391–400 of 603 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like that ex-Googler who got fired for repeatedly claiming that women were inferior engineers. Who? Please provide quotes to support your case if you’re thinking of the most famous example because I don’t recall any such argument. It was all about interests, not capacities.
Sure, here's his original essay. https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversity...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This post was like watching a fish vigorously deny the existence of water. Look, functionally you're defining an "apolitical" office as unquestioning obedience. Which is fine, just own it instead of trying to dress it up.
I'm not sure where you're seeing "unquestioned obedience". Employees can go support the politicians, or hold rallies for whatever cause they choose on their own time. An apolitical office is one where political activity isn't held in the office. That's it. I'm really not sure what is confusing about this.
What we are seeing are the consequences of "Employee Capture". Google captured the hearts and minds of its employees for workplace productivity. Its side effects are varied. The real world only sees highlights. Googled created a bubble from which its employees can socialize without ever needing to do so with the outside world. Why talk politics with the outside world? Stay with us, where it is safe, people are intell…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch... >Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism (a higher-order personality trait) Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Googler got fired for using unhelpful stereotypes. He didn't repeatedly claim women were inferior engineers (but I understand why people will believe it). Nor was it in my opinion intolerant but it was championed by those who are (there's a difference). It was some other unhelpful stereotype based on gender differences. The key take away is that generalising based on group Identity should not be done.
Did you actually follow this? His rant was basically just of a list of stock arguments from the scientific racism era. After he got fired his fans started a fundraiser on a white supremacy website. His arguments were stock white supremacy and the people who adopted him as a hero were stock white supremacists. This isn't hard to figure out.
I think it's more accurate to say his rant was a list from the era of a generation ago which might be the same as the scientific racism era? I don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally wrong, his arguments were from the current era of science and not racist. They weren't even close to that.
He misapplied science to make a point that's not supported by science, so that he could try to argue he's talking science. I'm not sure whether it was out of malice or just poor scientific reason. As the most base example: the candidate pool for a company like Google is self-selecting. Taking research about women (which I'm accepting uncritically just for the sake of argument in this post) as a population (research w…
Damore said exactly this in the memo, your post only proves that you didn't really read or understand it.
What we are seeing are the consequences of "Employee Capture". Google captured the hearts and minds of its employees for workplace productivity. Its side effects are varied. The real world only sees highlights. Googled created a bubble from which its employees can socialize without ever needing to do so with the outside world. Why talk politics with the outside world? Stay with us, where it is safe, people are intell…
Some employees literally doxed their colleagues. This has nothing to do with a "bubble" and more to do with being a terrible human being.
I don't really like Google very much, but I'm with them on this one, these people sound nuts.
What we are seeing are the consequences of "Employee Capture". Google captured the hearts and minds of its employees for workplace productivity. Its side effects are varied. The real world only sees highlights. Googled created a bubble from which its employees can socialize without ever needing to do so with the outside world. Why talk politics with the outside world? Stay with us, where it is safe, people are intell…
This is not my experience at all. Work-life balance there was way ahead of other tech companies I’ve worked for. Most people show up, work reasonable hours, and go home. Evenings and weekends are yours.
In my experience, Bay Area startups are way more guilty of trying to exploit young people with a sense of that the startup is your family. Eat, work, play, and socialize with your team, 24/7. Some people enjoy that, and sometimes these same startups go belly up, and your social network is lost.
I have no idea where your rhetoric comes from, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being fired from Google amounts to not just losing a job but "friends" and the only people who the company encouraged socializing with. I've never worked for Google so I have no basis for comparison but it's very common across white collar jobs for employees social circles to very closely if not entirely overlap with work. Unless you participated in extracurricular activities that weren't school sponsored, you prob…
> due to the rise of teleworking. No longer do people grab a drink after work. I spent 7 years teleworking and had no problem grabbing a drink after work. Now that I have to physically co-locate with cow orkers I can't do that because (a) I'm driving and (2) they want to join me. Drinking alone is the best kind of drinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. Obviously, this extends even more to the workplace itself bringing these topics up. I'm not aggressive or even obvious about this disposition, I just gently steer clear of violating it. I feel the same should apply to companies, fine if you want to…
The problem is, though, that politics is inherently tied up in actions related to the workplace. Let’s say one of your colleagues or managers occasionally makes decisions that would be frowned upon by some people. Maybe you’re recruiting, and they let slip that they passed over a female candidate because they thought she might have a child soon. Or maybe they passed on a gay man because they didn’t think he should be…
EG as per a sibling comment, if an HR Rep is not convinced regarding trans-rights, they should absolutely not let that impact their treatment of a trans person that comes to them.
Or, more famously, (and not that it did him any good) Brendan Eich made a political donation to candidates opposing gay marriage, but (afaik) there were never any reports of him mistreating any LGBTQ+ employees.