The evils of political correctness.

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, was the question you asked me meant to invite a proper reply? It looked rhetorical.

Yeah, I think that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do.

So what's the evidence that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do? What has Trump said that's as stupid and awful as someone saying "All Mexicans are rapists."? What are some of these plentiful very good reasons people have to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists? When did he say all members of any ethnicity were criminals of any sort?

Sorry I don't plan to go on a Google search just to satisfy your demands. I'm good as things stand.

I made no demands. When you claim there exists "a well-known pre-existing fact that people have plenty of very good reasons to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists", you've got to expect somebody to ask what evidence you have. If you claim there exist "plenty of very good reasons to believe that Christ died for our sins" then somebody is bound to ask what some of those reasons are; it doesn't mean he's making demands of you.

I'm not helping spread a rumor, which I couldn't care less about. I took advantage of a well-known pre-existing fact that people have plenty of very good reasons to believe that Trump could have said that all Mexicans are rapists to make a point about PC.
EB

That helps spread a rumor; and you did make a point about PC. Congratulations.

Yeah, right, so by voting for your political representatives in America you personally helped American soldiers and bombs burn alive Syrian and Iraqi babies?

Not quite seeing how that's analogous, but I guess that's between you and your personal demons. No, I don't think the fact that I voted against McCain means I personally helped American soldiers and bombs burn alive Syrian and Iraqi babies, since it looks to me like McCain was just as likely to do those things as Obama was. One could argue that if the U.S. allowed voters a free choice of representative, and they chose representatives who did wrong, then the voters who chose those people helped them do wrong. But since that's not how the U.S. (or any other democracy) selects its so-called "representatives", I don't see a case for thinking their voters helped them -- let alone for thinking their defeated opponents' voters helped them. So there's a proper reply to your question for you.

What any of that has to do with whether your having implied that saying all Mexicans are rapists is a Trump-like thing to do helps spread the rumor that he said it, is something that perhaps at some point you will explain. Or perhaps you're good as things stand.

I'm good, thanks.
EB

 

[JohnG]

Interesting thread. My 2 cents is that the term political correctness is interchangeable with the concept of common decency (nothing political about it really)

I do find it a litttle depressing that so many people want no part of it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Interesting thread. My 2 cents is that the term political correctness is interchangeable with the concept of common decency (nothing political about it really)

I do find it a litttle depressing that so many people want no part of it.

I take your point but common decency doesn't need normally to be vocalised. Political correctness may be common decency vocalised, and hence, one could argue, thereby politicised.

And this may be why some people react with vehemence. They probably feel their freedom of expression is curtailed, and then some of them will inevitably want to pretend PC is censorship. It's rather predictable. In a way, it cannot not become politicised just because anything can be politicised.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's some evidence of PC craziness. A google engineer has been fired for making a very thoughtful and reasoned argument on-line that differences in gender pay gap may be down to biological factors.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40845288

Here's what he wrote. All perfectly sensible things.

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

Keep in mind that this guy is an engineer. Not a manager. He's just a regular dude. It's extremely hard to get a job at Google. So I feel really bad for him. We want people far down on the career ladder to feel empowered and speak their mind. This is so bad in so many ways. This isn't how a free society works.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is an aspie. they have a lot of them. People like that are going to speak their mind because they can't not do it.

Also worth noting that he's not saying anything that isn't also backed up by serious research. The main driver behind the gender pay gap is not sexism by men, but by choices that women do. This is hard to explain. Going with biological differences is completely reasonable.

I'm all for programmes intended to get more women into programming and IT. I think there's a bias and fear that IT is sexist. And I think it needs combating. But censorship and newspeak is not the way to fight it.

This firing just makes me sad. It feels like it'll get worse before it gets better. What I think Google should have done is simply to issue a statement that Google does not share this man's views and that they were his private views that do not represent the company. But they took the nuclear option making people more afraid to speak their minds.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, here we go again...


First, it may be the case that Google overreacted, I just don't know and it seems too early to tell.

It seems to me that one motive for firing this guy more likely than PC is brand image. Google is a brand, it has an image in the public, it's interest is to protect it, and if the perception at Google is that this guy's rant to discriminate against women hurt Google's brand image in the public perception then it's definitely a strong motive.

And PC can't be a motive except for idiotic people but then again idiotic people can well choose any motive they like.

Officially, in any case, the motive for sacking this guy was this: "portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."

This sounds reasonable to me as motives go.

Now, either it is true that this guy's memo violated Google's code of conduct and then the sacking was presumably inevitable unless Google wanted to void their code of conduct, or it is not true that the memo violated Google's code of conduct, in which case the sacked employee will no doubt find plenty of lawyers all ready to help him pursue the matter in court and get damages worth being fired to start with.

And right now, you don't know in which case we are. Yet, you definitely pretend you do. See?


Now for a moral perspective on this, let's suppose the memo had been about discriminating between White employees and African-American employees rather than discriminating between men and women. Just read the memo by substituting "African-American" to any reference to women in it. Google's claim that the memo "cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace" may then look more credible to you if it didn't on first reading.

Anyway, you're clearly on a campaign to destroy PC and good luck to you. I believe you're not particularly unbiased in this exercise, though. Google gave a clear motive for sacking this guy and we don't have sufficient details on the case to assess for ourselves whether this official motive is the real one. But this is America. Don't tell me this guy cannot obtain redress in court.

And I would have liked to see how you would react if you had been the but of this guy's discriminatory claims.
EB

 

[LordKiran]

Here's some evidence of PC craziness. A google engineer has been fired for making a very thoughtful and reasoned argument on-line that differences in gender pay gap may be down to biological factors.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40845288

Here's what he wrote. All perfectly sensible things.

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

Keep in mind that this guy is an engineer. Not a manager. He's just a regular dude. It's extremely hard to get a job at Google. So I feel really bad for him. We want people far down on the career ladder to feel empowered and speak their mind. This is so bad in so many ways. This isn't how a free society works.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is an aspie. they have a lot of them. People like that are going to speak their mind because they can't not do it.

Also worth noting that he's not saying anything that isn't also backed up by serious research. The main driver behind the gender pay gap is not sexism by men, but by choices that women do. This is hard to explain. Going with biological differences is completely reasonable.

I'm all for programmes intended to get more women into programming and IT. I think there's a bias and fear that IT is sexist. And I think it needs combating. But censorship and newspeak is not the way to fight it.

This firing just makes me sad. It feels like it'll get worse before it gets better. What I think Google should have done is simply to issue a statement that Google does not share this man's views and that they were his private views that do not represent the company. But they took the nuclear option making people more afraid to speak their minds.

Your blame is misplaced.

PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.

 

[J842P]

And I would have liked to see how you would react if you had been the but of this guy's discriminatory claims.
EB

I can't speak for Dr Zoidberg, but Hispanic people are underrepresented in tech, and similar discussions about discrimination to reach equal representation as being unfair happen, and I mostly agree.

The guy didn't make "discriminatory claims", but rather ordinary claims backed up by research on sex differences in personality psychology. Of *course* this is an issue about PC.

The fact of the matter is, as much as people don't like to admit it, these gender differences exit.

As to whether or not redress can be obtained in court, I doubt it. California is a little better about this, but generally, in the US you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's some evidence of PC craziness. A google engineer has been fired for making a very thoughtful and reasoned argument on-line that differences in gender pay gap may be down to biological factors.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40845288

Here's what he wrote. All perfectly sensible things.

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

Keep in mind that this guy is an engineer. Not a manager. He's just a regular dude. It's extremely hard to get a job at Google. So I feel really bad for him. We want people far down on the career ladder to feel empowered and speak their mind. This is so bad in so many ways. This isn't how a free society works.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is an aspie. they have a lot of them. People like that are going to speak their mind because they can't not do it.

Also worth noting that he's not saying anything that isn't also backed up by serious research. The main driver behind the gender pay gap is not sexism by men, but by choices that women do. This is hard to explain. Going with biological differences is completely reasonable.

I'm all for programmes intended to get more women into programming and IT. I think there's a bias and fear that IT is sexist. And I think it needs combating. But censorship and newspeak is not the way to fight it.

This firing just makes me sad. It feels like it'll get worse before it gets better. What I think Google should have done is simply to issue a statement that Google does not share this man's views and that they were his private views that do not represent the company. But they took the nuclear option making people more afraid to speak their minds.

Your blame is misplaced.

PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.

The idea that this memo would tarnish Google's reputation **is PC**. How do you not see this?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's some evidence of PC craziness. A google engineer has been fired for making a very thoughtful and reasoned argument on-line that differences in gender pay gap may be down to biological factors.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40845288

Here's what he wrote. All perfectly sensible things.

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

Keep in mind that this guy is an engineer. Not a manager. He's just a regular dude. It's extremely hard to get a job at Google. So I feel really bad for him. We want people far down on the career ladder to feel empowered and speak their mind. This is so bad in so many ways. This isn't how a free society works.

Sorry, but if you're not smart enough to know not to comment on the Emperor's attire you're not smart enough to work at Google.

 

[laughing dog]

Google is fighting a wage discrimination lawsuit (according to Dr. Zoidberg's linked article). My guess is that lawsuit figured into this man's firing more than any "PC".

 

[Trausti]

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/defame.html

 

[Trausti]

No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science

 

[LordKiran]

I can't speak for Dr Zoidberg, but Hispanic people are underrepresented in tech, and similar discussions about discrimination to reach equal representation as being unfair happen, and I mostly agree.

The guy didn't make "discriminatory claims", but rather ordinary claims backed up by research on sex differences in personality psychology. Of *course* this is an issue about PC.

The fact of the matter is, as much as people don't like to admit it, these gender differences exit.

As to whether or not redress can be obtained in court, I doubt it. California is a little better about this, but generally, in the US you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's some evidence of PC craziness. A google engineer has been fired for making a very thoughtful and reasoned argument on-line that differences in gender pay gap may be down to biological factors.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40845288

Here's what he wrote. All perfectly sensible things.

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

Keep in mind that this guy is an engineer. Not a manager. He's just a regular dude. It's extremely hard to get a job at Google. So I feel really bad for him. We want people far down on the career ladder to feel empowered and speak their mind. This is so bad in so many ways. This isn't how a free society works.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is an aspie. they have a lot of them. People like that are going to speak their mind because they can't not do it.

Also worth noting that he's not saying anything that isn't also backed up by serious research. The main driver behind the gender pay gap is not sexism by men, but by choices that women do. This is hard to explain. Going with biological differences is completely reasonable.

I'm all for programmes intended to get more women into programming and IT. I think there's a bias and fear that IT is sexist. And I think it needs combating. But censorship and newspeak is not the way to fight it.

This firing just makes me sad. It feels like it'll get worse before it gets better. What I think Google should have done is simply to issue a statement that Google does not share this man's views and that they were his private views that do not represent the company. But they took the nuclear option making people more afraid to speak their minds.

Your blame is misplaced.

PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.

The idea that this memo would tarnish Google's reputation **is PC**. How do you not see this?

Just saying, if workers had better protections it wouldn't be a problem. It's not a matter of me seeing or not seeing anything.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's some evidence of PC craziness. A google engineer has been fired for making a very thoughtful and reasoned argument on-line that differences in gender pay gap may be down to biological factors.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40845288

Here's what he wrote. All perfectly sensible things.

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

Keep in mind that this guy is an engineer. Not a manager. He's just a regular dude. It's extremely hard to get a job at Google. So I feel really bad for him. We want people far down on the career ladder to feel empowered and speak their mind. This is so bad in so many ways. This isn't how a free society works.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is an aspie. they have a lot of them. People like that are going to speak their mind because they can't not do it.

Also worth noting that he's not saying anything that isn't also backed up by serious research. The main driver behind the gender pay gap is not sexism by men, but by choices that women do. This is hard to explain. Going with biological differences is completely reasonable.

I'm all for programmes intended to get more women into programming and IT. I think there's a bias and fear that IT is sexist. And I think it needs combating. But censorship and newspeak is not the way to fight it.

This firing just makes me sad. It feels like it'll get worse before it gets better. What I think Google should have done is simply to issue a statement that Google does not share this man's views and that they were his private views that do not represent the company. But they took the nuclear option making people more afraid to speak their minds.

Your blame is misplaced.

PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.

The bigger question is why it could potentially tarnish Googles reputation. That would require that a lot of people are against free speech and are aggressively PC.

Read the memo. It's well reasoned and well written. He's tried his best to write it as well he could without causing unnecessary offence. But still keeping to what he believed was true.

Nah. I think you're dead wrong. It's PC that got him fired.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The bigger question is why it could potentially tarnish Googles reputation. That would require that a lot of people are against free speech and are aggressively PC.

Nah. I think you're dead wrong. It's PC that got him fired.

So, is it PC, or is it being aggressively PC?

Please, make up your mind, I have other things to do than guess what you may mean.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

Also worth noting that he's not saying anything that isn't also backed up by serious research.

Well there's his mistake. It's not about whether what you say is heretical; it's about whether your reasons for saying it are heretical. If a Google engineer had argued against sex diversity efforts on the grounds that the Mahabharata says a woman's duties are physical and emotional nourishment, reverence and fulfillment of her husband and her children, he'd have been a-okay with the Google thought police.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your blame is misplaced.

PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.

Right, pretty much the same as a Christian-owned company's legal ability to insist on only employing Christians, provided it's because the customers are Christian chauvinists and not because the owner is a Christian chauvinist. All the company is doing is protecting its reputation from being tarnished by having a non-Christian employee.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The bigger question is why it could potentially tarnish Googles reputation. That would require that a lot of people are against free speech and are aggressively PC.

Nah. I think you're dead wrong. It's PC that got him fired.

So, is it PC, or is it being aggressively PC?

Please, make up your mind, I have other things to do than guess what you may mean.
EB

They're the same thing. I just added aggressively for emphasis. We've already discussed the differences at length. Being PC is just being a decent person. Policing other people and demanding political correctness is pure evil, anti-democratic and a slippery slide to fascism. The firing of the Google employee, the fact that they think it tarnishes googles reputation and that other people may judge Google, as a company, negatively because of this, is all the second kind, pure fascistoid evil. And its something we need to combat.

I don't want to live in a society where people are afraid to speak their mind. I suspect a lot of people who agree with this also voted for Trump, precisely because he's such a fucking moronic twit, who is too fucking stupid not to speak his mind.

 

[LordKiran]

Your blame is misplaced.

PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.

Right, pretty much the same as a Christian-owned company's legal ability to insist on only employing Christians, provided it's because the customers are Christian chauvinists and not because the owner is a Christian chauvinist. All the company is doing is protecting its reputation from being tarnished by having a non-Christian employee.

Kind of my whole point? If worker protections were better, such that this employee couldn't be fired for expressing his views off-the-job you wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

Your blame is misplaced.

PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.

The bigger question is why it could potentially tarnish Googles reputation. That would require that a lot of people are against free speech and are aggressively PC.

Read the memo. It's well reasoned and well written. He's tried his best to write it as well he could without causing unnecessary offence. But still keeping to what he believed was true.

Nah. I think you're dead wrong. It's PC that got him fired.

I say it's a lack of worker protections and means of redress that allows Google (And other companies) to get away with firing people who express personal opinions while off the job. At one point I was willing to rationalize this to the company's benefit, but now I think corporations being able to stiffle the speech of its employees outside of the job by holding their continued employment over said employee's heads is completely counter to our shared values of personal freedoms (one such being, freedom of speech)

I understand there is an argument to be made that Goggle's right to associate freely also includes disassociation, but I don't think that should extend to an individual's expression or speech that has nothing to do with said business. Remember, Google doesn't have to prove or show that this man damages their brand, it only has to be a potential possibility, after that it all comes down to finding some pretext or another.

There was a story a while back about a woman who was fired from a news agency because she protested as part of occupy wallstreet (I'll try to find it.)

http://theweek.com/articles/480795/occupy-wall-street-should-npr-host-fired-protesting

Okay she wasn't a newsie but still, point stands. She was fired for exercising her rights to assemble and speak out against her governing institutions. That should be illegal no matter what your field is.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Right, pretty much the same as a Christian-owned company's legal ability to insist on only employing Christians, provided it's because the customers are Christian chauvinists and not because the owner is a Christian chauvinist. All the company is doing is protecting its reputation from being tarnished by having a non-Christian employee.

Kind of my whole point? If worker protections were better, such that this employee couldn't be fired for expressing his views off-the-job you wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

Your blame is misplaced.

PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.

The bigger question is why it could potentially tarnish Googles reputation. That would require that a lot of people are against free speech and are aggressively PC.

Read the memo. It's well reasoned and well written. He's tried his best to write it as well he could without causing unnecessary offence. But still keeping to what he believed was true.

Nah. I think you're dead wrong. It's PC that got him fired.

I say it's a lack of worker protections and means of redress that allows Google (And other companies) to get away with firing people who express personal opinions while off the job. At one point I was willing to rationalize this to the company's benefit, but now I think corporations being able to stiffle the speech of its employees outside of the job by holding their continued employment over said employee's heads is completely counter to our shared values of personal freedoms (one such being, freedom of speech)

I understand there is an argument to be made that Goggle's right to associate freely also includes disassociation, but I don't think that should extend to an individual's expression or speech that has nothing to do with said business. Remember, Google doesn't have to prove or show that this man damages their brand, it only has to be a potential possibility, after that it all comes down to finding some pretext or another.

There was a story a while back about a woman who was fired from a news agency because she protested as part of occupy wallstreet (I'll try to find it.)

http://theweek.com/articles/480795/occupy-wall-street-should-npr-host-fired-protesting

Okay she wasn't a newsie but still, point stands. She was fired for exercising her rights to assemble and speak out against her governing institutions. That should be illegal no matter what your field is.

It wasn't off the job. The contentious memo he wrote was sent to and discussed with other Google employees. Google apparently encourages employees to have all sorts of conversations using a variety of company forums. Which makes it a very different issue. So the motive for dismissal can only be very narrow since this guy was not only authorised but encouraged by Google to have discussions with other employees. So the point is whether what he wrote somehow broke Google's rules. Which should give him much more leverage in court and may foretell trouble for Google.
EB

 

[J842P]

Kind of my whole point? If worker protections were better, such that this employee couldn't be fired for expressing his views off-the-job you wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

Your blame is misplaced.

PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.

The bigger question is why it could potentially tarnish Googles reputation. That would require that a lot of people are against free speech and are aggressively PC.

Read the memo. It's well reasoned and well written. He's tried his best to write it as well he could without causing unnecessary offence. But still keeping to what he believed was true.

Nah. I think you're dead wrong. It's PC that got him fired.

I say it's a lack of worker protections and means of redress that allows Google (And other companies) to get away with firing people who express personal opinions while off the job. At one point I was willing to rationalize this to the company's benefit, but now I think corporations being able to stiffle the speech of its employees outside of the job by holding their continued employment over said employee's heads is completely counter to our shared values of personal freedoms (one such being, freedom of speech)

I understand there is an argument to be made that Goggle's right to associate freely also includes disassociation, but I don't think that should extend to an individual's expression or speech that has nothing to do with said business. Remember, Google doesn't have to prove or show that this man damages their brand, it only has to be a potential possibility, after that it all comes down to finding some pretext or another.

There was a story a while back about a woman who was fired from a news agency because she protested as part of occupy wallstreet (I'll try to find it.)

http://theweek.com/articles/480795/occupy-wall-street-should-npr-host-fired-protesting

Okay she wasn't a newsie but still, point stands. She was fired for exercising her rights to assemble and speak out against her governing institutions. That should be illegal no matter what your field is.

It wasn't off the job. The contentious memo he wrote that was sent to and discussed with other Google employees. Google apparently encourages employees to have all sorts of conversations using a variety of company forums. Which makes it a very different issue. So the motive for dismissal can only be very narrow since this guy was not only authorised but encouraged by Google to have discussions with other employees. So the point is whether what he wrote somehow broke Google's rules. Which should give him much more leverage in court and may foretell trouble for Google.
EB

No, I doubt he has a case at all. As I stated before, while California tends to be better in this regard, an employee can get fired for any reason or no reason at all, as long as it wasn't due to discrimination against *a protected group*, which he is not a member of...