Google managers kept blacklists of conservative employees(businessinsider.com.au)
businessinsider.com.au
Google managers kept blacklists of conservative employees
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/conservative-google-employees-are-blacklisted-lawsuit-alleges-2018-1
134 comments
Scrolling through those screencaps, I'd get up and walk out if I saw that on the internal slack where I work. It's one thing for someone to post it, it's another for HR to condone it by not policing it.
EDIT. Not commenting on it, but https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTCqvlRXUAILVUL.jpg:large . The fact that there is open discussion on terroristic activities, and the fact that it's not removed over the course of 24 hours. What in the fuck?
EDIT. Not commenting on it, but https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTCqvlRXUAILVUL.jpg:large . The fact that there is open discussion on terroristic activities, and the fact that it's not removed over the course of 24 hours. What in the fuck?
This reminds me of the awful investment banker / hedge fund emails that came out after the financial crisis. Feels like tech is replacing Wall Street, a in bad way.
[deleted]
Thats a lot of commenting for not commenting on the screenshot.
Can you elaborate on what of that is the discussion of terroristic activites? Because that seems to be quiet a loose reading of the screenshot.
Can you elaborate on what of that is the discussion of terroristic activites? Because that seems to be quiet a loose reading of the screenshot.
"military or war effort" ... "I won't say violence has not place..." ... and then discussion on how to protect your PII. Maybe discussion is too harsh a word, but there is a very clear (to me) "I know what you want to do (I do as well), so here is how to go down that road." It reads as something ISIS (or any extremist group) would do to lure people to fight for the cause. Also, with the screenshot being capped off by saying "the government can subpoena this at any time" is a clear indication that they know what they are talking about and how it could be read.
If I changed it up to say something like "I've never been apart of a military or war effort..." and then someone follows up with "Get in touch with your local Army of God (Christian terrorist group in the US)..." it doesn't take much reading between the lines.
If I changed it up to say something like "I've never been apart of a military or war effort..." and then someone follows up with "Get in touch with your local Army of God (Christian terrorist group in the US)..." it doesn't take much reading between the lines.
yes, you are correct, if you change the words in a sentence you change the meaning of it.
The rest of it...not so much. There is a discussion of a belief "I won't say violence has no place" There is not a discussion of 'The use of intentional, indiscriminate violence as a means to create fear to achieve political religious, or ideological aims'
The rest of it...not so much. There is a discussion of a belief "I won't say violence has no place" There is not a discussion of 'The use of intentional, indiscriminate violence as a means to create fear to achieve political religious, or ideological aims'
You need to be really, really careful that you aren't condoning fascistic behaviour just because you agree with its motives and ends.
Fascism is fun: its appeal has the same root as teamwork. Joining up with like-minded people to counter a common enemy, and prioritizing ends over means, is how you get to fascism.
A handy rule of thumb is to flip the motivation in a sentence to its ideological opposite, preferably one that you don't like. If the meaning of the sentence is then abhorrent, rather than acceptable dissent, it's probably a couple of steps too far even when you agree with the sentiment.
Fascism is fun: its appeal has the same root as teamwork. Joining up with like-minded people to counter a common enemy, and prioritizing ends over means, is how you get to fascism.
A handy rule of thumb is to flip the motivation in a sentence to its ideological opposite, preferably one that you don't like. If the meaning of the sentence is then abhorrent, rather than acceptable dissent, it's probably a couple of steps too far even when you agree with the sentiment.
I see what I said and what the author said as the same thing. You can read it in many different ways, I'm just making the point that the whole thread of discussion should not be tolerated in a corporate environment.
Maybe the first part could be considered acceptable but towards the end it seems that they know what they are discussing. And even the fact that the first reply is not "Everything is not so bad, if you feel disheartened, there are numerous local community organization blah blah blah" but "get in touch with your local antifa" says a lot.
Maybe the first part could be considered acceptable but towards the end it seems that they know what they are discussing. And even the fact that the first reply is not "Everything is not so bad, if you feel disheartened, there are numerous local community organization blah blah blah" but "get in touch with your local antifa" says a lot.
[deleted]
Hmm. I wish there were some dispassionate places left on the internet to discuss this kind of stuff. It seems that the only remaining options are either loathsome mockery (as seen on /r/kotakuinaction or this person's Twitter feed) or breathless defense. Talking to my very liberal friends about these kinds of issues in the real world, we tend to come to a far more nuanced understanding. Where is the equivalent venue online? Even previously-sensible forums like HN or Metafilter now heavily lean towards dismissiveness and mockery when discussing political topics with any shades of gray.
While I'm pretty surprised that some of these screencapped discussions and memes would come up in a work environment (does Google have their own internal social network?), I think many of them are worthy of a more level-headed conversation instead of just outraged captions. (For example: why should Google allow disturbing individuals like Steve Bannon on their premises? Or: if a person was actually fired for serial harassment, shouldn't other companies be made to know? Or: why should Google not correct their own frequently erroneous featured snippets? Or even: why should people be passively OK with weirdly sexualized comments aimed at their baby?) I also think that these incidents tend to be born out of good and noble intentions: a belief that justice in the world can be more easily achieved by leveraging institutional power, not a lust for political control and uniformity of thought as some would paint it. In my opinion, as much as these images might anger (especially out of context), they ought to be read and discussed in a more charitable light.
On the other hand, it's true that some of this stuff is rather insufferable, back-patty, and seeping with privilege. Get over yourself, Google. You're a glorified multinational ad corp, not the technical Mecca and savior of the free world.
While I'm pretty surprised that some of these screencapped discussions and memes would come up in a work environment (does Google have their own internal social network?), I think many of them are worthy of a more level-headed conversation instead of just outraged captions. (For example: why should Google allow disturbing individuals like Steve Bannon on their premises? Or: if a person was actually fired for serial harassment, shouldn't other companies be made to know? Or: why should Google not correct their own frequently erroneous featured snippets? Or even: why should people be passively OK with weirdly sexualized comments aimed at their baby?) I also think that these incidents tend to be born out of good and noble intentions: a belief that justice in the world can be more easily achieved by leveraging institutional power, not a lust for political control and uniformity of thought as some would paint it. In my opinion, as much as these images might anger (especially out of context), they ought to be read and discussed in a more charitable light.
On the other hand, it's true that some of this stuff is rather insufferable, back-patty, and seeping with privilege. Get over yourself, Google. You're a glorified multinational ad corp, not the technical Mecca and savior of the free world.
Here's another example of an out-of-context screenshot: the "I'm white!!" comic is not mocking whiteness, but is in fact referring to the artist herself in a cheeky way — a brave and well-meaning teenager who was incidentally bullied off Tumblr after making it. Maybe not work-appropriate, but certainly not "agit-prop" (really?) https://www.buzzfeed.com/aaronc13/this-teenage-artist-was-bu...
[deleted]
That's super inappropriate to share at work. You don't consider this agit-prop, especially when rebroadcast by a global media brand like buzzfeed?
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-01/enha...
I think a lot of people would take issue with a snotty teenager telling them they are ignorant if they don't agree that they have privilege. I would also think that a professional setting like Google would not allow garbage like this in official company communication channels.
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-01/enha...
I think a lot of people would take issue with a snotty teenager telling them they are ignorant if they don't agree that they have privilege. I would also think that a professional setting like Google would not allow garbage like this in official company communication channels.
r/slatestarcodex hosts a regular "culture war" thread where this kind of topic gets an unusually analytical treatment.
The SSC blog's discussions are probably higher quality, but the blog's UI makes it difficult to track ongoing conversations, unlike Reddit.
The SSC blog's discussions are probably higher quality, but the blog's UI makes it difficult to track ongoing conversations, unlike Reddit.
Don't these guys have software to write and adspace to sell? Why are they spending time discussing politics at work?
Part of this stupid trend that your coworkers also need to be your friends and family. "Since I wouldn't tolerate political dissent at home, I don't tolerate it at work" kind of thinking. Probably also part of a greater trend towards Corporate Nationalism in the US.
What happened to just showing up, doing the work, then going home?
What happened to just showing up, doing the work, then going home?
Because not all groups, ideologies, countries, cultures, and other societal divisions act in the same way?
I sell loans, why do I care about my customer's religion asks the banker, right before finding out that the Quran has specific provisions for appropriately lending and borrowing money.
I sell loans, why do I care about my customer's religion asks the banker, right before finding out that the Quran has specific provisions for appropriately lending and borrowing money.
Because many companies try to weaken the boundaries between "work" and "not-work", so that their employees will spend more time at work.
This is not a fact, it's an unproven allegation in a lawsuit filed by a known fraud represented by a lawyer known to have engage in unethical misrepresentations. The lawsuit is hoping to find evidence of this spurious claim of it makes it to the discovery stage.
Edit: His lawyer has made multiple misrepresentations of voter fraud in California, going as far as accusing innocent individuals of voter fraud. She's been investigated by the CA State Bar several times for unethical behavior. As for Damore, he's made several false statements about his time at treatment at Google that have been refuted by multiple non-biased sources.
Edit: His lawyer has made multiple misrepresentations of voter fraud in California, going as far as accusing innocent individuals of voter fraud. She's been investigated by the CA State Bar several times for unethical behavior. As for Damore, he's made several false statements about his time at treatment at Google that have been refuted by multiple non-biased sources.
It's all very interesting. The lawyer is a woman, born in India. She should be very vocal against Damore, right? Instead, she is exposing bigotry inside Google. I see the same screenshots already posted here previously. Of course they have names, dates and all other details, and all this information can be easily checked during the trial. I don't think Dhillon would be stupid enough to make it up.
This is going to be very interesting...
This is going to be very interesting...
> The lawyer is a woman, born in India. She should be very vocal against Damore, right?
No, you can't predict a person's opinions by their ethnicity and gender. Nicky Haley is an Indian-American woman, and is a leading GOP politician and supporter of President Trump. Clarence Thomas is an African-American male, and possibly the most partisan conservative on the Supreme Court.
No, you can't predict a person's opinions by their ethnicity and gender. Nicky Haley is an Indian-American woman, and is a leading GOP politician and supporter of President Trump. Clarence Thomas is an African-American male, and possibly the most partisan conservative on the Supreme Court.
You realize this pretty much proves the people arguing in favor of diversity's point right? (rhetorical question)
I didn't say it was a fact, I said it was a summary of what is alleged in the lawsuit. It does include evidence though and I haven't seen anyone deny it. I have also seen Google and other tech giant employees tweet out stuff like this regularly so it seems very likely to be true.
But it's not a fact yet, just accusations as you say.
But it's not a fact yet, just accusations as you say.
Could you please cite sources that prove that Mr. Damore is a fraud and that his lawyer has done unethical things? This is the first I've ever heard of either claim.
I don't know how they could make these things up and get away with it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTCqa-XX0AA6DJs.jpg
There is the name of the person, their message sent to other Google employees, that they got reported to HR - how on Earth could this be an "unproved allegation"? It's all easily verifiable. If Damore and his lawyer were fabricating this, it would be an equivalent of a professional suicide. And an incredibly stupid and pointless thing to do.
I was giving GP the benefit of the doubt in assuming they were referring to some other incidents outside the lawsuit that showed Damore is a fraud or his lawyer is unethical.
I mean, I've heard Damore be accused of all kinds of things, but I haven't heard anyone say he's a fraud before. I just assumed it's a detail that got lost in the discussion about whether or not he's a terrible sexist and/or racist. I haven't heard of his lawyer before so I wouldn't know anything about that.
I mean, I've heard Damore be accused of all kinds of things, but I haven't heard anyone say he's a fraud before. I just assumed it's a detail that got lost in the discussion about whether or not he's a terrible sexist and/or racist. I haven't heard of his lawyer before so I wouldn't know anything about that.
In court cases, that is the mission of the attorney: To make their claims look persuasive and indisputable. In many/most lawsuits, if you only hear one side you will find it very persuasive. Wait until you see the other side's persuasive and indisputable arguments before you judge. That's why courts work the way they do, and why cases are not tried in the court of public opinion.
I flagged it (although I suspect others did too). The title removes a conditional clause ('alleges a new lawsuit') that the author or editor thought was important. It asserts as proven fact the allegations of a lawsuit. That is inappropriate within HN.
I agree that alleges should be in the title.
Mods: Can you change the title to be more accurate and unflag?
Mods: Can you change the title to be more accurate and unflag?
I flagged it because the discussion is awful; it's ignorant and offers nothing of value; I have no more knowledge than I did before, and probably have absorbed some misinformation.
It is that as well, but the group that always shows up to comment on these threads isn't going to understand that.
The intellectual dishonesty in the commentary on those screencaps is embarassing (e.g., "#DiversityAtGoogle means using company resources to recruit for #Antifa."). She seems not just willing but intent on taking them out of context. She even misquotes the complaint (https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446906043400194) to make it seem worse.
This entire lawsuit seems predicated on the idea that people having non-conservative views is somehow discrimination against conservatives.
It's calvinball as a legal theory.
Example: https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950448063516172288
Damore made such arguments in his manifesto, and based them on research that he utterly misinterpreted. While the cited post may be glib, it is actually backed by solid research on innovation and diversity of experience and thought (e.g., intellectual, racial, gender, etc.). Under Damore's own original argument that he was there shouldn't be any problem with saying that.
Damore was fired for making google look bad, not for his beliefs, and not even for being an obnoxious coworker.
This entire lawsuit seems predicated on the idea that people having non-conservative views is somehow discrimination against conservatives.
It's calvinball as a legal theory.
Example: https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950448063516172288
Damore made such arguments in his manifesto, and based them on research that he utterly misinterpreted. While the cited post may be glib, it is actually backed by solid research on innovation and diversity of experience and thought (e.g., intellectual, racial, gender, etc.). Under Damore's own original argument that he was there shouldn't be any problem with saying that.
Damore was fired for making google look bad, not for his beliefs, and not even for being an obnoxious coworker.
Please do post the "solid research on innovation and diversity of experience and thought" that says 40-something white men will deliver "fuck-all" when tasked to do something creative or innovative.
It's funny how people expect anyone making an argument for diversity to be a race class and gender scholar on one hand and then reject any work by race class and gender scholars out of the other. You are partially quoting the post in a way that changes the meaning but I'll indulge...These are all primary research sources (or press releases directly from the authors), not commentary
"Without diverse leadership, women are 20% less likely than straight white men to win endorsement for their ideas; people of color are 24% less likely; and LGBTs are 21% less likely. This costs their companies crucial market opportunities, because inherently diverse contributors understand the unmet needs in under-leveraged markets. We’ve found that when at least one member of a team has traits in common with the end user, the entire team better understands that user. A team with a member who shares a client’s ethnicity is 152% likelier than another team to understand that client." [0]
"In this study, we investigated whether the variety of ideas and the innovative qualities of team design solutions are related to team gender diversity. The research participants were 148 engineering students working in 37 teams. These teams were identified as gender balanced or all-male based on their gender composition. Their idea generation outcomes and final design solutions were evaluated using an established variety metric and a new innovation potential metric developed by the authors... Results suggest that diversity, defined by gender alone, may not increase the innovation potential of student design teams but may support innovation in the presence of other factors. Efforts should focus on helping teams better utilize their diversity to improve their ability to be innovative." [1]
"Fortune 500 companies with the highest representation of women board directors attained significantly higher financial performance, on average, than those with the lowest representation of women board directors," [2]
"We acknowledge that these findings, though consistent, aren’t proof of a direct relationship between diversity and financial success. At high-performing companies, the board or CEO may simply have greater latitude to pursue diversity initiatives, and other management innovations may contribute more directly to superior results. We will continue to explore these issues in further research.
As a starting point, and to get a reality check on the aggregate data, we looked for evidence of diversity’s influence on the actions of individual companies during the volatile 2008–10 time frame our analysis covered. In a number of cases, diversity appeared to play a critical role. At adidas, one of the companies that ranked in our top quartile in diversity and performance, senior leaders have designated diversity as a strategic goal and started building it into the guts of the organization. ... To spur innovation across global markets, adidas is also ensuring diversity in its design centers—and has won a number of awards for product creativity....
One global food company that ranked in the top quartile for diversity completed a series of successful international joint ventures between 2008 and 2010. These actions advanced a strategic goal of geographic decentralization and risk diversification, while ensuring that its products fit the varying preferences of local cultures and markets. The more diverse footprint paid operational dividends as well: at some of these joint ventures’ plants, the company discovered highly efficient manufacturing processes, which it absorbed and then disseminated across its own manufacturing base. Similarly, a leading telecommunications company whose top team hailed from a number of different nations significantly expanded its global network infrastructure and was able to meet ambitious growth targets in emerging markets. " [3]
"Using laboratory experiments, Phillips and her research collaborator, Clayman Institute affiliate Margaret Neale, analyzed the connections between race and innovation. They found that racially homogeneous groups tend to fall into the trap of “group think,” or a situation that occurs “when a group values harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation.” The authors argue that being around others who are similar tricks us into thinking everyone else shares the same information and perspectives. Group think can lead individuals to ignore missing information or alternate explanations that force the development of creative solutions. Furthermore, the consequences of group think are that people are not inclined to contribute individual insights that veer from the group norm or the group’s accepted thoughts. This is especially true of women and minorities, who already are often outsiders and are often underrepresented in many workplaces; to offer criticism risks the potential of being seen as not a team player." [4]
So you have it with students, companies, gender, race, its not about white-male specifically, its about group think. The call out for 'white male 40s' is because that is so often the dominant group in the room in Tech. If tech was dominantly filled with 26 year old black non gender conforming people you would have the exact same concern. Groupthink is real, and when the groupthink group also posess the identity that is how society is normatively represented, its difficult to see.
Those are literally the bookmarks I already had on hand. I would suggest reading on the issue from scholarly sources a little. Be cautious of trusting other people's summations of research, especially those that reinforce your own beliefs.
[0] https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation
[1] Fila, N. D., & Purzer, S. (2014). The relationship between team gender diversity, idea variety, and potential for design innovation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(6A), 1405–1418. Retrieved from http://www.ijee.ie/
[2] http://www.catalyst.org/media/companies-more-women-board-dir...
[3] https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our...
[4] http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2017/how-does-diversity-spur...
"Without diverse leadership, women are 20% less likely than straight white men to win endorsement for their ideas; people of color are 24% less likely; and LGBTs are 21% less likely. This costs their companies crucial market opportunities, because inherently diverse contributors understand the unmet needs in under-leveraged markets. We’ve found that when at least one member of a team has traits in common with the end user, the entire team better understands that user. A team with a member who shares a client’s ethnicity is 152% likelier than another team to understand that client." [0]
"In this study, we investigated whether the variety of ideas and the innovative qualities of team design solutions are related to team gender diversity. The research participants were 148 engineering students working in 37 teams. These teams were identified as gender balanced or all-male based on their gender composition. Their idea generation outcomes and final design solutions were evaluated using an established variety metric and a new innovation potential metric developed by the authors... Results suggest that diversity, defined by gender alone, may not increase the innovation potential of student design teams but may support innovation in the presence of other factors. Efforts should focus on helping teams better utilize their diversity to improve their ability to be innovative." [1]
"Fortune 500 companies with the highest representation of women board directors attained significantly higher financial performance, on average, than those with the lowest representation of women board directors," [2]
"We acknowledge that these findings, though consistent, aren’t proof of a direct relationship between diversity and financial success. At high-performing companies, the board or CEO may simply have greater latitude to pursue diversity initiatives, and other management innovations may contribute more directly to superior results. We will continue to explore these issues in further research.
As a starting point, and to get a reality check on the aggregate data, we looked for evidence of diversity’s influence on the actions of individual companies during the volatile 2008–10 time frame our analysis covered. In a number of cases, diversity appeared to play a critical role. At adidas, one of the companies that ranked in our top quartile in diversity and performance, senior leaders have designated diversity as a strategic goal and started building it into the guts of the organization. ... To spur innovation across global markets, adidas is also ensuring diversity in its design centers—and has won a number of awards for product creativity....
One global food company that ranked in the top quartile for diversity completed a series of successful international joint ventures between 2008 and 2010. These actions advanced a strategic goal of geographic decentralization and risk diversification, while ensuring that its products fit the varying preferences of local cultures and markets. The more diverse footprint paid operational dividends as well: at some of these joint ventures’ plants, the company discovered highly efficient manufacturing processes, which it absorbed and then disseminated across its own manufacturing base. Similarly, a leading telecommunications company whose top team hailed from a number of different nations significantly expanded its global network infrastructure and was able to meet ambitious growth targets in emerging markets. " [3]
"Using laboratory experiments, Phillips and her research collaborator, Clayman Institute affiliate Margaret Neale, analyzed the connections between race and innovation. They found that racially homogeneous groups tend to fall into the trap of “group think,” or a situation that occurs “when a group values harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation.” The authors argue that being around others who are similar tricks us into thinking everyone else shares the same information and perspectives. Group think can lead individuals to ignore missing information or alternate explanations that force the development of creative solutions. Furthermore, the consequences of group think are that people are not inclined to contribute individual insights that veer from the group norm or the group’s accepted thoughts. This is especially true of women and minorities, who already are often outsiders and are often underrepresented in many workplaces; to offer criticism risks the potential of being seen as not a team player." [4]
So you have it with students, companies, gender, race, its not about white-male specifically, its about group think. The call out for 'white male 40s' is because that is so often the dominant group in the room in Tech. If tech was dominantly filled with 26 year old black non gender conforming people you would have the exact same concern. Groupthink is real, and when the groupthink group also posess the identity that is how society is normatively represented, its difficult to see.
Those are literally the bookmarks I already had on hand. I would suggest reading on the issue from scholarly sources a little. Be cautious of trusting other people's summations of research, especially those that reinforce your own beliefs.
[0] https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation
[1] Fila, N. D., & Purzer, S. (2014). The relationship between team gender diversity, idea variety, and potential for design innovation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(6A), 1405–1418. Retrieved from http://www.ijee.ie/
[2] http://www.catalyst.org/media/companies-more-women-board-dir...
[3] https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our...
[4] http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2017/how-does-diversity-spur...
None of what you posted suggests that 40-something white males can't innovate. In fact you can't suggest that they can't innovate and say that they're the dominant group in tech unless you believe that all tech developments to date haven't been innovative. That's a contradictory statement.
You can claim that I somehow changed the meaning of the original bigoted statement but I didn't. It's a very simple, straightforward bashing of white males.
You can claim that I somehow changed the meaning of the original bigoted statement but I didn't. It's a very simple, straightforward bashing of white males.
my initial comment was about each tweet in that thread misrepresenting what was said. Your willingness to accept those misrepresentations and try and have an argument about that is not germane to my original point. But downvote away.
I wonder if the progressive left realize that the inevitable reaction to sacrificing all reason at the altar of progress, is a rise to the right
PS. Sorry for the poor sentencing structure, not as fluid in English as I used to be
PS. Sorry for the poor sentencing structure, not as fluid in English as I used to be
I disagree. I think the left has been on a killer run of cultural victories (as opposed to political and economic) in recent years . In my view, this lawsuit in particular is a "heads I win, tails you lose" for the left.
Labor protections are a major plank of the left and should Damore win it would further help enshrine those labor protections in tort and give the left firepower to say "Look, these laws protect conservatives too! Just look at Damore!" The right, historically, prefers an environment where employment is fully at-will and at the discretion of the employer: this lawsuit undercuts that view. I think some see this as the left being "hoisted by one's own petard" but it's not like liberals are going to turn around and abandon labor rights as a reaction to Damore... quite the contrary.
I see Damore's lawsuit as a byproduct of the diminished political conviction of the contemporary right. As a self-described classical liberal, Damore should, in theory, treat his employment as at-will as that is consistent with his stated political ideology. This is in large part why the left continues to win, and why the right acts more and more like the left: When faced with adversity, the right adopts left-wing views to score modest Pyrrhic victories, thus normalizing left-wing views.
The one area where the right isn't doing this stuff is abortion: an area where the right seems to be gaining ground. Women's access to abortion has been declining (unfortunately, IMO) in many states.
I wish Mr. Damore the best of luck in his endeavours. Employment discrimination lawsuits are really difficult to win in court, even if it seems "open and shut" to a layperson. Complicating matters, it looks like Google's lawyers are raring for a fight... many businesses just settle even if they feel they'll be cleared in court.
Labor protections are a major plank of the left and should Damore win it would further help enshrine those labor protections in tort and give the left firepower to say "Look, these laws protect conservatives too! Just look at Damore!" The right, historically, prefers an environment where employment is fully at-will and at the discretion of the employer: this lawsuit undercuts that view. I think some see this as the left being "hoisted by one's own petard" but it's not like liberals are going to turn around and abandon labor rights as a reaction to Damore... quite the contrary.
I see Damore's lawsuit as a byproduct of the diminished political conviction of the contemporary right. As a self-described classical liberal, Damore should, in theory, treat his employment as at-will as that is consistent with his stated political ideology. This is in large part why the left continues to win, and why the right acts more and more like the left: When faced with adversity, the right adopts left-wing views to score modest Pyrrhic victories, thus normalizing left-wing views.
The one area where the right isn't doing this stuff is abortion: an area where the right seems to be gaining ground. Women's access to abortion has been declining (unfortunately, IMO) in many states.
I wish Mr. Damore the best of luck in his endeavours. Employment discrimination lawsuits are really difficult to win in court, even if it seems "open and shut" to a layperson. Complicating matters, it looks like Google's lawyers are raring for a fight... many businesses just settle even if they feel they'll be cleared in court.
> the left has been on a killer run of cultural victories in recent years
That's hard to see in the U.S., with the Republican's shift far to the right and overwhelming political domination (control of the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and in over 30 state both houses and the Governor's mansion), and with neo-fascism and white nationalism, once way beyond the pale, now trendy.
Also it's hard to see in Europe, where neo-fascist and white nationalist parties actually have seats in national legislatures, even run some executive branches, and include the Foreign Minister of the UK.
That's hard to see in the U.S., with the Republican's shift far to the right and overwhelming political domination (control of the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and in over 30 state both houses and the Governor's mansion), and with neo-fascism and white nationalism, once way beyond the pale, now trendy.
Also it's hard to see in Europe, where neo-fascist and white nationalist parties actually have seats in national legislatures, even run some executive branches, and include the Foreign Minister of the UK.
Is that rise due to people's genuine connection to those right-wing ideas or a reaction to all the externalities of neoliberal economics? I would argue Europe's neo-fascists are largely gliding on a cloud of resentment left over from austerity measures, combined with the general disarray of many left-wing parties.
In the US things are more complicated: we have gerrymandering which keeps the house Republican despite Democratic candidates winning more votes overall. We have governors that were largely propped up with corporate money. The supreme court is large a side-effect of those structural issues (Obama would have picked a liberal judge of the dems had the house in '16)
In the US things are more complicated: we have gerrymandering which keeps the house Republican despite Democratic candidates winning more votes overall. We have governors that were largely propped up with corporate money. The supreme court is large a side-effect of those structural issues (Obama would have picked a liberal judge of the dems had the house in '16)
I don't agree with your reasons, but it's irrelevant to the question of whether "the left has been on a killer run of cultural victories in recent years".
What? You think the right is more reasoned than the left? Come on.
Besides you don't think there are workplaces where it's a blackmark to be a progressive? Why don't you come over to some finance jobs?
Besides you don't think there are workplaces where it's a blackmark to be a progressive? Why don't you come over to some finance jobs?
I never said the right is more reasoned than the left. I said that currently the progressive-left is sacrificing reason and that it will lead to a rise to the right. This is just natural action-reaction.
You are putting quite a lot of meaning into my sentence that isn't there, projecting is never useful in a discussion.
You are putting quite a lot of meaning into my sentence that isn't there, projecting is never useful in a discussion.
I think that's a very real thing to consider. I'm very much a classical liberal and if this election has shown me anything it's that I'm not a Democrat anymore.
I see the phrase "classical liberal" a lot these days, is there an accepted definition of what the modern usage of "classical liberal" means?
Do they believe in climate change? Do they vote for Trump? Do they think universal health coverage is more efficient? etc. What kind of concrete things do they support/oppose?
Do they believe in climate change? Do they vote for Trump? Do they think universal health coverage is more efficient? etc. What kind of concrete things do they support/oppose?
If you ask someone who has studied political science, they will tell you that Liberal is the view that individual rights matter, and that supremacy of the group should be allowed to suffer if it infringes on the rights of individuals. Conservative is the view that the supremacy of the group is paramount. Conservatism is what backed monarchies and imperialism and justified slavery and all manner of mistreatment of large numbers of individuals in the name of aggrandizing the group (whether that be the state, church, whatever). Conservatism on that scale had been on the decline from the late 1700s up to the end of the 20th century. I'm not sure any more.
With the little letters, the split between conservative and liberal normally comes down to how the "rules of the game" are seen. Little-c conservatives are willing to cheat and change the rules of the game and do whatever necessary for their tribe to win. Little-l liberals are not willing to cheat, and see the 'rules' being fair as more important than whether their tribe rules supreme or not. There's lots of research supporting a notion that this sort of divide is very real in people, potentially even biological in origin (though I do not personally believe we are even capable of determining something like that yet), and active successful exploitation of the idea by advertisers, politicians, and others seeking to influence the public for one reason or another.
With the little letters, the split between conservative and liberal normally comes down to how the "rules of the game" are seen. Little-c conservatives are willing to cheat and change the rules of the game and do whatever necessary for their tribe to win. Little-l liberals are not willing to cheat, and see the 'rules' being fair as more important than whether their tribe rules supreme or not. There's lots of research supporting a notion that this sort of divide is very real in people, potentially even biological in origin (though I do not personally believe we are even capable of determining something like that yet), and active successful exploitation of the idea by advertisers, politicians, and others seeking to influence the public for one reason or another.
> If you ask someone who has studied political science, they will tell you that Liberal is the view that individual rights matter, and that supremacy of the group should be allowed to suffer if it infringes on the rights of individuals. Conservative is the view that the supremacy of the group is paramount.
I've got a degree in political science, and I would not agree that it captures the historical or current import of those terms well either in terms of overt ideology or underlying motivation. Both conservatives and liberals have (classically and currently) seen their views as vindicating the proper view of individual rights, advancing the best interest of the common society, and advancing the best interest of the individual; of course, liberals and conservatives have very different views of what individuals rights are and what the good of the individual and community consist in; the liberal view favors flatter, broader distribution of political and economic power, and detachment of power from inherited station; the conservative view favors a narrower concentration of power in those viewed as best equipped to apply it, and views inherited traits as often central to that qualification.
I've got a degree in political science, and I would not agree that it captures the historical or current import of those terms well either in terms of overt ideology or underlying motivation. Both conservatives and liberals have (classically and currently) seen their views as vindicating the proper view of individual rights, advancing the best interest of the common society, and advancing the best interest of the individual; of course, liberals and conservatives have very different views of what individuals rights are and what the good of the individual and community consist in; the liberal view favors flatter, broader distribution of political and economic power, and detachment of power from inherited station; the conservative view favors a narrower concentration of power in those viewed as best equipped to apply it, and views inherited traits as often central to that qualification.
When I use the term to describe myself I mean that I care most about economic issues and less about social issues. Regulating banks, fixing healthcare, worker's rights, stabilizing the working and middle class, limiting the negative affects of globalization, etc. This election made it very clear to me that establishment democrats have largely dropped those ideals (except for a few I still admire like Warren) in favor of pushing social change.
I have to admit that's not the contex I've seen it used elsewhere, where I'd mostly roughly translate it as libertarian.
The word "Liberal" and it's various derivations are all over the place generally though for weird historical reasons.
The word "Liberal" and it's various derivations are all over the place generally though for weird historical reasons.
Oh, I may be fudging the terminology. Want I want to say is a pre-Obama (maybe even pre-Clinton) Democrat.
You mean Classical Liberal to be FDR types? Usually I see it used by conservatives who don't mind gays or weed.
>You are putting quite a lot of meaning into my sentence that isn't there, projecting is never useful in a discussion.
Okay.
>I said that currently the progressive-left is sacrificing reason and that it will lead to a rise to the right.
No they're not. How is it that you think the 'progressive-left' is sacrificing reason?
Okay.
>I said that currently the progressive-left is sacrificing reason and that it will lead to a rise to the right.
No they're not. How is it that you think the 'progressive-left' is sacrificing reason?
By sharing black lists of employees with 'wrong' political opinions. This I consider a sacrifice of reason.
To broaden the discussion a bit, I think that generally there is a trend of the 'progressive-left' censoring things they don't agree on.
To broaden the discussion a bit, I think that generally there is a trend of the 'progressive-left' censoring things they don't agree on.
That was what I was going to point out. I understand peoples problems with colleges and what is painted as a rise of postmodernist thought in those arenas (which is really a fairly meaningless farce, many in college are still establishing their identity due to being prevented from doing so in adolescence by modern schooling and parenting styles, so they're doing the typical thing of seeing how far they can push ideas). Postmodernist thought has its place but is fundamentally flawed as a tool for addressing reality generally (to such a degree that if someone adopted it as a lifestyle honestly they would find themselves incapable of being certain whether they actually need to breathe or eat and they would swiftly die out).
But, reason supports freedom of speech and of ideas. It does not support censorship. It supports even the free expression of even the most odious ideas, so that they may be addressed rationally. The only exceptions to this are very few and involve our human weakness of certain speech in close physical quarters or when packed into physically close groups being able to rise above speech to reach the level of overriding the rational faculties of the listener. That's where things like not shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater lie. It results in a biological disabling of the forebrain when immediate physical mortal danger is at play. That can never, ever, ever happen when a statement is read. Not from a poster, paper, book, pamphlet, and certainly not from a screen.
There is an interesting argument to be made, though it is not really being made by any significant number that I've encountered, that the psychological manipulations of social media - the intentional things they do to optimize driving people to more extreme opinions and inundating people with false information in order to maximize engagement at the expense of absolutely anything else - might need to be treated differently, but even there the issue is not the speech. It's the manipulative analysis and other practices.
I don't even think the real primary motivation of most censorship of repugnant ideas online is motivated by a belief like "these ideas are wrong and we must not expose people to them, else they may adopt them". I think the mindset is more along the lines of "these ideas are wrong... I feel. But I cannot actually justify. And I fear if someone challenges me to dispute them, I will fail."
Reason also supports an absolute hard line distinction between the real and the fictional, a line which is increasingly ignored, though I chalk that up to factors that mostly go across political divisions. Both sides attribute the negative traits and consequences of real examples of things to images of those things without a second thought, conflating imagery and reality to a degree that it really makes me wonder if they could even explain what the difference is... or if they believe there is any difference.
But, reason supports freedom of speech and of ideas. It does not support censorship. It supports even the free expression of even the most odious ideas, so that they may be addressed rationally. The only exceptions to this are very few and involve our human weakness of certain speech in close physical quarters or when packed into physically close groups being able to rise above speech to reach the level of overriding the rational faculties of the listener. That's where things like not shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater lie. It results in a biological disabling of the forebrain when immediate physical mortal danger is at play. That can never, ever, ever happen when a statement is read. Not from a poster, paper, book, pamphlet, and certainly not from a screen.
There is an interesting argument to be made, though it is not really being made by any significant number that I've encountered, that the psychological manipulations of social media - the intentional things they do to optimize driving people to more extreme opinions and inundating people with false information in order to maximize engagement at the expense of absolutely anything else - might need to be treated differently, but even there the issue is not the speech. It's the manipulative analysis and other practices.
I don't even think the real primary motivation of most censorship of repugnant ideas online is motivated by a belief like "these ideas are wrong and we must not expose people to them, else they may adopt them". I think the mindset is more along the lines of "these ideas are wrong... I feel. But I cannot actually justify. And I fear if someone challenges me to dispute them, I will fail."
Reason also supports an absolute hard line distinction between the real and the fictional, a line which is increasingly ignored, though I chalk that up to factors that mostly go across political divisions. Both sides attribute the negative traits and consequences of real examples of things to images of those things without a second thought, conflating imagery and reality to a degree that it really makes me wonder if they could even explain what the difference is... or if they believe there is any difference.
> No they're not. How is it that you think the 'progressive-left' is sacrificing reason?
Where do you want to start?
- They actively contributed to an increased homicide rate and made neighborhoods more dangerous for minorities by pushing a false anti-police narrative, engaged in anti-police protests, sentiment, and actions. Their actions resulted in a pullback in policing in dangerous neighborhoods and massive spikes in crime rates. This is a view shared by many minorities, who wish for the police to return to their neighborhoods, so that they can feel safe. Source? How about the right-wing rag NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/31/574824963/baltimore-residents...
- They actively push pseudo-social science into fields where rigor, exactness, and soundness is most important, such as engineering, where errors can have catastrophic consequences:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.14...
- They viciously attack on ideological grounds any attempts at objective assessment when the statistics do not fit their narrative. Examples? There are hundreds, but how about professor David Gillhorn at the University of Birmingham, who says math serves "white interests" and:
“frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity.”
- They have, particularly on college campuses, collectively lost their minds. Please see the Evergreen State College incident, along with dozens of others.
- Most of their social science experiments are absolute junk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Do you want me to keep going?
Where do you want to start?
- They actively contributed to an increased homicide rate and made neighborhoods more dangerous for minorities by pushing a false anti-police narrative, engaged in anti-police protests, sentiment, and actions. Their actions resulted in a pullback in policing in dangerous neighborhoods and massive spikes in crime rates. This is a view shared by many minorities, who wish for the police to return to their neighborhoods, so that they can feel safe. Source? How about the right-wing rag NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/31/574824963/baltimore-residents...
- They actively push pseudo-social science into fields where rigor, exactness, and soundness is most important, such as engineering, where errors can have catastrophic consequences:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.14...
- They viciously attack on ideological grounds any attempts at objective assessment when the statistics do not fit their narrative. Examples? There are hundreds, but how about professor David Gillhorn at the University of Birmingham, who says math serves "white interests" and:
“frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity.”
- They have, particularly on college campuses, collectively lost their minds. Please see the Evergreen State College incident, along with dozens of others.
- Most of their social science experiments are absolute junk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Do you want me to keep going?
>Do you want me to keep going?
Yes, I'd really like to gather all this up and look into it.
Yes, I'd really like to gather all this up and look into it.
The "right" isn't any more or less "reasoned" than the left. You can make arguments either way.
Also, this idea that finance is a cult of old stodgy conservatives is hilarious and patently untrue. Finance folks are usually comprised of wealthy and well-educated people living in major urban areas, particularly NYC, inline with the demographics of coastal liberals. Most are some form of libertarian, and generally progressive on most social issues. Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs) is a registered Democrat, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan) is a democrat, James Gorman (CEO of Morgan Stanley) regulrarly gives money to democrats and contributed to Hillary Clinton (1), as does Michael Corbat, the CEO of Citigroup.
(1) https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/james-...
(2)https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/michae...
Also, this idea that finance is a cult of old stodgy conservatives is hilarious and patently untrue. Finance folks are usually comprised of wealthy and well-educated people living in major urban areas, particularly NYC, inline with the demographics of coastal liberals. Most are some form of libertarian, and generally progressive on most social issues. Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs) is a registered Democrat, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan) is a democrat, James Gorman (CEO of Morgan Stanley) regulrarly gives money to democrats and contributed to Hillary Clinton (1), as does Michael Corbat, the CEO of Citigroup.
(1) https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/james-...
(2)https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/michae...
[deleted]
> you don't think there are workplaces where it's a blackmark to be a progressive? Why don't you come over to some finance jobs?
Former Goldman banker here, I'm calling bullshit on this point. In mainstream Wall Street you can be super left-wing and do just fine with office politics.
Sure, "some finance jobs" are at small funds run by cranky old rightwing baby boomers who get their news from Drudge, but it's a real stretch to say that having strong leftwing views would be a meaningful impediment to a great career on the Street. I can think of many specific examples both at GS and elsewhere.
Former Goldman banker here, I'm calling bullshit on this point. In mainstream Wall Street you can be super left-wing and do just fine with office politics.
Sure, "some finance jobs" are at small funds run by cranky old rightwing baby boomers who get their news from Drudge, but it's a real stretch to say that having strong leftwing views would be a meaningful impediment to a great career on the Street. I can think of many specific examples both at GS and elsewhere.
I also work in Banks (in the UK) and would agree with this. I think people don't tend to wear their politics on their sleeve - i.e. most people wouldn't say in conversation who they are voting for - but you can tend to spot that some people trend more left wing than right.
The team I was working with during Brexit was very pro-remain, for instance, and that tends to be largely (but not exclusively) a position more popular on the left.
The team I was working with during Brexit was very pro-remain, for instance, and that tends to be largely (but not exclusively) a position more popular on the left.
No, it's just that the rise of Hitler was in part a reaction to the Communists that were throwing reason away in the name of "social progress" much as today's left is. An unreasonable reaction to an unreasonable action, both impossible to restrain with reason...
What kind of reason do you think has been sacrificed?
This is interesting to me as one of the underdiscussed parts of the Google-Damore memo is the part where he says "yes, the right-wing are stupid and irrational about climate change, which is obviously true, but the left-wing are also anti-science about this stuff". He supported this both-sides-are-the-same type argument (at least in an earlier version, I noticed the link seems to not be there in all of them) with a link to a piece by John Tierny, in which half the word count was dedicated to supporting climate change denial, and building a case that the left-wing was stupid for thinking it occured.
So even within the (broadly defined) right, you have disagreements on basic facts and reason.
This is interesting to me as one of the underdiscussed parts of the Google-Damore memo is the part where he says "yes, the right-wing are stupid and irrational about climate change, which is obviously true, but the left-wing are also anti-science about this stuff". He supported this both-sides-are-the-same type argument (at least in an earlier version, I noticed the link seems to not be there in all of them) with a link to a piece by John Tierny, in which half the word count was dedicated to supporting climate change denial, and building a case that the left-wing was stupid for thinking it occured.
So even within the (broadly defined) right, you have disagreements on basic facts and reason.
I _feel_ like that this is a pretty common practice in our industry.
At a previous employer, we had someone who was dyed in the wool Republican that was outspoken in his personal life about "the blue line" and "all lives matter". When it came to a discussion for a promotion for a senior engineering role for this individual, we had another manager who felt uncomfortable having an employee with the views this guy shared. Mind you, at work, he was pretty polite and you only got an insight into his life if you accepted his friend request or saw the bumpersticker on his car in the garage.
At a previous employer, we had someone who was dyed in the wool Republican that was outspoken in his personal life about "the blue line" and "all lives matter". When it came to a discussion for a promotion for a senior engineering role for this individual, we had another manager who felt uncomfortable having an employee with the views this guy shared. Mind you, at work, he was pretty polite and you only got an insight into his life if you accepted his friend request or saw the bumpersticker on his car in the garage.
A concrete example is Brendan Eich who was forced to resign in 2014 as Mozilla CEO over his personal contribution of $1,000 in 2008 in support of California's Proposition 8 (a now-overturned 2008 gay-marriage ban).
Ref:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozill...
Ref:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozill...
A stance which he shared with Obama at the time.
Obama was a public opponent of Prop 8; he did not share Eich’s stance on the effort to enshrine discrimination in the California Constitution.
This doesn't seem wrong... until I think of a person being passed over for a promotion for expressing to friends in private that Black Lives Matter.
"alleges a new lawsuit"
This is all speculation yet the title reads as fact. I'm not saying they didn't do it but let's get a title change to what is really happening here.
This is all speculation yet the title reads as fact. I'm not saying they didn't do it but let's get a title change to what is really happening here.
I agree with you that we shouldn't be citing accusations as facts. I do wish that rule was equally applied though, there have been a ton of Ellen Pao articles on HN that say she was the victim of discrimination when in fact she lost her lawsuit and the court found no evidence to support her claims.
I wish the same thing. There is a double standard where the shit can only role down the proverbial hill. As someone pointed out below, https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121, shows that lots of the evidence in the lawsuit is "It's perfectly fine if [the left-leaning] do it, but unacceptable if someone else does"
There are pictures. Screenshots of managers saying they keep black-lists.
The article is very specific about using the title with the conditional. I think it is problematic that the condtional is appended as an end clause in the headline rather than being upfront about it. Dropping the clause from the HN headline is even more problematic because it removes that conditional entirely.
As for the pictures, the only one in the article has nothing to do with black-lists of conservatives, it reads to me like keeping a list of ah*s. In this case, specifically those who make the propagation of a company value difficult. That screenshot doesn't say anything about political affiliation or beliefs. It is focused on actions. If you think any company doesn't have an implicit or even explicit list of 'capable but frustrating employees' you are in for a shock.
Being a conservative may well be a protected class in California, but being a jerk and interfering with the entirely legal strategic goals set by management isn't. The first is about the views you hold, and should be protected. The second is about the things you do at work, and shouldn't be protected.
As for the pictures, the only one in the article has nothing to do with black-lists of conservatives, it reads to me like keeping a list of ah*s. In this case, specifically those who make the propagation of a company value difficult. That screenshot doesn't say anything about political affiliation or beliefs. It is focused on actions. If you think any company doesn't have an implicit or even explicit list of 'capable but frustrating employees' you are in for a shock.
Being a conservative may well be a protected class in California, but being a jerk and interfering with the entirely legal strategic goals set by management isn't. The first is about the views you hold, and should be protected. The second is about the things you do at work, and shouldn't be protected.
While I agree with your general point about being careful with treating accusations as facts, this is how every major news outlet does headlines.
<h1>Famous person murders family member</h1>
<h4>court case alleges</h4>
<h1>Famous person murders family member</h1>
<h4>court case alleges</h4>
Came hear to comment or read this. Thanks.
The lawsuit contains screenshots and other evidence that serves as an effective prima facie case for workplace discrimination. It's not really correct to say it's "speculation", which kind of implies someone just made a bunch of stuff up or is guessing as to what behavior takes place inside Google. On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial.
That said, Google should have an opportunity to counter the claims if they have a defense and evidence to support it.
That said, Google should have an opportunity to counter the claims if they have a defense and evidence to support it.
> On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial.
Is that based on some experience in HR, employment lawsuits, or the law?
Is that based on some experience in HR, employment lawsuits, or the law?
Well, the law is that it's illegal to not hire someone based on their race. The lawsuit contains screenshots of people saying they don't want to hire people who are white.
So, if there's no rebuttal (e.g. Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say "this is a fake screenshot" or "it's taken out of context" or "the hiring practice is not illegal for this reason" or "this person has no say over what the hiring practice is" or whatever), those screenshots would be the only evidence at trial. Uncontested, they depict a company that doesn’t want to hire white people because they are white. Google has to provide evidence to the contrary in their response.
That's how any court proceeding works. All I'm saying about the lawsuit is that it's not on-its-face without merit. That doesn't mean Damore is right, it just means Google has to offer a defense since the plantiff has at least shown that there is a reason to believe the claims might be true and demonstrate illegal behavior on Google's part.
So, if there's no rebuttal (e.g. Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say "this is a fake screenshot" or "it's taken out of context" or "the hiring practice is not illegal for this reason" or "this person has no say over what the hiring practice is" or whatever), those screenshots would be the only evidence at trial. Uncontested, they depict a company that doesn’t want to hire white people because they are white. Google has to provide evidence to the contrary in their response.
That's how any court proceeding works. All I'm saying about the lawsuit is that it's not on-its-face without merit. That doesn't mean Damore is right, it just means Google has to offer a defense since the plantiff has at least shown that there is a reason to believe the claims might be true and demonstrate illegal behavior on Google's part.
> Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say ...
Google's lawyer tries the case in court, not on Twitter. The lack of debate doesn't signify anything.
Google's lawyer tries the case in court, not on Twitter. The lack of debate doesn't signify anything.
I didn't say there was a lack of debate, and never mentioned Twitter. I said, if they didn't respond in court, they would lose in court.
[deleted]
> Whether expressing anti-diversity sentiments at a workplace is a protected “conservative viewpoint” or, rather, a form of bigotry that actually creates a hostile environment is at the heart of the case
Expressing anti-diversity sentiments does create a hostile environment. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.
Expressing anti-diversity sentiments does create a hostile environment. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.
I think the problem is that "diversity" has come to mean "bash white males", so being speaking out against that seems natural.
EDIT: instead of replying to each of you who say this doesn't happen, please look at my link of the evidence being submitted in this case to see that it does happen (or someone is faking a ton of evidence): https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121
EDIT: instead of replying to each of you who say this doesn't happen, please look at my link of the evidence being submitted in this case to see that it does happen (or someone is faking a ton of evidence): https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121
If we're going to discuss it, I'd say let's all stick to facts we can cite and eliminate the charged or hyperbolic language (e.g., "bash").
> "diversity" has come to mean "bash white males"
I've heard many partisans against diversity say that, but it has not been something I've observed myself.
IMHO and IME, it's the reverse: Criticism of white men is limited because it will alienate and provoke too many powerful people (white men having an large bmajority of power). Racism and sexism are very widespread and overwhelming, but many white guys are somehow not very aware of it. Look at what's been happening with women right under everyone's noses for all this time, and the #metoo movement is just bringing it to light; women are just now criticizing these men. There should have been more criticism for many years.
> "diversity" has come to mean "bash white males"
I've heard many partisans against diversity say that, but it has not been something I've observed myself.
IMHO and IME, it's the reverse: Criticism of white men is limited because it will alienate and provoke too many powerful people (white men having an large bmajority of power). Racism and sexism are very widespread and overwhelming, but many white guys are somehow not very aware of it. Look at what's been happening with women right under everyone's noses for all this time, and the #metoo movement is just bringing it to light; women are just now criticizing these men. There should have been more criticism for many years.
>I've heard many partisans against diversity say that, but it has not been something I've observed myself.
Did you look into the lawsuit? There are screenshots of people, who appear to be very pro-diversity, saying exactly this.
Did you look into the lawsuit? There are screenshots of people, who appear to be very pro-diversity, saying exactly this.
A screenshot from one discussion at one large company and presented by someone suing the company, even if it shows what you say, isn't evidence of widespread behavior.
no it hasn't, that's just a convenient narrative pushed by a group of people who are trying avoid the bad press from using their real slogans that say things like 'diversity is white genocide'
There is a very big difference between expressing anti-diversity sentiments and expressing anti-diversity-for-the-sake-of-diversity sentiments. I do believe most people tend to the latter and not the former.
> I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.
If I was you, I'd make it my priority to find out why ohers think different to myself. I really think it would be the best thing to do for anyone, for any subject or persons.
The not even amateur psychologist in me suspects that deep down we do know why but that it scares us. At any rate, a good inquiry into oneself would prove enlightening.
If I was you, I'd make it my priority to find out why ohers think different to myself. I really think it would be the best thing to do for anyone, for any subject or persons.
The not even amateur psychologist in me suspects that deep down we do know why but that it scares us. At any rate, a good inquiry into oneself would prove enlightening.
IANAL but this sounds very similar to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969).
There's also a difference between discriminating against people for their political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) and choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees -- which appears to have been the intention of the managers in question.
No, no there isn't. And if holding conservative views makes the workplace "hostile", a ridiculously vague and subjective state of affairs, it's not because of the conservatives.
If you read the article the mangers don't talk about conservative views but 'anti-diversity' views, which make more sense how they can make an environment more "hostile".
"Anti-Diversity" is a dog-whistle for a slew of brain-dead progressive groupthink, in the same way that "globalist" is, essentially, an anti-semitic slur.
If you believe that your company should hire the best and most qualified people for the job, you probably hold "anti-diversity" views.
If you do not believe me, below are some examples of "rascist" and "sexist" statements, per the University of Minnesota:
http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf
Examples:
“I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
“America is a melting pot.”
“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
“Where were you born?”
“You speak good English.”
If you believe that your company should hire the best and most qualified people for the job, you probably hold "anti-diversity" views.
If you do not believe me, below are some examples of "rascist" and "sexist" statements, per the University of Minnesota:
http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf
Examples:
“I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
“America is a melting pot.”
“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
“Where were you born?”
“You speak good English.”
I was expecting some horrible pdf akin to some crazy 'liberals' on twitter but that pdf actually does a decent job explaining why these can be upsetting in some situations (it's not like the writer thinks that asking where someone is born is bad in literally all situations). You might personally disagree but the message section of the table talks about how these sayings can be interpreted
The fact that you've normalized this is telling.
I don't choose what other people find upsetting and if being a little more cognizant of what is on this chart helps me not inadvertently upset people I don't understand how that is an issue. I think the chart is supposed to help us see some of these statements from other people's perspectives.
Well, there are two ways you could be "anti-diversity":
1) You (for instance) don't support affirmative action 2) You are a dick to other genders/races in your team
(2) does not always follow (1). Only (2) should be a matter for disciplinary action.
1) You (for instance) don't support affirmative action 2) You are a dick to other genders/races in your team
(2) does not always follow (1). Only (2) should be a matter for disciplinary action.
I think you are looking at it in too strict a sense and there is a lot of room between 1 and 2. His speculation on why there are less women in tech ended up really coming across as insulting to many of his colleagues as well as portraying his company in a bad light overall (whether that is a reasonable reaction or not is another discussion). It's not in Google's best interest to keep employing him unless he handled it really well after the fact but he seems to have mostly just doubled down.
It is when a conservative view-du-jour is "Your coworkers are no longer allowed to work here because they come from the wrong countries," as per the peacetime travel ban supported by the current executive administration.
> choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees -- which appears to have been the intention of the managers in question
The complaint alleges multiple instances of Google managers declaring that they would exert significant effort to avoid adding white heterosexual men to their teams, and subsequently threatening retaliation against anyone who questioned this effort. The alleged behavior goes far, far beyond avoiding people who have contributed to a hostile workplace -- unless one defines all straight white men as inherently hostile to the workplace.
The complaint alleges multiple instances of Google managers declaring that they would exert significant effort to avoid adding white heterosexual men to their teams, and subsequently threatening retaliation against anyone who questioned this effort. The alleged behavior goes far, far beyond avoiding people who have contributed to a hostile workplace -- unless one defines all straight white men as inherently hostile to the workplace.
The entire keeping and sharing internal blacklists, threatening to put people on them, could make a hostile workplace. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know where the line is, but it seems possible.
Yes, that's a good point. Even if the intentions were defensible, they seem to have overstepped with their methods.
> political views (which isn't a protected class anyway)
Where's the line? Is being pro-life a political or a religious beliefs?
Where's the line? Is being pro-life a political or a religious beliefs?
This is why you don't mention your political or religious beliefs in the workplace. That said, other commenters are saying political affiliation is protected in california.
I don't think it's that simple -- there's a real risk that your opinions are outed. Perhaps even nefariously ala Drupal.
The obvious follow on question is how much daylight exists between "expressing incompatible political views" and "making the workplace hostile."
Team Edward will argue that there are people for whom their political mindset finds disagreement with certain political precepts to be tautologically hostile, no matter how they are expressed.
Team Jacob will point to the news for an instance of egregious public political expression and say that it's obviously the category of hostility they're defending against.
Around and around we go again...
Team Edward will argue that there are people for whom their political mindset finds disagreement with certain political precepts to be tautologically hostile, no matter how they are expressed.
Team Jacob will point to the news for an instance of egregious public political expression and say that it's obviously the category of hostility they're defending against.
Around and around we go again...
>choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees
But are you adding other people making other statements which make the workplace hostile to other individuals? Also, what happens if the misrepresentation of something causes the hostility while the original message does not? Often it life, it isn't what you say, but how you say it or who says it.
But are you adding other people making other statements which make the workplace hostile to other individuals? Also, what happens if the misrepresentation of something causes the hostility while the original message does not? Often it life, it isn't what you say, but how you say it or who says it.
> political views (which isn't a protected class anyway)
It is in some states in USA
It is in some states in USA
Most significantly, it is partially protected in California.
Which states?
California, at least, where the alleged incidents took place.
I encourage anyone interested in the situation to read the filed suit. The first 20 or so pages are specifically about Damore and it is a very approachable and an interesting read. It also specifies the alleged violated laws / section.
I encourage anyone interested in the situation to read the filed suit. The first 20 or so pages are specifically about Damore and it is a very approachable and an interesting read. It also specifies the alleged violated laws / section.
“We look forward to defending against Mr. Damore’s lawsuit"
Is not the typical PR answer when you got sued, you spect something like:
"Here at Google we are against any kind of discrimination and we deny the alleged acusations, those do not represent our values"
That is a typical PR answer, but instead they are practicality saying "yes we do all that terrible stuff, so bring it on".
Is not the typical PR answer when you got sued, you spect something like:
"Here at Google we are against any kind of discrimination and we deny the alleged acusations, those do not represent our values"
That is a typical PR answer, but instead they are practicality saying "yes we do all that terrible stuff, so bring it on".
It seems to me that it would make much more sense that they are looking forward to the case because they think they have a strong case that they DIDN'T do any of that stuff. It seems strange that they would look forward to a case where they were actually culpable.
Kent Walker isn't your typical corporate lawyer. Kent Walker really does look forward to crushing his opponent in court. After Kent crushes this fool, he will probably host a company-wide Q&A where he will gloat over the bodies of his vanquished enemies.
I keep hearing about all kinds of lists lately. Some seem to think these are good idea.
> IS IT FINALLY TIME TO TAKE THE 'SHITTY MEDIA MEN' LIST SERIOUSLY?
http://www.newsweek.com/it-finally-time-take-shitty-media-me...
Feels a bit soviet union-esq to me. But the left seems to be rallying behind ideas like these, lets see how this turns out.
> IS IT FINALLY TIME TO TAKE THE 'SHITTY MEDIA MEN' LIST SERIOUSLY?
http://www.newsweek.com/it-finally-time-take-shitty-media-me...
Feels a bit soviet union-esq to me. But the left seems to be rallying behind ideas like these, lets see how this turns out.
> The lawsuit cites another post from another hiring manager that said, “If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit… I’m perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my [d*ckhead] box… Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly).”
It's definitely illegal to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. I'm thinking the discovery process is going to find a lot of legitimate issues, if the the lawyer bringing the suit has already found stuff like this. Maybe the lawyer was using this blacklist stuff as a way to get more information and find bigger problems.
It's definitely illegal to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. I'm thinking the discovery process is going to find a lot of legitimate issues, if the the lawyer bringing the suit has already found stuff like this. Maybe the lawyer was using this blacklist stuff as a way to get more information and find bigger problems.
An opinion about religion is not a religious belief. Saying "I don't believe Muhammad was a prophet" is a religious belief, but saying "Islam breeds terrorism" is not.
Does anyone else see the irony in a political ideology that is against anti-discrimination provisions in law being suddenly running to the legal system when they feel discriminated against?
Well, I have two thoughts about that.
1. Is Damore against "anti-discrimination provisions in law"? I haven't seen anything to suggest he is. He is against specific anti-discrimination policies at Google, certainly, but his objection to them seemed to be on the basis that they wouldn't be effective and would have other negative effects, not that anti-discrimination is undesirable.
2. If we assume Damore is a "classical liberal" (I think he called himself that in the memo), then he could have an entirely non-ironic desire to see the law enforced that is separate from whether or not he thinks any specific law is wise. This may seem silly (and I personally think it is in cases where a law is obviously stupid and unenforceable), but it's not on-its-face ridiculous, unless there's a quote somewhere that shows he really has contempt for the particular laws he's claiming protection from.
I'd bet right now you're not going to find such a quote, since it seems like he's been planning this lawsuit for months before he got fired, just based on what screenshots were in the lawsuit.
1. Is Damore against "anti-discrimination provisions in law"? I haven't seen anything to suggest he is. He is against specific anti-discrimination policies at Google, certainly, but his objection to them seemed to be on the basis that they wouldn't be effective and would have other negative effects, not that anti-discrimination is undesirable.
2. If we assume Damore is a "classical liberal" (I think he called himself that in the memo), then he could have an entirely non-ironic desire to see the law enforced that is separate from whether or not he thinks any specific law is wise. This may seem silly (and I personally think it is in cases where a law is obviously stupid and unenforceable), but it's not on-its-face ridiculous, unless there's a quote somewhere that shows he really has contempt for the particular laws he's claiming protection from.
I'd bet right now you're not going to find such a quote, since it seems like he's been planning this lawsuit for months before he got fired, just based on what screenshots were in the lawsuit.
Is 'conservative' even a protected class? It seems like the kind of thing conservatives would argue against to be honest
Can a progressive company refuse to hire non-progressive people based on cultural unsuitability? Religious organisations seem to think it's ok
Can a progressive company refuse to hire non-progressive people based on cultural unsuitability? Religious organisations seem to think it's ok
Political affiliation is a protected class in California. Race and gender are both protected classes at a federal level. As I understand it, his class action lawsuit is on all three fronts.
I was under the impression that "Conservatives" were not a protected class, but then I found this as I was looking for a citation to back it up:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...
This includes "Political affiliations or activities", and other sources seem to back that up.
Google might be in trouble here.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...
This includes "Political affiliations or activities", and other sources seem to back that up.
Google might be in trouble here.
In California, employment discrimination based on "political activities or affiliation" is prohibited.
Why is this flagged? WTF?
The HN book burn.
The title posted left out a portion of the actual articles title that is relevant.
Yeah because actually clicking through is super difficult.
If even half of that is true, then I'm really grateful that this lawsuit is bringing these actions to light, this is unacceptable.
EDIT: Really unfortunate that this article got flagged. It's important and we should be able to discuss it.