One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions • Hacker News Board

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#481

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

EdiX wrote: post #363

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

None of this is true. His "rant" was a well researched memo with extensive links to state of the art research. You should actually read the real thing, once, instead of the maimed version published by the guardian. But honestly it's better if you don't know, you're better adjusted to living in this world by remaining ignorant. Just keep reading Vox.

Bigots link to research too.

Damore's links weren't the problem. The unsupported conclusions he drew from the research and the policies that he proposed were the problem.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#482

Post by username90 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #481

EdiX wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this is true. His "rant" was a well researched memo with extensive links to state of the art research. You should actually read the real thing, once, instead of the maimed version published by the guardian. But honestly it's better if you don't know, you're better adjusted to living in this world by remaining ignorant. Just keep reading Vox.

Bigots link to research too. Damore's links weren't the problem. The unsupported conclusions he drew from the research and the policies that he proposed were the problem.

Which policies proposed by him was a problem?

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#483

Post by 2sk21 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:28 PM UTC

godshatter wrote: post #425

helen___keller wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues From the company's PoV you're correct. From the employee's PoV I'm not convinced.

I must be old or something. To me, it's a simple question. Is my employer paying me to discuss politics or religion? If no, then I don't see why I should be using their time and their resources to do so.

Exactly - I have to work with _everyone_ in the company regardless of their beliefs. Its a lot easier to get my job done if I can remain in blissful ignorance of their possibly strong beliefs.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#484

Post by TheCoelacanth » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #370

matthewmacleod wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The issue isn't that workplace practices can be political, the issue is practicing political activism for your own pet cause in the workplace on company time and expecting literally no retribution. A lot of the pain points come from the fact that in practice it's turning out a lot of the politics in debate are only vaguely related to the specific company's actual activity.

> the issue is practicing political activism for your own pet cause in the workplace on company time and expecting literally no retribution

When the pet cause is something that affects working conditions at the company, then that "issue" you describe is simply expecting the company to follow labor laws.

Workers have the right to organize with other workers and advocate for change in their working conditions without retribution from the company.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#485

Post by mindslight » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #468

mindslight wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you can turn around every generality you have said to be supportive of what I presume you're against. For example, why wouldn't " un-inhibited self-expression " include someone getting a tattoo of a swastika? (preemptively responding to an argument that said tattoo would diminish more self expression than it itself is: this depends on the makeup of society, tautologically). > I will continue to pr…

First: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1... > getting a tattoo of a swastika You can totally go get it. I won't welcome you back. You are no longer celebrating other people's self-expression, and so lose our celebration of yours. > So this means I no longer need to tolerate you, personally? Hmm... Yeah, seems reasonable. Here's a different approach: It seems clear that most people are able…

That link claims to be about tolerance, yet leads with a picture of someone holding a bat menacingly but wearing a uniform that appeals to your political taste.

Sorry, no, that is not tolerance. Rather it is political violence. Political violence may be justifiable, but needs to be argued for on its own merits - not couched as an exception to "tolerance".

> You can totally go get [a swastika tattoo]. I won't welcome you back.

I was examining your adherence to your statement that "un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance". You are now saying that you will discourage people from expressing themselves in ways you do not agree with. You can't have it both ways.

Apparently that lofty generality was just serving as a dog whistle, to be ignored for those whom you disagree with. Furthermore, you took my hypothetical and responded directly in terms of me, as if I am some "other" that is personally interested in getting a racist tattoo.

> It seems clear that most people are able to mostly tell when something intolerant is happening

Much of what one political team considers "activism" is perceived as intolerance by the other team, so where does that end up? Setting subjective feelings as a standard practically guarantees herd behavior.

> Yes! Pretty sure the answer here is "forgiving tit-for-tat".

And yet you have continued phrasing things in terms of ultimatums, where your judgment of someone's actions is justification to write them off in a larger way. Even if you yourself deescalate in your own personal interactions, what you've written directly supports escalation.

I stand by my original comment. You, right here, are fanning the flames of intolerance.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#486

Post by manfredo » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

flatb wrote: post #475

manfredo wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators. No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. And because Google rewards assertiveness, this means women have a harder time negotiating salaries at Google. In a workplace the prioritizes agreeableness over asserti…

>No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. Please, PLEASE look up the definition of 'discrimination' in any dictionary you like, and tell me if you really believe that saying 'women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average' does not fit the definition, or that James Damore's many characterizations of women on his memo ( "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance", "wo…

No, it does not fit the definition of discrimination. For example, saying men are on average more violent than women is not discrimination either - it's fact.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#487

Post by manfredo » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

flatb wrote: post #473

manfredo wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers that they should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you in regards to the job This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech. He said that gender differences can explain, i…

>This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech. Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating: > Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agr…

> Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating

Closer to reality, but you're still injecting your own narrative here. He did not say that women are worse at negotiating. He said that Google rewards assertiveness rather than agreeableness in it's negotiations, and because women are on average more agreeable this disadvantages women. And later, he suggested that Google should make it's environment more rewarding of agreeableness to make things fairer for women.

How people made the jump from this to, "women are genetically inferior at tech" is astounding to me.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#488

Post by TheCoelacanth » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #431

jacques_chester wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google also has a clause in their employment agreement that says you agree to them putting surveillance software on your devices, company supplied and personal, as a condition of your employment. That doesn't mean it's enforceable or that it wouldn't run into statutory limits. Many workplace relations laws are written on a strict liability basis, intent isn't necessary for infringement. So if it has a chilling effe…

There were a number of things in the Google employment agreement that my attorney suggested were either unenforceable for legal reasons or overly broad, he also pointed out that companies generally don't retain people who sue them (the contract is employment 'at will'). His advice was that if you didn't like it, just quit. That is the low cost way of getting out from under the contract that left little ill will behin…

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#489

Post by gwbas1c » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #459

gwbas1c wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you to justify immoral behavior. Edit: You don't need to tolerate bad behavior, but it goes both ways: You can't justify bad behavior in the name of policing other peoples' dumb actions. Or: Two wrongs don't make a right.

> because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you How do you differentiate between "biases" and "legitimate disagreement"? I do it by exploring how much attention someone's paid to they path they took to where they are. Biases generally present as short, unexamined paths. > Or: Two wrongs don't make a right. I would agree. Too much of justice is about negative incentives.

Because I think you need to have more empathy for why people align themselves with causes you disagree with.

If you have the time, I suggest reading "They Thought they Were Free," by Milton Meyer. It's a well-known book that tries to answer why generally "good" people joined or supported the Nazi party in pre-WWII Germany.

It's been about a decade since I last read it, but I keep it on my shelf. What I remember, though, is that the reasons why Germans joined or supported the Nazi party vary quite greatly. I remember one passage about a man who basically liked dressing up in Nazi uniforms because he loved pageantry of Nazi rallies. Another was about some Jewish children who saw a Hitler Youth parade in a movie theater newsreel, and really wanted to join.

It's well worth the read if you need to understand why hate groups are so attractive to some people. (Or, to basically "examine your biases" towards people who you have "legitimate disagreement")

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#490

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #431

jacques_chester wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google also has a clause in their employment agreement that says you agree to them putting surveillance software on your devices, company supplied and personal, as a condition of your employment. That doesn't mean it's enforceable or that it wouldn't run into statutory limits. Many workplace relations laws are written on a strict liability basis, intent isn't necessary for infringement. So if it has a chilling effe…

There were a number of things in the Google employment agreement that my attorney suggested were either unenforceable for legal reasons or overly broad, he also pointed out that companies generally don't retain people who sue them (the contract is employment 'at will'). His advice was that if you didn't like it, just quit. That is the low cost way of getting out from under the contract that left little ill will behin…

Quite.

I'm generally of the view that knowingly adding unenforceable provisions to a contract should be a crime and/or professional malpractice worthy of being disbarred. It's obtaining advantage through unconscionable deception. Or, less fancily: fraud.

Entirely too much of this kind of thing is allowed to slide by legislatures.