Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Google demands diversity by forcing everyone to think the same

Google demands diversity by forcing everyone to think the same
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:07 PM
 
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/07/go...s-memo-author/

I'm sure you all have heard the story by now. Please, if you've not read the memo itself, please do so before commenting (as it seems that many if not most in the media are skipping that crucial step).

You can find it here:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ho-Chamber.pdf

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the content of the memo - do you think Google was morally justified in firing the engineer? Ethically?

Do you believe Google's approach to "diversity" (which does not include diversity of viewpoints or thought) is the correct way to address diversity in the workplace? (i.e. forcing the statistics to look a certain way by discriminating against perceived over-represented demographics).

Do you believe that an authoritarian approach to thought policing cultivates an inclusive, diverse and cooperative environment?

Do you believe Google proved his point by reacting the way they did?

Again, if you haven't read the memo, please don't waste our time here.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:29 PM
 
I was wondering who would make this.

I don't think I would have fired him, but I did read some insightful analysis as to why it might be hard to keep him around.

Full disclosure: I tried reading it over the weekend but my eyes glazed over
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:37 PM
 
He had some good points, and he had some terrible, horrible garbage points. His calls for reason and facts clashed nicely with all of his totally unsubstantiated claims.

Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
"Women be shopping!"

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
I'm not even sure what to say about that one.

And this gem of a paradox:

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
...but later...

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
"Yes, it is extremely important that we understand the viewpoints of others. But the mechanism by which that happens, empathy, is evil and should be de-emphasized because it apparently is emotionally-drive (like women, remember?), therefore it can't be trusted."

the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
"I'm an oppressed white male!"

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Do you believe Google proved his point by reacting the way they did?
How much should an employee be able to say without being fired?

If I work for Google and complain that they don't value diversity of opinion or political position, but then, in writing and in no uncertain terms make public my feelings that:
- iPhones are superior mobile devices
- Android will never ever catch up to iOS because Apple has a superior design ethos
- People over the age of 40 are old, slow, and incapable of technological foresight and shouldn't be employed by tech companies
- Black people are lazy and their own culture is to blame for current racial tensions
- Jews are an inferior race and the Nazis did nothing wrong
- Eugenics was a good idea and anyone that tests below an IQ of 140 should be euthanized for the good of humanity's progress

...what would you expect my employer to do?

The constitution gives us freedom of speech and the ability to express these opinions and beliefs publicly without the government stopping us. There's no reason that a private corporation has to employ someone whose beliefs they deem in directly conflict with the organization's, or someone that they believe would be toxic to a mixed-gender, mixed-ethnicity work environment because of that person's outspoken beliefs.

I doubt this thread will go well because identity politics seem to trigger quite a few people here.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:43 PM
 
To be clear, he wasn't fired for having those views. He wasn't even fired for discussing those views with his manager or leadership in a productive way. He was fired for posting this poorly-written, typo-laden document on a public (internal) network. He's toxic.

From a former senior Google employee:

If you feel isolated by this, that your views are basically unwelcome in tech and can’t be spoken about… well, that’s a fair point. These views are fundamentally corrosive to any organization they show up in, drive people out, and I can’t think of any organization not specifically dedicated to those views that they would be welcome in. I’m afraid that’s likely to remain a serious problem for you for a long time to come. But our company is committed to maintaining a good environment for all of its people, and if one person is determined to thwart that, the solution is pretty clear.²
I’m writing this here, in this message, because I’m no longer at the company and can say this sort of thing openly. But I want to make it very clear: if you were in my reporting chain, all of part (3) would have been replaced with a short “this is not acceptable” and maybe that last paragraph above. You would have heard part (3) in a much smaller meeting, including you, me, your manager, your HRBP, and someone from legal. And it would have ended with you being escorted from the building by security and told that your personal items will be mailed to you. And the fact that you think this was “all in the name of open discussion,” and don’t realize any of these deeper consequences, makes this worse, not better.
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so...o-1e3773ed1788
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:48 PM
 
That's the one I was talking about. Thanks.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm troubled by his firing but I did read some good analysis as to why it may guy be hard to keep him around.
I also agree it would be tough for google to keep him around - he probably knew that when he wrote it.

That being said, their response of "you are wrong and open discussion will not be tolerated" I think creates a far bigger issue for them.

What does it say to anyone who isn't in lock step with Google's policy? They are forced to undergo the diversity indoctrination and are now shown that to disagree or to posit any ideas outside of the approved ideology is akin to violence in the workplace.

Should Google maintain this orwellian style crusade against diversity of viewpoints?

The memo itself is very clear in it's purpose which is to address the issues empirically. What message does this send to minorities if it's just their demographic that is important to "diversity"? Does that not teach that skin color and sex are more important than content of character/ability?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
He had some good points, and he had some terrible, horrible garbage points. His calls for reason and facts clashed nicely with all of his totally unsubstantiated claims.
I think he admitted up front that he didn't claim to be the end-all be all authority on the subject, but instead that perhaps there was more at play than just straight up sexual discrimination.

The claims were not totally unsubstantiated - there are citations throughout to support his questions.

Is ad-hom the right way to approach this?



I'm not even sure what to say about that one.
If women, by and large, don't want to work in tech at the same rate as men, is it right to implement discriminatory hiring practices to force the statistics to look at certain way?

What's the right balance? 50/50?


I mean, it seems like this guy is saying we need to understand WHY the gender gap exists to the extent that it does, and that it is likely not solely and only sexual discrimination.

Once we're done here, should we move on to nursing to force there to be a 50/50 distribution of males and females? Or is that gender gap OK?

And this gem of a paradox:



...but later...



"Yes, it is extremely important that we understand the viewpoints of others. But the mechanism by which that happens, empathy, is evil and should be de-emphasized because it apparently is emotionally-drive (like women, remember?), therefore it can't be trusted."
Empathy (feelings) are not objective.

Hiring practices should be objective if we really plan to remove discrimination, don't you agree?



"I'm an oppressed white male!"
Ah yes, based on the color of your skin or your gender you should be treated differently so that everyone gets treated the same, somehow. Makes sense.

Doesn't matter who is being discriminated against. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination, period. You cannot remove discrimination by reversing the recipient of discrimination and forcing those recipients to shut up about it because they're white males. That's literally fighting fire with fire and expecting to put it out, and is counter productive to the shared goal of mitigating sexual discrimination.



How much should an employee be able to say without being fired?
If the employee is forced to undergo cultural training, they ought to be able to provide their input on it. Especially when that "cultural training" is politically biased.

How much should an employer be able to push their politics on their employees?

[
If I work for Google and complain that they don't value diversity of opinion or political position, but then, in writing and in no uncertain terms make public my feelings that:
- iPhones are superior mobile devices
- Android will never ever catch up to iOS because Apple has a superior design ethos
Valid opinions.

- People over the age of 40 are old, slow, and incapable of technological foresight and shouldn't be employed by tech companies
These are hiring decisions, and cannot be generalized (this guys main point - people cannot be generalized and should be treated as individuals).
- Black people are lazy and their own culture is to blame for current racial tensions
What does the data say?
- Jews are an inferior race and the Nazis did nothing wrong
is this guy being forced to undergo anti-nazi training as part of his job?
- Eugenics was a good idea and anyone that tests below an IQ of 140 should be euthanized for the good of humanity's progress
Is this guy being forced to go through anti-eugenics training and adhere to certain viewpoints?

...what would you expect my employer to do?
Your analogy does not work.

Both Google and this employee have the same exact goal, but different thoughts of how to get there. Your analogy provides no goal, nor does it address the fact that this memo was not written in a vacuum. It was a response to a culture and company policy that discriminates one group in order to counter balance discrimination of another.

The constitution gives us freedom of speech and the ability to express these opinions and beliefs publicly without the government stopping us.
No one is making a 1A claim here.
There's no reason that a private corporation has to employ someone whose beliefs they deem in directly conflict with the organization's, or someone that they believe would be toxic to a mixed-gender, mixed-ethnicity work environment because of that person's outspoken beliefs.
Because he's a white male that doesn't agree with them?

Or because he's blowing the whistle on hiring practices that are discriminatory by nature (just towards a different demographic, who's perceived to be the demographic that does most of the discriminating).



I doubt this thread will go well because identity politics seem to trigger quite a few people here.
Precisely the reason that identity politics needs to go away for good, since it is completely counter to eradicating discrmination and prejudice. When you put labels on people based on their sex, skin color, etc (identity politics) no matter what your intent is (even if you claim to be doing it in the name of equality), you are part of the problem, not the solution.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
To be clear, he wasn't fired for having those views. He wasn't even fired for discussing those views with his manager or leadership in a productive way. He was fired for posting this poorly-written, typo-laden document on a public (internal) network. He's toxic.

From a former senior Google employee:



https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so...o-1e3773ed1788
What's Google's policies on internal communication?

They fired him for the content of the post, not for posting internally. It'd be one thing if what he did was against policy, but Google specifically fired him because the content of his speech was deemed to be offensive, and thus a "general" violation of the code of conduct.

If google had a policy preventing people from posting their views, more power to them. They didn't fire him for any policy of the sort. It seems instead that their policy is "we encourage you to post your views so long as we like them, otherwise we'll equate your views to violence and fire you for violence".


The former senior google executive is responsible for the toxic culture that exists there today and as such is not a credible, objective source.

Worse still is that a survey done at Google showed significant support for this guy's memo, about on par with the dissent. Up to you how credible you find it.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
To be clear, he wasn't fired for having those views. He wasn't even fired for discussing those views with his manager or leadership in a productive way. He was fired for posting this poorly-written, typo-laden document on a public (internal) network. He's toxic.
He absolutely was fired for having those views. Posting views was, AFAICT, not against any Google policy (which is why they fired him under the general code of conduct).

Otherwise, in firing him, Google would have cited that he posted views NOT that he posted "incorrect and dangerous" views.

It's either OK to post views, or it's not. What Google has done here is said "you can post views so long as we agree with them, else, see ya".
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
He absolutely was fired for having those views.
Are there any other people in all of Google that hold those views? Of course there are. Are they fired? Of course they're not. He chose to express those views in a specific way.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's the one I was talking about. Thanks.
It's unfortunate that he kicks off the article with this:

we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.
That's not what the original post was saying at all, and when you kick it off with a mischaracterization, you turn everyone against you right away.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Your analogy does not work.
Trust me, it works. I'm reeeeally good at analogies.

If an employee expresses views counter to an organization's goals, views that are potentially toxic to that company's culture, engineering efforts, and well-being, why should the company be obligated to keep that person on board?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Are there any other people in all of Google that hold those views? Of course there are. Are they fired? Of course they're not. He chose to express those views in a specific way.
Kinda hard to fire people that are scared to share the views you would fire them for.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Hiring practices should be objective if we really plan to remove discrimination, don't you agree?
100% totally. Can you give me an example of where this has happened?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Trust me, it works. I'm reeeeally good at analogies.
If an employee expresses views counter to an organization's goals
So since this guy has the exact same stated goal, again your analogy does not work.

, views that are potentially toxic to that company's culture, engineering efforts, and well-being, why should the company be obligated to keep that person on board?
They are not obligated to keep him on board, but they are also not shielded from criticism and the consequences of their actions for doing so. These are those consequences. They do, however, have an obligation not to discriminate against anyone, even if their goal in that discrimination is to reduce discrimination.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So since this guy has the exact same stated goal, again your analogy does not work.
Show me a Google exec making that claim.

They are not obligated to keep him on board, but they are also not shielded from criticism and the consequences of their actions for doing so. These are those consequences.
Ill-informed forum discussions by people with a sliver of the full story? I'm sure they're crushed.

They do, however, have an obligation not to discriminate against anyone
That's not true.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:02 PM
 
I didn't even get to page four before I pulled the pink slip from my desk.

Here's a conservative value for him... chain of ****ing command.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
It's unfortunate that he kicks off the article with this:
Umm what? Where did you get this from? Not in the memo.

That's not what the original post was saying at all, and when you kick it off with a mischaracterization, you turn everyone against you right away.
Did you read the memo?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Umm what? Where did you get this from? Not in the memo.

Did you read the memo?
Follow my conversation with Dakar.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn't even get to page four before I pulled the pink slip from my desk.

Here's a conservative value for him... chain of ****ing command.
I'm not aware of any orders Google issued, or any Google policies he ran afoul of, aside the equation of his views to violence in the workplace.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Follow my conversation with Dakar.
Still not following.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not aware of any orders Google issued, or any Google policies he ran afoul of, aside the equation of his views to violence in the workplace.
The culture he takes issue with was put in place intentionally by the founders. This is the policy he ran afoul of. The technical term is "causing your superiors a headache".
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn't even get to page four before I pulled the pink slip from my desk.

Here's a conservative value for him... chain of ****ing command.
Chain of command is exactly why the discrimination exists in the first place. You're right, but that doesn't make it right.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Chain of command is exactly why the discrimination exists in the first place. You're right, but that doesn't make it right.
Google gets to decide what's right for Google, no?

Space-X is notorious for overworking employees and paying them shit. What happens to an employee who distributes a memo criticizing this model? Is there any substantive difference between the two?

If we think the models are "wrong", we're free (and actually expected, considering our fancy degrees) to find someplace "right". Likewise, all three of us can get together and found Schmoogle or Schmace-S, and prove the inferiority of our competitors' models.

Otherwise, suck it up, and don't bite the hand that feeds you.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn't even get to page four before I pulled the pink slip from my desk.

Here's a conservative value for him... chain of ****ing command.
In the interviews he's done he stated that he'd already voiced his opinions to his superiors and they ignored them. Since there was no rule about not voicing them company-wide, he did that. Then he was canned because a comparatively small number of people lost their shit, ran to the CEO, and cried "I feel unsafe!" (because they know when they do that they'll get the reactions they want).

Either way, firing him like that will cost Google a lot, and not just from his unfair termination suit (which will set him up for life), it's already costing them in terms of PR (all the social media sites are on fire), stock value, and users (guides on how to completely divorce yourself from Google are now flying everywhere). Personally, I agree w/ people wanting to dump Google, they're too big and as a whole we place too much of our personal info in their hands. Given their agenda, it's not hard to see how this can be used for social engineering.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:31 PM
 
What's worse for Google is that he's already been offered a job at WikiLeaks. Given all he knows, that could be an absolute nightmare for them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Google gets to decide what's right for Google, no?
It's an at-will state, so in a vacuum yes. They don't, however, get to decide on their own what constitutes discrimination and implement discriminatory policy as a result. That's a matter of public interest and law.

Open question to more than just subego:
Do you think Google should be allowed to force it's employees to subscribe to a certain ideology?


Space-X is notorious for overworking employees and paying them shit. What happens to an employee who distributes a memo criticizing this model? Is there any substantive difference between the two?
Is SpaceX running afoul of labor/wage laws in those policies?

If we think the models are "wrong", we're free (and actually expected, considering our fancy degrees) to find someplace "right". Likewise, all three of us can get together and found Schmoogle or Schmace-S, and prove the inferiority of our competitors' models.
That is one option, yes. Among others.

Otherwise, suck it up, and don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Would you say that to those who are actually being discriminated against? That woman that got passed over for a promotion to make room for an unqualified golf-buddy?

The set of standards must be the same for everyone.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:51 PM
 
Subego, I'd also like to add:

As a customer and shareholder of Google, I am entitled to step in where this guy could (or should not have) not. Google answers to me and the other shareholders, not the other way around.

Should snowden have followed the chain of command?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:58 PM
 
^^ I sent a memo of my own, as a shareholder, voicing my concerns over the ideological climate and apparent political discrimination going on at Google, just this morning. I recommend you do the same, if you're so inclined.

investor-relations@abc.xyz
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Still not following.
*rubs thumb and pointer finger on bridge of nose*

Okay.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
but I did read some insightful analysis as to why it might be hard to keep him around.
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
From a former senior Google employee:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so...o-1e3773ed1788
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's the one I was talking about. Thanks.
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
It's unfortunate that he kicks off the article with this:

That's not what the original post was saying at all, and when you kick it off with a mischaracterization, you turn everyone against you right away.
Clear now?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Then he was canned because a comparatively small number of people lost their shit, ran to the CEO, and cried "I feel unsafe!" (because they know when they do that they'll get the reactions they want).
[citation needed]
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
*rubs thumb and pointer finger on bridge of nose*
*offers a midol to help with the headache*




Clear now?
Yes, after playing the pronoun game to it's conclusion and understanding the "he" is not the subject of the OP, but instead the other dude you cited and dakar referred to, I follow.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
*offers a midol to help with the headache*
Was that necessary?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Was that necessary?
I found myself asking the same question about yours, and figured you could take a little topic-relevant humor and appreciate irony in the sexist nature of my joke. No serious offense intended.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Do you think Google should be allowed to force it's employees to subscribe to a certain ideology?
The reality of the situation is ironically reflected in the existence of PWL.

We're confined to this ghetto because what we do is destructive to the community, and the decision was made to minimize the damage by isolating us.

Ideological conflict fractures relationships. We're all familiar with the admonition "don't bring up politics at the dinner table".

I'm guessing if I worked at Google, in the current political climate, my only option for maintaining constructive relationships with my co-workers would be to shut the **** up. If I don't, I'm being a distraction, which is going to torque off my superiors.

I know I shouldn't say this, but my spidey-senses tell me the problem is this guy's on the spectrum, and has no clue how annoying he's been.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The reality of the situation is ironically reflected in the existence of PWL.

We're confined to this ghetto because what we do is destructive to the community, and the decision was made to minimize the damage by isolating us.

Ideological conflict fractures relationships. We're all familiar with the admonition "don't bring up politics at the dinner table".
So where does that leave ideologically driven policy?

Google just hired a VP of ideology, has that VP write a letter that comments on ideology, fires the guy questioning the ideology and expects to leave the fractious nature of politics out of Google?

I'm guessing if I worked at Google, in the current political climate, my only option for maintaining constructive relationships with my co-workers would be to shut the **** up. If I don't, I'm being a distraction, which is going to torque off my superiors.
That requires the leadership to check the politics at the door, which the leadership has failed to do.


I know I shouldn't say this, but my spidey-senses tell me the problem is this guy's on the spectrum, and has no clue how annoying he's been.
Tough to say, but this is clearly written as a response to perceived ideologically driven policy and culture. Perhaps the dude got passed over for a promotion he felt he was most qualified for. Perhaps those same message boards were full of ideological support for Google's policy. We can only speculate.

If Google wanted no politics in the workplace, they should not be introducing them. Especially to engineers that have no stake in the hiring process.

Let the engineer just be an engineer, and guess what - you've got an engineer. Try to force the engineer become an expert on Google's narrow opinion of what removing discrimination is and defacto force him to subscribe to that ideology, and you're inviting exactly this.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 03:15 AM
 
I think somehow conveyed the opposite point.

Google didn't address the problem of ideological conflict by removing it, they addressed the problem by letting a single ideology dominate.

The same one which dominates the industry.

An industry with ground zero an hour out of San Francisco.

Did he honestly expect right wing ideology to be welcomed? If I'm a commie living in middle of Kansas, my co-workers have to put up with my bullshit?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:42 AM
 
Directly from Jordan Peterson's interview of Damore:





Apologies for the quality of the interview audio. Peterson is a philosopher and clinical psychologist, not an audio engineer, and this was his first real interview.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 09:33 AM
 
Does he go into the actual illegal practices? Has he consulted with a lawyer? Is Google discriminating against a legally-protected class of people?

"there were a large percentage of people who agreed with me on the document"

Yes, and your inauguration crowd was the largest ever, wasn't it.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think somehow conveyed the opposite point.

Google didn't address the problem of ideological conflict by removing it, they addressed the problem by letting a single ideology dominate.

The same one which dominates the industry.

An industry with ground zero an hour out of San Francisco.

Did he honestly expect right wing ideology to be welcomed? If I'm a commie living in middle of Kansas, my co-workers have to put up with my bullshit?

That goes back to your chain of command comment. That ideology is well represented by the shareholders and employees. I expect google to abstract itself from ideology altogether for a number of business reasons. If they are forcing a single ideology to the detriment of employees or talent that does not ascribe to that ideology, the executives are performing a dereliction of their duties and violating the chain of command and as such should have their very own pink slips delivered.

I expect with Google to put up with mainstream ideology - if they alienate those who hold different ideologies, those executives should be removed from their positions and replaced with those that would navigate Google to a more inclusive, diverse workplace more focused on Google's success as a company, and less so on the politics the executives ascribe to.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 04:59 PM
 
Are we talking about the same Google? Right wing ideology is not well represented there.

This isn't some hidden fact of Google corporate culture. They wear the shit on their sleeve.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are we talking about the same Google? Right wing ideology is not well represented there.
Or all of Silicon Valley for that matter? Or any modern company hiring STEM degrees?

From the commentary I quoted earlier:
These views are fundamentally corrosive to any organization they show up in, drive people out, and I can’t think of any organization not specifically dedicated to those views that they would be welcome in.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are we talking about the same Google? Right wing ideology is not well represented there.

This isn't some hidden fact of Google corporate culture. They wear the shit on their sleeve.
According to what I've seen, dudeman's memo had about as much support as it did opposition according to a purported internal google survey. FWIW.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Or all of Silicon Valley for that matter? Or any modern company hiring STEM degrees?

From the commentary I quoted earlier:
Commentary from an ex-google executive, who was instrumental in putting in these practices and this culture in the first place. What did you expect him to say? That everything he did at Google was wrong?

That's akin to asking a former klansmen politician what he thinks of segregation laws after someone writes a memo questioning their effectiveness and gets lynched for it.
I see another ideologue from the same bunch of ideologues being all ideological. An ideology that favors discrimination as a counter balance to assumed other discrimination. This guy is asking Google to look at recent science around the assumed discrimination in order to truly reach equality in hiring, so that they themselves do not "reverse" discriminate when hiring.

Do you see hospitals favoring male RNs over female and hiring on that basis? Given this line of reasoning, shouldn't they? Why aren't they? Are they sexist?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Google didn't address the problem of ideological conflict by removing it, they addressed the problem by letting a single ideology dominate.
Let me add another layer to the discussion here: Google is currently under investigation by the Department of Labor because of gender pay discrimination. That says to me that Google is actually not doing a very good job hiring and keeping women in its workforce — despite its Silicon Valley origins. Its competitors, Apple among them, is doing similarly badly, so it seems that Silicon Valley's culture only goes skin deep on the issue. Moreover, I think it also introduces a PR issue here: Google is already perceived to not be a good work environment for women, and after receiving that much publicity, it would have been another blow to Google's credibility on the issue if it let the author keep his job.

I find the dissonance between this engineer's perception of Google and the actual numbers quite interesting. Because it does mean that Google (and all the other IT companies) are actually not doing a good job increasing the number of women and hiring more minorities.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Did he honestly expect right wing ideology to be welcomed? If I'm a commie living in middle of Kansas, my co-workers have to put up with my bullshit?
It's not just corporate culture, it is local culture, and IT companies have a very distinct culture that they want to protect. And it would be way too simple to say it's politically left-leaning, there are huge differences in, say, who gets hired (Google: academic high achievers, Apple: diverse life experience), how they deal with openness (Google: a lot more communication, Apple: our secrecy that we double down on every year is legendary). What I am saying is that each of these companies believe that their company culture is intimately tied to their success, and they will fiercely protect it. It helps them hire the people that fit into the culture and keep away people that they don't want. And as you write in a later post, this focus on company culture isn't a secret, so pushing out someone who clearly doesn't fit in is part of keeping their culture.

I think this guy was really naïve publishing what he did on the corporate intranet, and expecting no blowback.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Commentary from an ex-google executive, who was instrumental in putting in these practices and this culture in the first place. What did you expect him to say? That everything he did at Google was wrong?

That's akin to asking a former klansmen politician what he thinks of segregation laws after someone writes a memo questioning their effectiveness and gets lynched for it.
Please don't compare Google to the KKK, that's not helping the discussion.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This guy is asking Google to look at recent science around the assumed discrimination in order to truly reach equality in hiring, so that they themselves do not "reverse" discriminate when hiring.

Do you see hospitals favoring male RNs over female and hiring on that basis? Given this line of reasoning, shouldn't they? Why aren't they? Are they sexist?
I read the “blog post”, and I don't think it is as brilliant or as bad as people make it out to be. Nor does it show new avenues to diversity. It seems more like a badly thought out high school or college freshmen term paper to me.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Let me add another layer to the discussion here: Google is currently under investigation by the Department of Labor because of gender pay discrimination. That says to me that Google is actually not doing a very good job hiring and keeping women in its workforce — despite its Silicon Valley origins.
Precisely this guys point - the approach is clearly wrong.

Its competitors, Apple among them, is doing similarly badly, so it seems that Silicon Valley's culture only goes skin deep on the issue.
Perhaps less ideology, less groupthink and more science could help....seems like a read a memo advocating for just that recently.

Moreover, I think it also introduces a PR issue here: Google is already perceived to not be a good work environment for women, and after receiving that much publicity, it would have been another blow to Google's credibility on the issue if it let the author keep his job.
Why would it be a blow to Google's PR? If anything, becoming ideologically agnostic would be the best course of action for Google - not doubling down on, as you described above, policies which evaluate your sex, color etc for whatever purpose.

I find the dissonance between this engineer's perception of Google and the actual numbers quite interesting. Because it does mean that Google (and all the other IT companies) are actually not doing a good job increasing the number of women and hiring more minorities.
Science to the rescue!

Oh wait? No? They won't consider that the approach is off? Hmm.
It's not just corporate culture, it is local culture, and IT companies have a very distinct culture that they want to protect. And it would be way too simple to say it's politically left-leaning, there are huge differences in, say, who gets hired (Google: academic high achievers, Apple: diverse life experience), how they deal with openness (Google: a lot more communication, Apple: our secrecy that we double down on every year is legendary). What I am saying is that each of these companies believe that their company culture is intimately tied to their success, and they will fiercely protect it. It helps them hire the people that fit into the culture and keep away people that they don't want. And as you write in a later post, this focus on company culture isn't a secret, so pushing out someone who clearly doesn't fit in is part of keeping their culture.
I just have a hard time applying this line of reasoning to other industries. What's different about tech? It attracts more sexists or are there other factors affecting the distributions? Those two things are not mutually exclusive and there seems to be, relatively speaking, not enough data/science specific to the industry to really identify all the factors and their weight in comparison to the gender gap.

I think this guy was really naïve publishing what he did on the corporate intranet, and expecting no blowback.
I'm not convinced he was not expecting blowback. To be a Google engineer, you have to be pretty damn smart. I doubt very seriously he did not contemplate the consequences of rocking the boat. I'd bet he either had something else lined up or some other plan in case the obvious happened (which it did).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Please don't compare Google to the KKK, that's not helping the discussion.
What's a good analogy for people who claim analogies are comparisons?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Please don't compare Google to the KKK, that's not helping the discussion.
I made no such comparison.

I drew an analogy to a different time where know for sure there was an extreme degree of discrimination, and that the approach to that discrimination was wrong (segregation/seperate but equal).
I read the “blog post”, and I don't think it is as brilliant or as bad as people make it out to be. Nor does it show new avenues to diversity. It seems more like a badly thought out high school or college freshmen term paper to me.
Precisely - it was one person's take on the whole thing. To me, it read much the same way as many of our posts here in the PWL.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:24 PM
 
Oooooh... burn.





     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:34 PM
 
Let me ask another open question.

If silicon valley is so left-leaning, why is there such a gender/race gap at all the big companies there? Lefties are even more racist/sexist than the average, or other factors are at play?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:33 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,