“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

Chips Lovell

Saying women are, by and large, biologically inferior to men for this kind of work isn't a "conservative" position though. Many, if not most, conservatives wouldn't agree with that.

B0jangles

Are things really gone so far that people here are championing a guy's right to publically claim that women are inherently inferior workers compared to men in his workplace?

Would you be as happy to defend him if he based his claims on race, perhaps by citing head circumference, phrenology or I.Q. scores?

Would you be happy to work on a team with him if his views had revealed that he thought you personally were an inferior worker because of your gender, race or sexual orientation?

Would you be happy to be interviewed for a job, or a promotion by him, knowing that he held such views?

Or are the majority of those defending him happily aware that whatever his biases are, they happen to be in your favour so they don't matter?

Bob24

wes wrote: »

There is already a bias at Google, and that is what there advertisers want. Google is primarily an ad company and if advertisers don't want to associated with certain types of materials, then what they say goes.

Google actually lost a lot of advertisers recently, after ads from the likes of Pepsi appeared along side various types of extremist content. Those types of videos no longer receive ads.

Again, Google does what makes them money. They don't care about anyone's politics if it hurts there bottom line.

Absolutely that's another bias.

Doesn't change what I said though (and actually newspapers or TV network are also subject to pressure from advertisers but overall many still manage to have strong editirial lines).

seamus

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Has anybody actually done a proper rebuttal of his arguments rather than simply "he's wrong about gender*". I am very much not convinced about some of his statements particularly as women tended to be quiet involved in the early days of IT and I have worked for women who can be just as analytical as men however it does seem that a lot of what I am reading is that your wrong because your wrong rather than, your wrong because X, Y and Z.

To be honest, the whole thing falls into "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" category. Not only is the guy not available to address the rebuttal, but there's nothing to rebut except his opinion.

The page notes included in the copies I've seen are "P.S." memos rather than links that back up what he's saying.

I do feel a little sorry for the guy. What he's done is spent a considerable amount of time throwing his opinions into a lengthy document, presumably because of some personal frustration, and then given that to a select group internally.

That same document which he likely intended to be little more than a way to express himself to some colleagues without having to discuss it face-to-face, has now been cast into the spotlight internationally with people looking to pick it apart piece by piece.

That's not necessary. It's a frustrated rant from someone with strong right-wing and anti-PC views, attempting to package them into document with a veneer of grace and reason. Calling it a "manifesto" (which I may have already done...) gives it far too much weight and likely does the guy a huge disservice.

I do agree that there are many arguments to be made about about many jobs being generally more suited to one gender or another. But it's a complicated topic, and not really one that he's gone into in any great depth. Not that it was his intention.

Realistically if he felt that there was a distinct and demonstrable problem with Google's hiring practices, then he should have gone and spoken to someone in Google HR who would be receptive to such a conversation, and not to fellow engineers.

Bob24

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Saying women are, by and large, biologically inferior to men for this kind of work isn't a "conservative" position though. Many, if not most, conservatives wouldn't agree with that.

Definitely.

Is that what he wrote? I admittedly didn't read the whole thing carefully but my impression flicking through it was more that he was saying that on average men and women have affinity for different type of jobs.

Bob24

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So you're saying that companies are obligated to keep staff on board who breach employee guidelines?

Absolutely not. I'm saying employee guidelines can be (and often are) a form of censorship.

RDM_83 again

B0jangles wrote: »

Are things really gone so far that people here are championing a guy's right to publically claim that women are inherently inferior workers compared to men in his workplace?

Would you be as happy to defend him if he based his claims on race, perhaps by citing head circumference, phrenology or I.Q. scores?

Would you be happy to work on a team with him if his views had revealed that he thought you personally were an inferior worker because of your gender, race or sexual orientation?

Would you be happy to be interviewed for a job, or a promotion by him, knowing that he held such views?

Or are the majority of those defending him happily aware that whatever his biases are, they happen to be in your favour so they don't matter?

As I pointed out in my post on the last page there has been statements that have not been controversial about the need for more women in certain roles due to biological differences.

I am not saying he is correct and I am very much dubious about some of his statements, however he isn't just arguing about innate biological differences he also brings in concepts of gender roles and politics.
To be honest he would have had a much stronger point if he left out all the biological determinism stuff and concentrated on gender roles and political affiliation.

B0jangles

He published his views about gender-based suitability specifically about roles in the company he actually worked for; by doing so his statement goes beyond being a very dubious general 'theory' into being an extremely offensive commentary on his actual colleagues.

How could Google ignore the fact that a staff member publically declared that he thought a significant proportion of his fellow staff were inherently inferior due to their gender?

TheDoc

Bob24 wrote: »

That's precisely censoring. Most organisations do it indeed. Hypocrites call it code of conduct when it applies to their policy but censorship when what's being flagged as unacceptable doesn't suit their views, but it's the same thing.

The question is what views are being censored and does it make sense.

Nothing was being censored here.

The employee openly vaunted and created a hostile work environment, made himself unable to basically work with certain demographics, made himself a figure of controversy and possible a hate figure (Someone like that in my office displayed those types of public opinions I'd be refusing to engage with them) and publicly posted stuff simply unbecoming of a an employee in a work environment

Not to mention he just openly declared a large demographic of his peers, colleagues and superiors as crap and unable to do their role.

I've got some stereotypes and issues born from first hand experience of certain cultures and nationalities, but even though I know I'm totally justified in my mindset and beliefs I 1) Don't declare it publicly in my workplace and 2)Try my best to behave unbiased towards colleagues that may be from those backgrounds, not assuming every single person I encounter is going to demonstrate the issues I have

RDM_83 again

B0jangles wrote: »

He published his views about gender-based suitability specifically about roles in the company he actually worked for; by doing so his statement goes beyond being a very dubious general 'theory' into being an extremely offensive commentary on his actual colleagues.

How could Google ignore the fact that a staff member publically declared that he thought a significant proportion of his fellow staff were inherently inferior due to their gender?

Thats true, however in terms of the "public" thing as Seamus points out it likely wasn't a public document, its been pointed out on other sites that something thats not being talked about is that somebody leaked documents that should have been dealt with internally e.g sending him on a bunch of HR courses or quietly firing him.
In terms of harm to the company its that person thats actually called the damage.

A Little Pony

Everyone just gets sacked nowadays if they put the head above the parapet. You are better having your own business then you don't run into these issues and have to follow the social engineering script.

PopePalpatine

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Saying women are, by and large, biologically inferior to men for this kind of work isn't a "conservative" position though. Many, if not most, conservatives wouldn't agree with that.

Nah, IIRC the people who espouse that kind of stuff like to identify as "(neo)reactionary".

BrokenArrows

Id say hes in for a big pay day from Google.
1. A private internal document was disclosed to the public
2. Being fired immediately for discussing something privately with a select group of colleagues.

Google are probably happy to just quickly fire this guy and let the story die and then pay out a six figure settlement rather than let it drag on.

TheDoc

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats true, however in terms of the "public" thing as Seamus points out it likely wasn't a public document, its been pointed out on other sites that something thats not being talked about is that somebody leaked documents that should have been dealt with internally e.g sending him on a bunch of HR courses or quietly firing him.
In terms of harm to the company its that person thats actually called the damage.

Google have a number of platforms internally that are used for a number of different purposes. One of literally for lols with memes and gifs, another is a platform where basically anyone can put forward ideas or thoughts on improvements or things not directly in there department, there is a good few of them.

That the document got out to the public, yeah fair enough. Although if I got a mail in work that was that MENTAL, I'd probably fire it onto a few friends being like "check this mad **** out"

But this was still a document written/e-mail drawn up that the employee then sent to basically everyone.

It's so cringey. I've seen people write up mails with mad **** and send them across entire organisations or through a head office, from an accidental reply all to people actively trying to get rid of old furniture. It's just so inappropriate an ridiculous for this employee to think it was going to bring anything other then venom and his own firing.

B0jangles

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats true, however in terms of the "public" thing as Seamus points out it likely wasn't a public document, its been pointed out on other sites that something thats not being talked about is that somebody leaked documents that should have been dealt with internally e.g sending him on a bunch of HR courses or quietly firing him.
In terms of harm to the company its that person thats actually called the damage.

Even if it was only for internal, non-public use, the fact that his screed was sent and officially received left Google in an impossible situation going forward.

Once they officially knew that he regarded female co-workers as inherently inferior he was a liability; apart from the obvious ethical problems with having such a person on your staff, from a legal perspective it would leave the company very vulnerable in the future if this guy was ever accused by a co-worker of displaying gender-bias.

Say he was involved in the hiring or promotions process, as tech people often are (to assess the candidate's role-specific knowledge), and a female candidate complained that the interview panel was unfair and biased - she takes a case against them and it is revealed that Google absolutely knew this guy was officially 'on record' saying women are inherently inferior. They'd be taken to the cleaners, and rightly so.

A Little Pony

If you are a conservative you should not work for left wing organizations like Google and so on. You should seek employment with conservative companies and in which conservatives are welcomed. You do run the risk of things like this happening. 

Do not sell your soul for the dollar, eventually it eats you up.

TheDoc

A Little Pony wrote: »

Everyone just gets sacked nowadays if they put the head above the parapet. You are better having your own business then you don't run into these issues and have to follow the social engineering script.

This is being painted as some faux outrage, or social justice warrior stuff in terms of people being against it.

It's actually disturbing the amount of people that don't seem to understand the basic issues here. And they arn't with the guys actual arguments, even though many of them completely inaccurate, false or just made up, but its the actual effects of what he did in an organisation.

As someone who hasn't got much time for a lot of crap that goes on in the world today, how sensitive and touchy people get, and how easily offended people can be, that I can see the issue here and see this employee as being utterly braindead.....maybe its actually more a difference of expectations and experiences of large organisations or working environments rather then personalities or character.

Like ****, the company I work for is still to a large extent ransacked with cronyism and nepotism, still a bit of an old boys club and "who you know" but if someone under my remit did something like that, they'd be out the door by the end of the day. And we don't have the sophisticated disciplinary or HR process' like google would have.

A Little Pony

Doesn't fit the narrative though which has been beat into the sheep who attend schools and colleges. It's the 21st century equivalent of caining.

TheDoc

When he latches onto the point of woman being more social and collaborative than men, he constructs a "solution" by which programming and coding could become a more paired and collaborative approach, to somehow help woman succeed in these areas more.

Completely ignoring the fact that collaboration is a massive core principle in any system design or just about anything in IT, unless you are literally a ****ehawk who they lock in a corner to code because you are such a freak, or because you are so junior or new you can only be trusted with fixing tasks, as you're not trusted enough or deemed worthy enough to chip in with tangible ideas, suggestions or solutions on a collaborative level.

The document is pretty awash with indications he deems woman inferior at certain roles, and ironically himself showing he has a poor understanding of said jobs.

B0jangles

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you are a conservative you should not work for left wing organizations like Google and so on. You should seek employment with conservative companies and in which conservatives are welcomed. You do run the risk of things like this happening.

Do not sell your soul for the dollar, eventually it eats you up.

I hear SafeSpace are hiring, you should check them out.

pumpkin4life

There you are now! Trying to make the world a better place where it isn't your turn to make the world a better place.



First, what the hell was this lad thinking? All of these companies operate under the same ethos. Making the world a better place! You go against that, you're going to get burned. Did he imagine himself as some sort of martyr or what?

(Story time: One of the major tech companies in Dublin have hiring boosts/added points to your score if you are non white/homosexual/a woman, and it is driving a number of the coders and teams mad in fairness. No one cares if you're a woman. If you're a poor coder though, dragging everyone else down, well that's a different story, but it's something you're not allowed talk about.).

Which is fair. There is this mad "everyones an individual but don't be an individual" vibe to these companies. Does your head in. You can't be rational with these people. Forget it like, it's fùcken Hoolitown.

Second: Jordan Peterson has discussed this before. Companies need conservatives and liberals to function properly, if graded according to the Big Five in terms of personality.

Conservatives are your boring accountants who keep things going. High Conscientiousness.
Liberals are the creative/entrepreneurial new ideas lads typically. High openness to experience.
Interestingly, libertarians in particular score fairly highly on both.

We need each other, lol. You think Alan the Accountant could come up with Facebook?

Things don't work as well if your boring accountant lads feel more isolated from the company.

My prediction is that Google has been converged on by SJWs and will become increasingly more dysfunctional in the next while. If I was a potential competitor, I would love for Google to keep pushing this, as it means the company will continue to deteriorate and people will look for an alternative. I would also look to, possibly shorting Google's shares. Eg, Yahoo. The exact same thing happened to them.

Why will this happen?

Good coders are rare enough. They don't go to Google, they'll be hired somewhere else.

Also, people are being dishonest here. He didn't say biologically inferior.

SterlingArcher

Grayson wrote: »

They're not censoring anyone. They're saying that certain speech isn't acceptable in the workplace. That's always been the case, in every job. Stop playing the martyr.

You quoted me but your post is unclear.


Who are you saying is playing the martyr?

And yes google are censoring people. Did you read the memo? It was one of the concerns this guy outlined. I didn't see google deny it. I'm not talking about employees.

Bob24

For anyone who didn't think it could get political and cause potential brand image concerns for Google:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/julian-assange-offers-fired-sexist-google-engineer-a-job-1.3180620

I know not everyone is a fan of Assange, but regardless of what people think of him he has some influence and his involvement will increase attention on the issue.

Ubbquittious

Hopefully this will be the downfall of the Almighty Goog

Dyr

Some scientisticians run the ruler over this lads document. Verdict: He did his homework and his sciencing is valid

https://archive.is/VlNfl#selection-965.667-965.855

Cue diversity pundits furiously googling names to discredit people rather than refute arguments

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

It appears that Gizmodo and Vice edited the original document, and deleted the citations and graphics that were included.
The original document can be found here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

It'll be interesting to see if the author takes up employment with Wikileaks. If he does, that could come back to haunt Google in a big way...

Bob24

Now that this is spreading outside the tech industry / silicon valley microcosm, more diverse noises can be heard than the initially unanimous "this anti-diversity manifesto is unacceptable": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-diversity-idUSKBN1AO1WY

I personally think the guy who wrote this has a valid point: "Dear @Google, Stop teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR. Thx in advance, A dad".

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

Now that this is spreading outside the tech industry / silicon valley microcosm, more diverse noises can be heard than the initially unanimous "this anti-diversity manifesto is unacceptable": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-diversity-idUSKBN1AO1WY

I personally think the guy who wrote this has a valid point: "Dear @Google, Stop teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR. Thx in advance, A dad".

Interesting that per your article he claimed to have a Phd but Harvard said he only has a master. More ammo for Google it seems against this guy.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

Interesting that per your article he claimed to have a Phd but Harvard said he only has a master. More ammo for Google it seems against this guy.

All to be confirmed but yes. On the other hand throwing this in at this stage would clearly look like they are trying to find valid arguments to fire him after the fact because they feel the original decision was not justified.

Dyr

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

It appears that Gizmodo and Vice edited the original document, and deleted the citations and graphics that were included.
The original document can be found here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

It'll be interesting to see if the author takes up employment with Wikileaks. If he does, that could come back to haunt Google in a big way...

Apparently the wikipedia pages and external websites he referenced were edited/pulled at various points


"If the truth offends you, you are probably on the wrong side of it"

LionelNashe

Bambi wrote: »

Some scientisticians run the ruler over this lads document. Verdict: He did his homework and his sciencing is valid

https://archive.is/VlNfl#selection-965.667-965.855

Cue diversity pundits furiously googling names to discredit people rather than refute arguments

I read that, and was surprised, because a couple of minutes of checking the other day gave me this meta-study:
http://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/share.aspx
which says that the differences in ability are insignificant.

The manifesto guy talked about 'preferences and abilities' at one point. If he had talked about preferences, and not implied that women have less ability, then his argument would have been on firmer ground.

The reason I think that women have less preference for certain careers (or men have a higher preference for certain careers; same thing) is because less than 20% of computer science students are female, and I can't see how 17 year-olds are making that decision on any grounds other than their personal preferences. I really doubt there's a load of female Leaving Cert students thinking "If I opt for that Computer Science degree on the CAO form I'll be harrassed and belittled in the workplace in 5 years time." I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in workplaces - reportedly it does - I'm just saying that I doubt it's responsible for the gender difference in CAO choices.

Some of the replies to the manifesto have been really disappointing. It has been called a diatribe, a screed, and a rant, when in fact it's a very well written and very insightful piece of cultural criticism, that gets more things right than it gets wrong. I couldn't believe it was written by an engineer. Compare it to Kevin Myer's piece, an experienced journalist - in comparison, Myers' piece was fit for nothing but wrapping the chips.

The response below by a ex senior engineer in Google makes several points that lend weight to the argument of the manifesto guy, but then he draws opposite conclusions. It's so poorly argued that I think the author is just using the controvery to boost the profile of the new venture that he's involved in.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

We really do live in a post-truth society.

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

All to be confirmed but yes. On the other hand throwing this in at this stage would clearly look like they are trying to find valid arguments to fire him after the fact because the feel the original decision was not justified.

If he takes legal action his character is fair game. Lieing about your credentials won't look good when complaining about being treated unfairly.

Also, if I were him I would stay far away from Assange considering he is still on the run from law enforcement, due to the rape accusations against him. Not the best guy to have on your side, when people are saying you hate Women.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

If he takes legal action his character is fair game. Lieing about your credentials won't look good when complaining about being treated unfairly.

I doubt that in any country if you take legal actions for unfair dismissal the court will accept to consider other dismissal motives than the ones originally given in your termination notice. It would be a bit too easy for employers to run a detail background check after the fact to cover their ass (most people have something you could use against them if you look hard enough).

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

I doubt that in any country if you take legal actions for unfair dismissal the court will accept to consider other dismissal motives than the ones originally given in your termination notice. It would be a bit too easy for employers to run a detail background check after the fact to cover their ass (most people have something you could use against them if you look hard enough).

Come on now. The guy lied about his credentials. Also, it wasn't Google who found it out either.

Going into a court case where you lied through your teeth when working at an at will state will not end well for this guy. I am sure during any case it will be brought up to attack his character.

Google don't have to change there reasoning at all. There original reason stands. I have yet to see on what grounds he could sue in the first place.

JRant

Bob24 wrote: »

I doubt that in any country if you take legal actions for unfair dismissal the court will accept to consider other dismissal motives than the ones originally given in your termination notice. It would be a bit too easy for employers to run a detail background check after the fact to cover their ass (most people have something you could use against them if you look hard enough).

Well Google employ a third party company to run a full background check on any prospective employee including, previous employers and educational institutions you attended. The chances of pulling the wool over their eyes like that would be slim to none.

I understand why he was fired. When you have a HR department that promote discrimination and unconscious bias "training" you know you're on to a loser writing anything that goes against this idealogy. They are like Vary's with little spiders everywhere, just waiting to report anyone that thinks even slightly outside the prescribed ideals.

A bigger problem coming down the line for the likes of Google will be that they often require the best graduates to keep the innovation coming. Now if you are one of these grads and happen to be of a conservative slant then you would be well served staying well clear.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

Come on now. The guy lied about his credentials.

Unless you have seen the CV he provided to Google before being hired to confirm it mentioned a PhD, and have final confirmation about the fact that he doesn't have one (the Reuters articule is inconclusive), you are jumping horse.

What is written on his LinkedIn profile is irrelevant in terms of misleading Google about his qualifications unless this is how he advertised his CV to them.

wes wrote: »

Also, it wasn't Google who found it out either.

Going into a court case where you lied through your teeth when working at an at will state will not end well for this guy. I am sure during any case it will be brought up to attack his character.

Google don't have to change there reasoning at all. There original reason stands. I have yet to see on what grounds he could sue in the first place.

You are showing personal biais against the guy. Currently there is no evidence whatsoever that he "lied through his teeth". Maybe he did lie, but once again even if he did a court will not not entertain this is it came to the picture at a later stage and was therefore not part of the dismissal decision. All that will be reviewed to decide if the dismissal was unfair is the original motives given. Google could start another lawsuit if they felt they were mislead and wanted it to be brought to a court- but it would be a separate case.

Edit: I looked-up his name out of curiosity and he is indeed listed on the Alumni section for the Harvard "System Biology PhD program": http://sysbiophd.harvard.edu/people/alumni/james-damore

Wouldn't take it as 100% meaning he actually completed the programme, but it is more of a positive than a negative hint. Isn't it bit premature to conclusively say he lied through his teeth???

There are a couple of worst things at play here.

The first worst thing is that so many people are predisposed to jump in on the side they've decided they're on well in advance. The narrative is just forced into place to fit.

The second worst thing is that the sjw snowflakes vs alt right fedora actuallies are the two worst, most boring, most cringey gangs to ever raise a metaphorical sword to their sworn enemies in history.

The third worst thing is that every now and again you've to take a stance that puts you firmly beside one of these hopeless warring factions.

In this instance it's obvious that this guy took a serious misstep in circulating this arrested development flood of basement science tears to anyone but his mummy. Anyone looking to make a stirring martyr of the author of such a poorly put together manifesto needs to consider in the first instance how it places him in the organisation he claims to be trying to influence. What a child.

The fourth worst thing here is the bloody grammar on show. Followed closely by the quasilegal ramblings of ppl namedropping men's rights celebrities. Please god some day anyone guilty of this will look back from a more socially healthy place and wince.

The fifth worst thing about it is the hypocrisy of a tranche of lads who would be first in line to jump on sjw hysteria campaigns to cry cry cry for the right of a moron like this not to be fired (NB not censored, not jailed, not threatened, just fired) for publicly outing himself as an individual resentful of the women he had to work with, to and above in any future he envisaged with his company.

smdh.

Pick your battles lads, if ye don't want to be mocked.

conorhal

B0jangles wrote: »

Even if it was only for internal, non-public use, the fact that his screed was sent and officially received left Google in an impossible situation going forward.

Once they officially knew that he regarded female co-workers as inherently inferior he was a liability; apart from the obvious ethical problems with having such a person on your staff, from a legal perspective it would leave the company very vulnerable in the future if this guy was ever accused by a co-worker of displaying gender-bias.

Say he was involved in the hiring or promotions process, as tech people often are (to assess the candidate's role-specific knowledge), and a female candidate complained that the interview panel was unfair and biased - she takes a case against them and it is revealed that Google absolutely knew this guy was officially 'on record' saying women are inherently inferior. They'd be taken to the cleaners, and rightly so.

Ah the oft repeated argument against somebody that never once said 'women are inferior in the field of programming'.

Not. Once.

That's the party line of those that clearly have not bothered to actually read the document that tries to explain WHY few women enter the field, why 'diversity hires' won't do anything to improve things for women and went on to further explain HOW you could improve things for women. The guy pointed out that if google wanted more women in such role they need to create more part time roles that would be attractive to women and perhaps teams with a more collaborative structure that was more akin to how women liked to work.

But sure, he hates women and any woman working with him is doubtless a person he looks down on.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a couple of worst things at play here.

The first worst thing is that so many people are predisposed to jump in on the side they've decided they're on well in advance. The narrative is just forced into place to fit.

The second worst thing is that the sjw snowflakes vs alt right fedora actuallies are the two worst, most boring, most cringey gangs to ever raise a metaphorical sword to their sworn enemies in history.

The third worst thing is that every now and again you've to take a stance that puts you firmly beside one of these hopeless warring factions.

In this instance it's obvious that this guy took a serious misstep in circulating this arrested development flood of basement science tears to anyone but his mummy. Anyone looking to make a stirring martyr of the author of such a poorly put together manifesto needs to consider in the first instance how it places him in the organisation he claims to be trying to influence. What a child.

The fourth worst thing here is the bloody grammar on show. Followed closely by the quasilegal ramblings of ppl namedropping men's rights celebrities. Please god some day anyone guilty of this will look back from a more socially healthy place and wince.

The fifth worst thing about it is the hypocrisy of a tranche of lads who would be first in line to jump on sjw hysteria campaigns to cry cry cry for the right of a moron like this not to be fired (NB not censored, not jailed, not threatened, just fired) for publicly outing himself as an individual resentful of the women he had to work with, to and above in any future he envisaged with his company.

smdh.

Pick your battles lads, if ye don't want to be mocked.

In the words of the right honourable Macolm F Tucker, allow me to boomerang that right back at you. Have you considered picking your battles a bit more carefully?

You're projecting so hard that cineworld might hire you as back up

conorhal

Bambi wrote: »

Apparently the wikipedia pages and external websites he referenced were edited/pulled at various points


"If the truth offends you, you are probably on the wrong side of it"

That's actually quite worrying. Looking for the 'truth' from Google is increasingly like using a Chinese search engine too look up 'Tiananmen Square massacre' (Sorry no results!)
Tim Pool did a piece on the article that was quite good:

tigger123

His lack of judgement alone for circulating the document should have cost him his job. Why would any organisation tolerate that kind of soapboxing on a politcially sensitive issue from one employee to his co-workers.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

The Onion are getting a swipe in regarding the whole group-think mentality that has become mainstream lately

fly_agaric

A Little Pony wrote: »

left wing organizations like Google and so on.

Google is a wealthy corporation, a massive centre of power in the West. It is just pushing the current (most popular) creed/ideology that is espoused by the "masters" (the way the people in charge used to be god fearing Christians once upon a time); they can't have one of their minions going and rubbishing the holy faith in a document that comes out in public.
I suppose the theories and scholarship behind these ideas came out of the left but f-me I just have a very very hard time accepting it when I see the likes of Google (or MS, or Apple or any other of these massive tax clever tech MNCs) described as "left wing"!

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

tigger123 wrote: »

His lack of judgement alone for circulating the document should have cost him his job. Why would any organisation tolerate that kind of soapboxing on a politcially sensitive issue from one employee to his co-workers.

Because his feedback came as a result of a brainstorming session encouraged by Google called 'controversial opinions'. It was supposed to be a place where lively debate could take place.

Bob24

tigger123 wrote: »

His lack of judgement alone for circulating the document should have cost him his job. Why would any organisation tolerate that kind of soapboxing on a politcially sensitive issue from one employee to his co-workers.

I think Google is a bit ambivalent if the way they market themselves as a different "cooler" company where employees have more freedom, and some of their staff seriously think they are still in college. There is obviously a limit to that freedom but when you keep brainwashing people and telling them the are the best and can do anything, some (but not all) start to believe it.

I see too options:
- either he fell for that
- or he know it would get him in trouble but he didn't care as he wanted to leave anyway and he say it partly as a way to prove is point (and possible get attention)

Bob24

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Because his feedback came as a result of a brainstorming session encouraged by Google called 'controversial opinions'. It was supposed to be a place where lively debate could take place.

Do you have a link for that? Would be quite ironic if it is correct!

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

The third worst thing is that every now and again you've to take a stance that puts you firmly beside one of these hopeless warring factions.

I regularly find myself defending alt-right muppets and being accused of supporting them, because they are the current target for censorship. Ridiculously, when I was young it was the right that was pushing censorship, internet regulation etc (usually on "family values" IE "sex is evil" grounds) and it was the left who supported freedom of speech. People on both sides, but far more on the sjw side, find it impossible to comprehend how anyone could possibly defend somebody's right to say something without being punished for it, without actually agreeing with what that person said - it literally seems to be something that simply does not compute for them.

Guy who wrote the memo is in all probability an asshole of the highest magnitude. Nobody should ever be fired for expressing an opinion. These two sentences are not mutually exclusive.

LionelNashe

Last year, I read a book called 'In the Plex' (or something very similar) about Google's history, and I was so impressed that I changed to gmail & I changed most of my apps to Google apps, and I decided that my next phone would be a Google phone or at least an android phone. This episode has tarnished them a bit, though, in my eyes, even though I would definitely consider myself on the left when it comes to most social and (probably) economic issues.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are a couple of worst things at play here.

The first worst thing is that so many people are predisposed to jump in on the side they've decided they're on well in advance. The narrative is just forced into place to fit.

The second worst thing is that the sjw snowflakes vs alt right fedora actuallies are the two worst, most boring, most cringey gangs to ever raise a metaphorical sword to their sworn enemies in history.

The third worst thing is that every now and again you've to take a stance that puts you firmly beside one of these hopeless warring factions.

In this instance it's obvious that this guy took a serious misstep in circulating this arrested development flood of basement science tears to anyone but his mummy. Anyone looking to make a stirring martyr of the author of such a poorly put together manifesto needs to consider in the first instance how it places him in the organisation he claims to be trying to influence. What a child.

The fourth worst thing here is the bloody grammar on show. Followed closely by the quasilegal ramblings of ppl namedropping men's rights celebrities. Please god some day anyone guilty of this will look back from a more socially healthy place and wince.

The fifth worst thing about it is the hypocrisy of a tranche of lads who would be first in line to jump on sjw hysteria campaigns to cry cry cry for the right of a moron like this not to be fired (NB not censored, not jailed, not threatened, just fired) for publicly outing himself as an individual resentful of the women he had to work with, to and above in any future he envisaged with his company.

smdh.

Pick your battles lads, if ye don't want to be mocked.

Such a pity you fell down at your very own first worst hurdle

hatrickpatrick

LionelNashe wrote: »

Last year, I read a book called 'In the Plex' (or something very similar) about Google's history, and I was so impressed that I changed to gmail & I changed most of my apps to Google apps, and I decided that my next phone would be a Google phone or at least an android phone. This episode has tarnished them a bit, though, in my eyes, even though I would definitely consider myself on the left when it comes to most social and (probably) economic issues.

This is the thing. Google could have totally mastered this entire situation if they had publicly rebutted this moronic memo and proudly stood firm on diversity. And at the same time, said "we don't agree with this guy but we don't fire people for expressing their opinions". Instead, they've made him a martyr and pissed off anybody who believes in free expression - while the central issue here, that Google is a diverse and equal workplace, has been entirely shoved to one side.

Morons.