71–80 of 352 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends. Is Google 50-50 male female ratio, or 95-5? Likelihood usually change on the environment, just look at Uber.
Google is ~70/30 which is not unusual in IT. Women are less than 25% of the tech workforce though the exact numbers depend on what you count as Tech.
But, it's all speculation, they denied that data to DoL.
If you are right about something you don't need to silence/censor others. If you are not, then you do. The witch-hunt has to end.
What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian. Not the Tweeters shaking with…
Maybe some people are calling for stuff like that.
But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here."
But honestly, the internet SJW-battles are the gift that keeps on giving. Munches popcorn
I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really that big of a deal that it a) got all the press that it got and b) that it required a personal condemnation from "Head of Diversity" and the CEO - who will now hold a town-hall to, I guess, denounce it even more? The entire thing seems like a big nothing-burger from every side.
It went viral within google. I think it surfaced a lot of repressed things that people were thinking but afraid to say -- maybe some faction of googlers believed that there were silent sexists within the company, and this validated that belief. Maybe another faction of googlers believed that they were reverse-discriminated against, and this validated THEIR belief as well. It is unfortunate that it took this memo to e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, what the whole episode really seems to show is how prejudice that hurts people is viewed as "just words" rather than a tangible / real hurtful thing. You can't curse off your boss. You can't demean people of other genders and races at work. You can't create a hostile workplace environment and expect nothing to happen to you. You can try to cloak it in a longform "civil" or "facts-based" document but ultimately wh…
This is authoritarian logic. A threat is never just an opinion in authoritarian thinking. It's outside of what constitutes an opinion, it's outside the system. Hence, for the greater good, it must be not just be rejected, it must be destroyed as a moral necessity. If you go down this road, there is only one destination. I can sympathise with your view point. Of course I can. That is my whole point. It takes incredibl…
You're misinterpreting freedom here. It's not authoritarian to have rules. The existence of rules and enforcement != authoritarian. If trump makes all the rules absent of the peoples' will, that's authoritarian. If society agrees that you're a net negative and makes a choice to ostracize you, that's the level of freedom we have under democracy.
The golden rule isn't a high bar.
What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian. Not the Tweeters shaking with…
What's more likely: the author was fired for suggesting alternate methods of improving diversity at Google or the author was fired for repeating unsupported gender stereotypes, offering alternate methods that themselves played on gender stereotypes, and creating an environment in which he would not be able to effectively carry out his responsibilities as a result of promoting gender stereotypes?
There's another possibility. This guy could have been rather obnoxious about his views in the past and had been repeatedly warned. Then he wrote a memo that appeared to be professional but espoused the same views and was finally fired for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s not civil when you suggest there’s inherently biological reasons for your coworkers to be inferior to you.
But it is. Just because he holds one opinion does not mean that he will act on it, expect google to act on it, or cause harm because of it. Ideas don't hurt people. People with no way to voice their ideas and opinions become angry, and then hurt other people.
Make a valid counter-argument or bug off. Downvoting opinions you don't agree with is reddit-level hive mind. Make a stance and don't hide behind your ability to downvote.
> "Companies don’t have viewpoints." They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not. Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google execut…
Companies can and should have view points. However, firing anyone who disagrees with those viewpoints is a knee-jerk reaction to avoid any negative press. They could have reacted with a "Google does not support or endorse the views expressed", and let the rest happen naturally. This is censorship. Yes, it's within a privately owned company, but it is very clearly a suppression of intellectual debate. Why not encourag…