741–750 of 863 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Total breakdown of trust is a valid reason to fire someone.
You can fire people for more or less anything we are talking about whether its fair. Not sure how you get to total breakdown of trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So regardless of the facts here, you're on the bandwagon of "guilt by association." That is, "we caught you being friends with communists so we're going to take your job away"?
I can't edit my original comment anymore, but I'd like to clarify that I mistook the claim of the comment to which I was replying as "association doesn't imply Damore espoused a genetic predisposition between men and women with regard to engineering", which is something other commenters are making in this thread. I'm not on the bandwagon of "guilt by association"; Damore's claims are ridiculous on their face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practicing the basics of diplomatic discussion is not about changing minds.
What is the intended outcome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding his effort to cloak his comments with “scientific” references and analysis and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. > I find this disturbing. I find this very disturbing as well. The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, f…
You can call it that if you want; then, in the US, you can be fired for "thought crime". The only thing at issue here is that you can't be fired in retaliation for workplace organizing --- but that protection doesn't apply if what you're organizing about pertains to an area where the NLRB gives deference to employers. There's a case history in the Advice Memo. They didn't make this up just for Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's your argument!
It's explicitly _not_ my argument! :) "You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can call it that if you want; then, in the US, you can be fired for "thought crime". The only thing at issue here is that you can't be fired in retaliation for workplace organizing --- but that protection doesn't apply if what you're organizing about pertains to an area where the NLRB gives deference to employers. There's a case history in the Advice Memo. They didn't make this up just for Google.
I find it bizarre that you basically concede the ground that it is similar to a thought crime and feel no need to defend your stance that his memo should be classified as "anti-diversity." Or is saying "you can call it a thought crime if you want" authorizing his use of this language, from a position of moral authority?
You don't even know whether I think his termination was reasonable. All you know is that I believe --- and so does the NLRB in this instance --- he did not enjoy special protections against unreasonable termination.
What I find especially funny about this is that Damore is a conservative, lobbying for more protections for conservatives in the workplace. But employment at will isn't just a conservative value --- it's a signpost conservative value, one of the basic principles on which we organize our market economy. It is, in conservative thought circles, one of the pillars on which American entrepreneurship rests, and a reason that the US excels over Europe in commercial dynamism.
Damore is in this instance a conservative the same way the nihilists in The Big Lebowski were nihilistic. But he gave up his toe! He expected a million dollars!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I bully a co-worker or start stating at work that I think someone is less capable for any reason linked to their biology, religion, sexuality or age I will be putting my job at risk. He didn't really say women were less capable, though (biologically or otherwise). He said that there are differences not related to capability, and that the current environment in tech is such that the work environment is more accep…
>He didn't really say women were less capable, though (biologically or otherwise). Did you read the memo? >>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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
he violated Google's anti-harassment policies For just asking a question? If even entertaining a thought with regards to science, if it doesn't "seem nice" through some narrow ideological lens, has become a crime, then we're already at the level of Lysenkoism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male a…
>There are biological differences that make the population of Asian NBA pros much smaller than otherwise, and the population of high level Kenyan marathon competitors higher than otherwise. Those are great examples because nobody is totally sure of those things either.
As an Asian man let me say this: Stop pandering! It's quite obvious that height is a huge advantage in the NBA. (Also note that biological differences are not necessarily genetic, because I have a guess that you are going to cite diet next.)
The first thing everyone needs to know about this is what the case was about, because it implicates one of the most powerful and least known rights tech company employees have. According to Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, employees can't generally be disciplined for exercising the rights provided under Section 7 of the NLRA. These rights are commonly understood to be about unionizing (ie, you can't be fired for trying r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it wasn’t research. It was a sloppy regurgitation of some cherrypicked sources which made some sweeping claims, and oh by the way management was wrong and should let him tell them how to do it. Consider the alternative: say his goal had actually been to learn what most scientists believe or to see how it applied to Google. That would be things like a representative literature survey, lots of questions about how y…
So management decisions don't need any scientific backing, but criticisms of management must be PhD quality or GTFO?
If he’d sent out a memo saying any management initiative was wrong and they were stupid he could be fired for it in the state of California. He just wouldn’t have been able to turn it into cash from right wing causes.
The second question is whether this is science being squashed as his more emotional supporters frequently claim. I don’t think there’s any reason to conclude that since this was a really lousy attempt at scientific analysis remiscent of the creationists who try to sound science-y but are ideologically prevented from actually practicing science.