The evils of political correctness.

[barbos]

Here's a woman who had an enlightening moment about the difference:

https://pilotonline.com/opinion/col...cle_91580e75-2ea0-5502-bd2f-5f56f2783253.html

Anecdotal evidence.

Yes. she has her own anecdotal evidence, very strong one at that. There are also scientific studies which confirm her anecdote, she mentioned them too.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So, we won't get any uncontroversial resolution to the issue essentially because apparently this guy has no recourse in law.

Instead, all we have is a bunch of guys who certainly appear all worked up but can't get themselves to articulate what could pass for a decent and proper legal assessment of the pros and cons.

Maybe someone could challenge Google to provide a more detailed and explicit version of their motive to sack him. Ultimately, only they know why they did. Maybe consumer pressure could get them to be more forthcoming.
EB

Why do you need a more detailed and explicit version of thier motive? They gave one perfectly eloquent and clear. It was a reaction to the PC outcry (which most likely misunderstood, or didn't read what he said). They caved into PC pressures. They admitted as much and is the whole explanation The fact that the PC brigade has this kind of power over companies means it's gone too far. It's mob rule. Anti-intellectualism held up as an ideal. All they care about is feelings. Not research or well reasoned arguments. That's very dangerous.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Why do you need a more detailed and explicit version of thier motive?

The stated motive does not involve PC and there's otherwise no indication or evidence that the real motive was PC. Yet, merely saying, "this guy somehow violated our Code" is not good enough at least from a moral standpoint, even if it is enough from a legal perspective.

They ought to be able to explain, convincingly, why the memo violated their Code of Conduct.

Well, at least if that's what the public is asking.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why do you need a more detailed and explicit version of thier motive?

The stated motive does not involve PC and there's otherwise no indication or evidence that the real motive was PC. Yet, merely saying, "this guy somehow violated our Code" is not good enough at least from a moral standpoint, even if it is enough from a legal perspective.

They ought to be able to explain, convincingly, why the memo violated their Code of Conduct.

Well, at least if that's what the public is asking.
EB

I don't understand what you don't understand? How could it be any more clear?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't understand what you don't understand? How could it be any more clear?

Too bad.

I already explained my position in details in previous posts.

If you can't be bothered to read or if you don't understand what I said I'm not going to repeat myself.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't understand what you don't understand? How could it be any more clear?

Too bad.

I already explained my position in details in previous posts.

If you can't be bothered to read or if you don't understand what I said I'm not going to repeat myself.
EB

I understand that Google told you exactly what they mean and you go "yeah, but what do they really mean?" Dude, sometimes people mean what they say.

He made a post. Google has a code of conduct of "do no evil" which was quoted as the reason for his dismissal. Google was fine about the memo until it went viral. At which point they weren't fine with it any longer. All those managers who previously hadn't had any problem with it, and didn't think it was evil, now suddenly thought it was evil. That's bullshit.

Especially since the criticism was shallow and dumb, completely missing the nuance of the memo. The PC outrage wasn't nuanced. It's was just a hysterical witch-hunt.

 

[fromderinside]

You could have been a little more accurate. Corporate isn't 'aware' until stuff becomes externally evident. Since we're not talking about corporate sensitivity I suggest we resort to more moderate criticisms related to the reading of the material and the social context in which the material was reader driven.

If one sees mesomorphs beating chests one can conclude it is something suiting their sensitivities. On the other hand is one sees ectomorphs wringing hands one can surmise they are offended. Seeing both I deem the material inappropriate since it gets more than one group emotionally involved..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have absolutely no problem with women working the same jobs. I just recognize very few women have the right sort of mind for it.

Oh, you "just recognise". Must be true then.

You'd have to do much better than that, Dear.

Here's a woman who had an enlightening moment about the difference:

https://pilotonline.com/opinion/col...cle_91580e75-2ea0-5502-bd2f-5f56f2783253.html

Anecdotal evidence.


You really don't seem to take the proper measure of the issue.
EB

What she is describing is the difference between merely being skilled and being passionate about it. If it's not something you do in your free time you're not Google material.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You could have been a little more accurate. Corporate isn't 'aware' until stuff becomes externally evident. Since we're not talking about corporate sensitivity I suggest we resort to more moderate criticisms related to the reading of the material and the social context in which the material was reader driven.

If one sees mesomorphs beating chests one can conclude it is something suiting their sensitivities. On the other hand is one sees ectomorphs wringing hands one can surmise they are offended. Seeing both I deem the material inappropriate since it gets more than one group emotionally involved..

The PC criticism of the memo was off the mark. It wasn't a hate piece written by a bigot. It was a nuanced piece written by somebody trying to understand a persistent and systematic problem.

Corporate didn't care about the content of the memo. The PC outrage didn't care about the content of the memo. I doubt most of them even understood the long words.

This whole thing was stupid people reacting to what a smart person says, not understanding it, but still feeling really triggered by all that stuff they didn't understand, leading to punishment of the smart person. It's just wrong.

I'm not going to call Google corporate spineless, because they're just doing their jobs. Aparently it costs Google more to keep that engineer than let him go. The problem isn't Google. The problem is the society that works that way. It's opression. This world will give rise to newspeak (since people can't speak their minds). Just like we get in countries like China or other totalitarian regimes. I'm not equating them. I'm just explaining how social pressure works.

We don't want that. We want a world where smart people feel empowered to share their ideas, because that's to the benefit of everybody. Otherwise, Idiocracy, here we come.

 

[ronburgundy]

You could have been a little more accurate. Corporate isn't 'aware' until stuff becomes externally evident. Since we're not talking about corporate sensitivity I suggest we resort to more moderate criticisms related to the reading of the material and the social context in which the material was reader driven.

If one sees mesomorphs beating chests one can conclude it is something suiting their sensitivities. On the other hand is one sees ectomorphs wringing hands one can surmise they are offended. Seeing both I deem the material inappropriate since it gets more than one group emotionally involved..

The PC criticism of the memo was off the mark. It wasn't a hate piece written by a bigot. It was a nuanced piece written by somebody trying to understand a persistent and systematic problem.

Corporate didn't care about the content of the memo. The PC outrage didn't care about the content of the memo. I doubt most of them even understood the long words.

This whole thing was stupid people reacting to what a smart person says, not understanding it, but still feeling really triggered by all that stuff they didn't understand, leading to punishment of the smart person. It's just wrong.

I'm not going to call Google corporate spineless, because they're just doing their jobs. Aparently it costs Google more to keep that engineer than let him go. The problem isn't Google. The problem is the society that works that way. It's opression. This world will give rise to newspeak (since people can't speak their minds). Just like we get in countries like China or other totalitarian regimes. I'm not equating them. I'm just explaining how social pressure works.

We don't want that. We want a world where smart people feel empowered to share their ideas, because that's to the benefit of everybody. Otherwise, Idiocracy, here we come.

Well, a central point of his memo was that Google IS part of the problem. He was criticizing Google's mindless reactionary policies to ideological and political pressures regarding "diversity", policies he thought were bigoted, authoritarian, and antithetical to open-minded rational discussion. That said, the fact that Google had no problem until after the memo ignited a public firestorm shows his firing was about PR and not about him being critical of Google.

Also, public outrage didn't fire him. Google did. They chose more profit over anything else. The idea that Google gets a pass b/c corporations, no matter how profitable already, must always put ever more profits before integrity, fairness, and basic decency is a whole different problem and arguably a much bigger one.

 

[barbos]

I think they fired him to send a message to the rest of male engineers. At the same time I bet they realized that they need to scale back on militant feminism they promote within the company. Maintaining certain percentage of women is one thing, company-wide gender-shaming is another.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The PC criticism of the memo was off the mark. It wasn't a hate piece written by a bigot. It was a nuanced piece written by somebody trying to understand a persistent and systematic problem.

Corporate didn't care about the content of the memo. The PC outrage didn't care about the content of the memo. I doubt most of them even understood the long words.

This whole thing was stupid people reacting to what a smart person says, not understanding it, but still feeling really triggered by all that stuff they didn't understand, leading to punishment of the smart person. It's just wrong.

I'm not going to call Google corporate spineless, because they're just doing their jobs. Aparently it costs Google more to keep that engineer than let him go. The problem isn't Google. The problem is the society that works that way. It's opression. This world will give rise to newspeak (since people can't speak their minds). Just like we get in countries like China or other totalitarian regimes. I'm not equating them. I'm just explaining how social pressure works.

We don't want that. We want a world where smart people feel empowered to share their ideas, because that's to the benefit of everybody. Otherwise, Idiocracy, here we come.

Well, a central point of his memo was that Google IS part of the problem. He was criticizing Google's mindless reactionary policies to ideological and political pressures regarding "diversity", policies he thought were bigoted, authoritarian, and antithetical to open-minded rational discussion. That said, the fact that Google had no problem until after the memo ignited a public firestorm shows his firing was about PR and not about him being critical of Google.

Also, public outrage didn't fire him. Google did. They chose more profit over anything else. The idea that Google gets a pass b/c corporations, no matter how profitable already, must always put ever more profits before integrity, fairness, and basic decency is a whole different problem and arguably a much bigger one.

Please, quit the newspeak. Aka, Booth didn't kill Lincoln. The gun did.

Google fired him because of public outcry. They get more profit from firing because of public outcry. Public outcry fired him. Anything else is doing magic with words.

 

[LordKiran]

Joe Rogen made an interesting point about how women needed time off because this memo triggered them. They had a chance to show they weren't soft and overly emotional and they failed completely.

 

[barbos]

Google fired him because of public outcry. They get more profit from firing because of public outcry. Public outcry fired him. Anything else is doing magic with words.

I got impression they fired him before outcry even materialized, no? Very proactive of Google.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Google fired him because of public outcry. They get more profit from firing because of public outcry. Public outcry fired him. Anything else is doing magic with words.

I got impression they fired him before outcry even materialized, no? Very proactive of Google.

No. First outcry, then fired

- - - Updated - - -

Google fired him because of public outcry. They get more profit from firing because of public outcry. Public outcry fired him. Anything else is doing magic with words.

I got impression they fired him before outcry even materialized, no? Very proactive of Google.

No. First outcry, then fired

 

[Speakpigeon]

Too bad.

I already explained my position in details in previous posts.

If you can't be bothered to read or if you don't understand what I said I'm not going to repeat myself.
EB

I understand that Google told you exactly what they mean and you go "yeah, but what do they really mean?" Dude, sometimes people mean what they say.

He made a post. Google has a code of conduct of "do no evil" which was quoted as the reason for his dismissal. Google was fine about the memo until it went viral. At which point they weren't fine with it any longer. All those managers who previously hadn't had any problem with it, and didn't think it was evil, now suddenly thought it was evil. That's bullshit.

Especially since the criticism was shallow and dumb, completely missing the nuance of the memo. The PC outrage wasn't nuanced. It's was just a hysterical witch-hunt.

Sorry, you'd have to be way more specific and less vague about exactly who said exactly what.

Chest beating is so passé.

You could try a bit of self-discipline. I promise it won't hurt.
EB

 

[barbos]

I got impression they fired him before outcry even materialized, no? Very proactive of Google.

No. First outcry, then fired

I am still not sure that's the case. They were too quick in my opinion and the guy himself seems to think that too/
I suspect google will regret being that quick because there are gonna be blow-back outcry

 

[DrZoidberg]

I understand that Google told you exactly what they mean and you go "yeah, but what do they really mean?" Dude, sometimes people mean what they say.

He made a post. Google has a code of conduct of "do no evil" which was quoted as the reason for his dismissal. Google was fine about the memo until it went viral. At which point they weren't fine with it any longer. All those managers who previously hadn't had any problem with it, and didn't think it was evil, now suddenly thought it was evil. That's bullshit.

Especially since the criticism was shallow and dumb, completely missing the nuance of the memo. The PC outrage wasn't nuanced. It's was just a hysterical witch-hunt.

Sorry, you'd have to be way more specific and less vague about exactly who said exactly what.

Chest beating is so passé.

You could try a bit of self-discipline. I promise it won't hurt.
EB

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...oyee-behind-anti-diversity-memo-perpetuating/

He got fired for quote "perpetuating gender stereotypes". They claimed that violated the code of conduct.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry, you'd have to be way more specific and less vague about exactly who said exactly what.

Chest beating is so passé.

You could try a bit of self-discipline. I promise it won't hurt.
EB

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...oyee-behind-anti-diversity-memo-perpetuating/

He got fired for quote "perpetuating gender stereotypes". They claimed that violated the code of conduct.

???

Are you serious?

Well, no. You're just not quite capable of controlling yourself.


First bit of evidence for that, what the guy fired said, according to the webpage you yourself linked:

James Damore, a Harvard university graduate who had worked at Google for four years, <snip>.

<snip> revealed he had been dismissed by Google for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”

Now, let's have what Google’s chief executive is reported as having said, again according to the webpage you linked:

Sundar Pichai, the company’s chief executive, said that while parts of the memo were fair to debate, much of it violated the company’s code of conduct. “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK,” he said in an email to staff.

Now, look carefully, because there's a difference between the two pronouncements.

I'm quite sure you won't see it but it's there, right under your nose.

You're probably just not quite capable of controlling yourself so you will see what you've already decided is to be seen to accord with your prejudice against Google or some category that includes Google.

That's really a test of your intellectual and psychological capabilities. Are you up to it?

Personally, if I disliked this guy Sundar Pichai, I would still give him this that he knows what to say and how to say it. I'm impressed. Thumbs up.

You should take a leaf or two from his book.
EB

 

[barbos]

Sundar Pronouncement is patently false (.....group of OUR colleagues have traits that make.....) and is irrelevant anyway because it does not contradict/refute what Damore said about what he was told over the phone.
I think Damore's lawyers can burn google for ""OUR colleagues" part.