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

Post by mos_basik » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #419

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the essay shows is that your representation of his beliefs is obviously false.

Damore's essay seems to be a kind of Rorschach test. People sympathetic to Damore's views (or at least, to his approach to debate) seem to trust that he's arguing in good faith. People strongly opposed to his views seem to think he's being disingenuous.

Post by mike00632 » Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 12:57 AM UTC

username90 wrote: post #461

mike00632 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to elaborate on why they are against gays marrying without the reasoning sounding homophobic.

It is a motte and bailey argument, most people agree with gays having access to legal marriage, the contentious part is religious marriage. Should we force preachers who don't believe that homosexuality is kosher to wed gay couples? A lot of people don't think so, and then they say they are against gay marriage even though they would be fine with legalizing them getting a legal marriage. For example, do you think tha…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 1:15 AM UTC

aedron wrote: post #296

say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #208

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…

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…

Post by bzbarsky » Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 6:32 AM UTC

JohnBooty wrote: post #554

bzbarsky wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing is that the hypothetical "publishes views about how X are inferior" is considered OK if "X" is "male" or "white", say. I understand the arguments from a structural racism/sexism standpoint for treating those situations differently from the ones you describe, but the specific test you propose seems to fail just as much: can you trust someone who thinks men are inferior in a job where they might h…

It was meant to be gender-neutral. I ought to have used "they," for clarity's sake.

Post by joshuamorton » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 2:15 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #598

joshuamorton wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument boils down to "most people agree with me". Can you substantiate that claim? Even if you could, that doesn't make the popular claim right, but your don't even have a proof that most people agree with you, sot you?

Go around and ask your co-workers, "would you you consider a push by management to have fewer meeting a political act?". I sampled my co-workers and none of them considered it political. This works both ways: what data do you have that workers consider adjustments to things like meetings political acts?