101–110 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read James' document. I did not have the impression that this is his thesis.
What was your impression?
Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective. His firing makes sense: the CEO and HR are both acting to protect the company. The author of the manifesto caused Google a PR disaster and created a huge state of internal conflict, valid or not. The shareholders are probably really happy that their CEO removed a person who managed to get Google so much bad press in so little time. This is the reali…
> There are many actors in the whole Google/diversity drama Says the guy who has just claimed its CEO should resign.
Yup. Here is the only intelligent thing I've read about this debacle: To me, if you read it and are completely outraged or uniformly in favor, then you are part of the problem. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/opinions/google-employee-manif...
It really doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with facts... they are still reality, regardless. And I see very, very few people arguing against the facts that Damore presented in any sort of cogent manner.
Damore's only real policy suggestion was to (gasp) treat everyone as individuals, rather than as stereotypical tribal members. And I'm personally very confused as to how anyone isn't wholly in favor of that. We are all more than our skin color or gender.
I'm going with 15-20 minutes from now.
Who wants the over/under?
edit: Already down from 3rd to 6th while points went from 130 to 170. 7 minutes in.
edit: now 7th
Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective. His firing makes sense: the CEO and HR are both acting to protect the company. The author of the manifesto caused Google a PR disaster and created a huge state of internal conflict, valid or not. The shareholders are probably really happy that their CEO removed a person who managed to get Google so much bad press in so little time. This is the reali…
The firing has been a PR disaster, and amplified and exaggerated the effect of this issue (not to mention that it drew attention to other factors, like Google's institutional ageism). And while I don't want to diagnose over the internet, it seems like it's attacking someone on the spectrum for traits of being on the spectrum. By firing him they made him a hero to enormous groups, and doubled down on this discussion.…
But they didn't. That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted. For more on that, check here: http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-... It's an article from a female engineer who read the manifesto, and takes issue with the conclusions drawn from the studies.
The ones claiming that his manifesto was "scientifically sound" are those who are anti-science and anti-evidence.
"They could have simply said that they were taking punitive actions and kept him in the fold."
No, they couldn't. By keeping him, they would be legitimizing his views. And by doing that, they would be further alienating all of their female employees, and a lot of others, both current and future. Just about no woman would want to work there, knowing that they endorse those viewpoints.
Even if there was some merit in his argument, he could have chosen to do it differently. Bad choice which blew up pretty fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The leakers caused the bad press, not Damore. (Unless he was the leaker, of course...)
It was all over the media before the leak. Before it was just based on rumors of "some internal viral memo". Leaking it might even have helped calm the waters.
Furthermore, his memo canceling the town hall made things worse when he declared the majority agreed and that some wish he had done more. He didn't acknowledge any of the people internally that disagreed with the firing. He's probably not even aware that he's set himself up to only hear opinions that agree with the firing because others will be too afraid to question it.
Honestly, I want Google to have a third-party set up a truly anonymous poll of all employees and measure how people really feel instead of speculate on how many agree or disagree with the firing. This is a company with expertise in analytics after all.
Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective. His firing makes sense: the CEO and HR are both acting to protect the company. The author of the manifesto caused Google a PR disaster and created a huge state of internal conflict, valid or not. The shareholders are probably really happy that their CEO removed a person who managed to get Google so much bad press in so little time. This is the reali…
> Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective The person who posted their thoughts did so in a _closed_ mailing list that was intentionally setup to discuss all this. The document was leaked. At best, he deserved a reprimand. Firing him makes it clear that there is no room for alternate thoughts in Google other than the ultra-progressive view point.
That said, why should he resign? In the overall scheme of things, this isn't much of a crisis. If this were the standard to fire CEOs by not many companies would have CEOs left.