371–380 of 603 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
homo sapiens is a political animal and you can't just pretend (or expect) that for 8 hours in day it isn't true. you couldn't expect that from slaves so why would you expect that from employees?
Spotted the irritating person to work with.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with asking? The company doesn't have to agree, but there is no harm in asking.
They aren't really asking, are they? Asking is a question at TGIF. What these people were doing is trying to create a bloc of activists that comes with the implied or explicit threat of coordinated employee action or pressure, as they've engaged in previously. They're pushing the boundaries to see how much control over management they really have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When people say this, I feel they're often thinking about the decreased tolerance for toxic views. Like that ex-Googler who got fired for repeatedly claiming that women were inferior engineers. There's been a decreased tolerance for... well, intolerance.
> 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.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversity...
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.
Provide quotes. Name the website. Otherwise you’re convincing nobody.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808155320/https://www.wesea...
Wayback link to front page of the site at the time:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808121314/https://www.wesea...
Characterizations of the site: https://www.splcenter.org/splc-lists-wesearchr-white-nationa...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/24/wesearchr-charles-johnson-al...
Alt right is a branding of "white nationalism":
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your colleagues are not an authentic social network who you can organise with and pursue activism. This is absolutely, 100% false. This is exactly what you SHOULD do, and this is what unions are for. Always organise with coworkers. Otherwise you are giving employers more power over you than you should.
My empoyer doesn't have a lot of power over me. I'm a programmer not a coal miner. I don't want to be in a union. I don't want to join some club. I don't want to pay dues. I don't want to read newsletters or listen to speeches or be involved at all in the grubby, underhanded manuevering for power that would come with a union. And I'm tired of people condescendingly telling me that I'm wrong for feeling this way. I'm…
The employer has a workforce and resources at their disposal, you bring to the table only your time. You can eschew unions all you want, but it's simply untrue to state that "a union is no more pure than management."
I'm sorry you feel condescended to to be told this, presumably yet again. Perhaps we can find a way to preserve your feelings, because condescension isn't my intent; I'm just trying to address a century's worth of anti-union propaganda.
By the way, labor organizing is significantly harder than volunteering at a soup kitchen. In the past, employers have hired private armies (the Pinkertons, etc) to attack and kill labor organizers; these days, despite it being illegal, employers often fire workers for legally-protected labor organizing activity. No one's being fired from a soup kitchen.
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…
Nice examples. Can we use some that are probably 100x more common at Google? Maybe you’re recruiting, and they let slip that they passed over a white male candidate because they're working on a new diversity initiative. Or maybe, after being trained constantly on gender bias and seeing vigorous workplace political debates on the subject, you investigate the issue and find no evidence to support anything other than th…
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…
>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 that they should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you in regards to the job and then when people tell you that you're kind of a dick and they want nothing to do with you, getting outraged and making a grandstand about being unfairly and terribly oppressed, while bemoaning of course that people nowadays are "too sensitive".
Sadly, you can find many examples of this amazing exercise in woke coherence right here on HN.
#Edit, since I've been accused of "being ignorant" and not having read the memo by people who clearly haven't read the thing themselves. In a section titled "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", wholly dedicated to justifying, among other phenomena, gender pay gap for reasons other than sexist bias, in James Damore's own words:
> Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
>Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
>Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
I've not cherry-picked these quotes. There are no omissions, they're whole, untouched paragraphs.