to fire people because they harbor ideas you or I disagree with.

Do you really believe that's why he was fired? Answer this:

How would workplace morale be when he returned to the office after his manifesto? Riiiiight...

He was fired for "conduct detrimental to the team".

 

[Minstrel]

Do you really believe that's why he was fired? Answer this:

How would workplace morale be when he returned to the office after his manifesto? Riiiiight...

If he had said something flagrantly sexist, I'd agree with the workplace morale thing. In my opinion, his sin was using junk science/logic to (mildly) affirm traditional gender roles. I completely disagree with that, but I don't think that makes him toxic, personally.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny: "There may be some merit to some bits of his manifesto"

You defended him, you just hold a corporate-friendly viewpoint that anyone should be fired at any time if the corporation is displeased.

I finally motivated myself to read through it and my thoughts are: it's fairly generic "evolutionary psychology/biology" theory that tends to affirm traditional gender roles, even though we no longer live in the environment that the evolution took place in (and a lot of the claims in evolutionary psychology are dubious at best to begin with). He's also one-sided: he notes that there's overlap between men and women (which blows the whole concept of what "men and women are good at" out of the water because we self-select for what we're good at individually, not as a sex) but he only seems to recognize it as it relates to how it harms men (people see lack of aggression in demanding raises/promotions as a women's issue, but there are non-aggressive men too!).

Overall, I think it's a muddled and not very strong case and I don't agree with it at all. I still don't think he should have been fired, because I don't think he was being maliciously sexist or racist. I recognize that Google had every right to fire him, but I don't think it's all that beneficial to fire people because they harbor ideas you or I disagree with.

I didn't defend him. I suggested he be fired. You did not.

The only bit he wrote that I found interesting was about the monoculture.

I mean, the Daily Caller is picking out the most extreme viewpoints and posting only those to imply that that's the only reaction. Google's own reaction has been that it's cool. As someone who likely doesn't share the author's politics at all, I also think it's fine for him to express that publicly, if he feels that way. I don't think he should be fired.

Google has a left-wing culture. That's fine, they're entitled to it. Employees are entitled to argue against it if they want.

 

[Minstrel]

I didn't defend him. I suggested he be fired. You did not.

I agree, I did not suggest he be fired. I didn't defend his ideas (as you did), but I did defend the idea of allowing alternate viewpoints when they don't appear to be malicious.

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree, I did not suggest he be fired.

By definition, you defended him.

I suggested he be fired. That's not defending him, one iota.

 

[Minstrel]

By definition, you defended him.

I suggested he be fired. That's not defending him, one iota.

Yes, well, I see you're not arguing that you defended his ideas. That's the important thing when it comes to what one defends or doesn't.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, well, I see you're not arguing that you defended his ideas. That's the important thing when it comes to what one defends or doesn't.

He wrote 10 pages. If he said the sky is blue in one sentence and I agreed it is blue (at least at this time), that's not defending him.

Saying he should be fired is the opposite of defending him.

 

[Minstrel]

He wrote 10 pages. If he said the sky is blue in one sentence and I agreed it is blue (at least at this time), that's not defending him.

Saying he should be fired is the opposite of defending him.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Denny Crane]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That's got you beat.

 

[dviss1]

If he had said something flagrantly sexist, I'd agree with the workplace morale thing. In my opinion, his sin was using junk science/logic to (mildly) affirm traditional gender roles. I completely disagree with that, but I don't think that makes him toxic, personally.

Be the woman who shares the cubicle with him for just a moment.

 

[dviss1]

Guys, both of you are defending him to an extent. I think he's an asshole who had

"conduct detrimental to the team"

and his firing was justified.

 

[Minstrel]

Be the woman who shares the cubicle with him for just a moment.

Yes, that's a good argument to drum out anyone with differing opinions in every situation. As a society, I think we need to be able to differentiate ugly, malicious rhetoric from things we disagree with even if they're wrongheaded.

I've "been" the non-white person who shares an office with someone making similar arguments about race. I told him what I thought of his (wrongheaded) viewpoints when he brought them up but I didn't feel he should be fired. If he were saying flagrantly racist things, I would expect him to be fired and I'd ask for it to happen.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Be the woman who shares the cubicle with him for just a moment.

Instead, I'm the man that works in an office full of women who continually malign males, and then say to me, "but not you, you're different".

I imagine it's different for me though, because I'm a male, and therefore privileged.

 

[Minstrel]

Instead, I'm the man that works in an office full of women who continually malign males, and then say to me, "but not you, you're different".

I imagine it's different for me though, because I'm a male, and therefore privileged.

It is different for you, because you're not really at risk. That's why I find the arguments about "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism" to not be compelling--when black people or women, for example, are mocked or stereotyped or attacked, they're at real risk for marginalization. No such risk exists for white men, so while mockery or stereotypes about them are still inappropriate, it's far, far less damaging.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It is different for you, because you're not really at risk. That's why I find the arguments about "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism" to not be compelling--when black people or women, for example, are mocked or stereotyped or attacked, they're at real risk for marginalization. No such risk exists for white men, so while mockery or stereotypes about them are still inappropriate, it's far, far less damaging.

I don't deny that I benefit from the more male-dominated hierarchy or the subconsciously-elevated value placed on those (traditionally male) characteristics to which I'm more naturally inclined. However I'm talking about the workplace/social aspect of it, where the power dynamic is removed. When suggesting that the woman in the cubicle with the memo-writer would be uncomfortable having to work with him as an equal after his "sexist" views are revealed, it seems comparable to me being subject to similarly sexist views from equals.

It's also mildly amusing to me that the memo seemed intended to advocate ways in which Google could alter job expectations to accommodate some of the (author's perceived) natural differences between men and women, with the goal of narrowing the wage gap and elevating women, rather than marginalizing them.

 

[dviss1]

Yes, that's a good argument to drum out anyone with differing opinions in every situation. As a society, I think we need to be able to differentiate ugly, malicious rhetoric from things we disagree with even if they're wrongheaded.

I've "been" the non-white person who shares an office with someone making similar arguments about race. I told him what I thought of his (wrongheaded) viewpoints when he brought them up but I didn't feel he should be fired. If he were saying flagrantly racist things, I would expect him to be fired and I'd ask for it to happen.

Making an argument about it and penning a 10 page manifesto are 2 completely different things. Again, don't try and sell me on it not affecting workplace morale.

 

[dviss1]

I don't deny that I benefit from the more male-dominated hierarchy or the subconsciously-elevated value placed on those (traditionally male) characteristics to which I'm more naturally inclined. However I'm talking about the workplace/social aspect of it, where the power dynamic is removed. When suggesting that the woman in the cubicle with the memo-writer would be uncomfortable having to work with him as an equal after his "sexist" views are revealed, it seems comparable to me being subject to similarly sexist views from equals.

It's also mildly amusing to me that the memo seemed intended to advocate ways in which Google could alter job expectations to accommodate some of the (author's perceived) natural differences between men and women, with the goal of narrowing the wage gap and elevating women, rather than marginalizing them.

Speak up about it in the office. I would.

 

[Minstrel]

However I'm talking about the workplace/social aspect of it, where the power dynamic is removed. When suggesting that the woman in the cubicle with the memo-writer would be uncomfortable having to work with him as an equal after

I understand what you mean, but I think that it's hard, likely impossible, to separate out the "power dynamic," because your security in society is pretty established. You may not have any direct power over those women or vice versa, but jokes or stereotypes are inherently more threatening when your security is not so assured.

 

[Minstrel]

Making an argument about it and penning a 10 page manifesto are 2 completely different things. Again, don't try and sell me on it not affecting workplace morale.

Hey, man, I'm just giving my opinion. You're free to take it or leave it. I like further elaborating on my viewpoint when questioned/confronted.

 

[dviss1]

Hey, man, I'm just giving my opinion. You're free to take it or leave it.

I just don't buy that morale around the workplace won't take a hit. He'd probably be uncomfortable working there just like everyone else.

 

[H.C.]

It is different for you, because you're not really at risk. That's why I find the arguments about "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism" to not be compelling--when black people or women, for example, are mocked or stereotyped or attacked, they're at real risk for marginalization. No such risk exists for white men, so while mockery or stereotypes about them are still inappropriate, it's far, far less damaging.

I will be frank here.
I find this very offensive.
I understand what you're saying.
However saying it is far less damaging is bunk.
You never know how mocking or stereotyping of any human will effect them mentally.
Saying it's just inappropriate, yet it doesn't damage due to their skin color is offensive.

 

[Minstrel]

I will be frank here.
I find this very offensive.
I understand what you're saying.
However saying it is far less damaging is bunk.
You never know how mocking or stereotyping of any human will effect them mentally.
Saying it's just inappropriate, yet it doesn't damage due to their skin color is offensive.

That's true of any given human but minorities and women have an added layer of threat to deal with. So yes, even given that it can be extremely hurtful regardless of skin color or gender, I still certainly believe it's much more damaging when it's done to groups of people at risk for being marginalized.