Google done' goofed - fires employee for "opinions"

[woolfe9998]

I don't find the argument that steps taken to mitigate known discrimination are themselves discrimination compelling. I'm sure there are ways to make STEM jobs more appealing to women without discriminating against men, but plenty of the things he labeled as 'discrimination' he likely considers so because of his lack of knowledge of the underlying evidence.

We're probably arguing semantics here to a point. I'm adhering to a more neutral definition of the word "discrimination" as opposed to a definition which specifies it as something inherently unjust. Discrimination could be an appropriate way of addressing existing inequities in a system. But if those inequities can be addressed without discrimination, then that would be the more desirable approach. Right or wrong, this was the author's point.

I strongly support the right of people to argue unpopular ideas, but I'm also quite confident if I emailed out a similarly poorly reasoned thing to everyone at my work and it led to this much negative PR that I would be fired, regardless of the topic. I share your concern about some illiberal tendencies in liberalism today (although I think concerns are overblown) but this guy richly deserved to be fired for his actions.

Google's decision was a pragmatic one, as you say, based on "negative PR." The larger question being whether the negative PR was justified. Maybe the guy was foolish for expressing those opinions in this political environment and should have expected to be fired. But that isn't the the larger issue here. The larger issue here is the political environment itself. I don't agree that my expressed concern is overblown. The very idea that gender is anything other than 100% socially constructed has become a heresy on the left, as has many other opinions. People are being publicly shamed and losing their careers for stating things which really aren't offensive. And worse yet, it's causing a viscerally negative reaction on the right, resulting in such odious things as the election of Donald Trump. The idea that political correctness has gotten too extreme and is becoming authoritarian is one of the few opinions coming from the right these days which isn't entirely unmoored from reality. The sooner reasonable liberals begin to recognize this, the better.

 

[agent00f]

We're probably arguing semantics here to a point. I'm adhering to a more neutral definition of the word "discrimination" as opposed to a definition which specifies it as something inherently unjust. Discrimination could be an appropriate way of addressing existing inequities in a system. But if those inequities can be addressed without discrimination, then that would be the more desirable approach. Right or wrong, this was the author's point.



Google's decision was a pragmatic one, as you say, based on "negative PR." The larger question being whether the negative PR was justified. Maybe the guy was foolish for expressing those opinions in this political environment and should have expected to be fired. But that isn't the the larger issue here. The larger issue here is the political environment itself. I don't agree that my expressed concern is overblown. The very idea that gender is anything other than 100% socially constructed has become a heresy on the left, as has many other opinions. People are being publicly shamed and losing their careers for stating things which really aren't offensive. And worse yet, it's causing a viscerally negative reaction on the right, resulting in such odious things as the election of Donald Trump. The idea that political correctness has gotten to0 extreme and is becoming authoritarian is one of the few opinions coming from the right these days which isn't entirely unmoored from reality. The sooner reasonable liberals begin to recognize this, the better.

Degenerate worthy job of playing too dumb to understand where this notion women might be discriminated against comes from.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Speaking of missing, it would help your case to understand the sole point made.

Also take a moment or while to figure why the guy arguing blacks r dum women are neurotic starts off by reciting conservatives are the Real victims.

And it would help your case to not attempt to walk into a thread swinging a wifflebat at everyone you don't agree with.

His principle argument (unfounded or no) was that discriminatory hiring practices are bad, inclusion is good, and that there might be biological reasons as to why specifically women overall have a lower participation rate in STEM than men.

 

[bshole]

It seems your underlying assumption is that any biological differences between the sexes mean that women must be less capable then men at working for Google. Has it occurred to you that there could be biological differences and that a ration with more women then men would make Google more profitable?

There are tons of jobs that women just don't seem that interested in:

1. Logging/forestry (99.8% MEN!!!!!!)
2. Automotive repair
3. Masons, concrete finishers
4. Roofers
5. Heavy equipment operators
6. Home appliance repair
7. Commercial fishing
8. Plumbing/electrician

And jobs that men don't apparently want:
1. Dental hygienists (98.6% WOMEN!!!!)

I don't think it is the job of men like you and me to tell women what jobs they should interested in anymore than it is theirs to tell us what jobs we should be interested in.

Check out the attached link. There are occupations that 95+% men and occupations that are 95+% women.

http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog...nal-jobs-for-men-and-women-the-gender-divide/

 

[J.Wilkins]

We're probably arguing semantics here to a point. I'm adhering to a more neutral definition of the word "discrimination" as opposed to a definition which specifies it as something inherently unjust. Discrimination could be an appropriate way of addressing existing inequities in a system. But if those inequities can be addressed without discrimination, then that would be the more desirable approach. Right or wrong, this was the author's point.

You mean like Google is doing with training programs to get women into IT and more specifically into Google?

That is what this is all about, people think that is discrimination.

A liberal cannot, per definition be an authoritarian and you're talking about the extreme left and their support is in the margins as it always has been. This is a remedy for a problem a private corporation acknowledged and they are fixing it through incentives and education, I really don't see what is wrong with that.

 

[J.Wilkins]

There are tons of jobs that women just don't seem that interested in:

1. Logging/forestry (99.8% MEN!!!!!!)
2. Automotive repair
3. Masons, concrete finishers
4. Roofers
5. Heavy equipment operators
6. Home appliance repair
7. Commercial fishing
8. Plumbing/electrician

And jobs that men don't apparently want:
1. Dental hygienists (98.6% WOMEN!!!!)

I don't think it is the job of men like you and me to tell women what jobs they should interested in anymore than it is theirs to tell us what jobs we should be interested in.

Check out the attached link. There are occupations that 95+% men and occupations that are 95+% women.

http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog...nal-jobs-for-men-and-women-the-gender-divide/

And the highest paying positions... women just don't like money... cuz biology.

 

[agent00f]

And it would help your case to not attempt to walk into a thread swinging a wifflebat at everyone you don't agree with.

His principle argument (unfounded or no) was that discriminatory hiring practices are bad, inclusion is good, and that there might be biological reasons as to why specifically women overall have a lower participation rate in STEM than men.

Sure, just as the GOP is so very concerned about terrorism, vote rigging and so on.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

A liberal cannot, per definition be an authoritarian

Just as @woolfe9998 is using a different definition of 'discrimination', you're also using a different definition of 'liberal'. There are most definitely authoritarian self-described liberals in the United States, at minimum.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Sure, just as the GOP is so very concerned about terrorism, vote rigging and so on.

You're kinda going off the rails here. Why are you talking about GOP, terrorism, and vote rigging, in a thread about Google's hiring practices, an ex-Google engineer, and female participation in STEM?

There's plenty of threads to grind that axe.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Just as @woolfe9998 is using a different definition of 'discrimination', you're also using a different definition of 'liberal'. There are most definitely authoritarian self-described liberals in the United States, at minimum.

Discrimination is discrimination and he's not using any different definition, he's just inclusive in his definition. The foundation of liberalism is individual rights and authoritarianism it's exact opposite.

You can't use the opposite of something as a definition for it.

 

[agent00f]

There are tons of jobs that women just don't seem that interested in:

1. Logging/forestry (99.8% MEN!!!!!!)
2. Automotive repair
3. Masons, concrete finishers
4. Roofers
5. Heavy equipment operators
6. Home appliance repair
7. Commercial fishing
8. Plumbing/electrician

And jobs that men don't apparently want:
1. Dental hygienists (98.6% WOMEN!!!!)

I don't think it is the job of men like you and me to tell women what jobs they should interested in anymore than it is theirs to tell us what jobs we should be interested in.

Check out the attached link. There are occupations that 95+% men and occupations that are 95+% women.

http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog...nal-jobs-for-men-and-women-the-gender-divide/

As mentioned above the main reason why this is contentious is because programming pays well for what it is.

You're kinda going off the rails here. Why are you talking about GOP, terrorism, and vote rigging, in a thread about Google's hiring practices, an ex-Google engineer, and female participation in STEM?

There's plenty of threads to grind that axe.

It would be in your interest to appear smarter than the average bear here. If an illustrative point isn't evident, trying thinking some more instead of copying the lowest common denominator.

 

[woolfe9998]

You mean like Google is doing with training programs to get women into IT and more specifically into Google?

That is what this is all about, people think that is discrimination.

A liberal cannot, per definition be an authoritarian and you're talking about the extreme left and their support is in the margins as it always has been. This is a remedy for a problem a private corporation acknowledged and they are fixing it through incentives and education, I really don't see what is wrong with that.

I don't think the author is objecting to training programs for women. I think he's objecting to discrimination in hiring practices.

I do agree with your point that a liberal cannot be authoritarian by definition. I think the far left, which has become quite authoritarian, isn't really liberal. They may be on the left, but it doesn't make them liberal. And while I don't agree with the right's tendency to overplay the most extreme positions on the left, casting them as the mainstream, I do think this problem is more than a tiny fringe. It emanates mainly from academia, and it has become influential particularly among millennials. In one poll, 40% of millennials said they value civility over free speech. It's less an issue with older leftists. Because it's an emerging trend in the younger generation, it needs to be addressed before it becomes the dominant position on the left. It hasn't yet, but it's trending that way. It's consistent with radicalization on the right. We're doing the same thing, but we're behind them on this trend, and I'd like to see it curbed before it's out of hand.

 

[sdifox]

Every time you scratch a liberal a fascist bleeds.

Did you know you named yourself after a maosoleum of a Muslim emperor's favourite wife?

 

[bshole]

And the highest paying positions... women just don't like money... cuz biology.

and.... you didn't follow the link.... IT HAS THE SALARIES. Go back again and read it again. The dental hygienist is the highest salaried position and it is almost exclusively female. It pays more than double that for logging workers which is almost exclusively male.

 

[fskimospy]

We're probably arguing semantics here to a point. I'm adhering to a more neutral definition of the word "discrimination" as opposed to a definition which specifies it as something inherently unjust. Discrimination could be an appropriate way of addressing existing inequities in a system. But if those inequities can be addressed without discrimination, then that would be the more desirable approach. Right or wrong, this was the author's point.

I don't think he was arguing that it would be more desirable, I think he was arguing that Google's attempts to rectify these problems were actively harmful and I don't think he provided effective evidence for this.

Google's decision was a pragmatic one, as you say, based on "negative PR." The larger question being whether the negative PR was justified. Maybe the guy was foolish for expressing those opinions in this political environment and should have expected to be fired. But that isn't the the larger issue here. The larger issue here is the political environment itself. I don't agree that my expressed concern is overblown. The very idea that gender is anything other than 100% socially constructed has become a heresy on the left, as has many other opinions. People are being publicly shamed and losing their careers for stating things which really aren't offensive. And worse yet, it's causing a viscerally negative reaction on the right, resulting in such odious things as the election of Donald Trump. The idea that political correctness has gotten too extreme and is becoming authoritarian is one of the few opinions coming from the right these days which isn't entirely unmoored from reality. The sooner reasonable liberals begin to recognize this, the better.

I have to say I hang around a lot of very liberal people and I haven't experienced this sort of view on gender. There's definitely a view on the left that a lot of what people think of as immutable gender are in fact social constructs (something that in my opinion is correct). This could be taken too far in some cases but people I know are accepting of some innate biological differences between the sexes.

Regardless, I share your concerns with creeping authoritarianism on the left and a liberalism that imposes cultural and social restraints in the same way as the right does, just on different topics.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'd like to point out that the Gizmodo article linked by the OP does worse than just over-simplify the memo author's views. It flat out lies about them:

In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women.

The author clearly states, more than once, that women do face bias and discrimination in the work place. He doesn't say it is all biology and no discrimination. He says it's some of both. This is a willfully inaccurate description of his views.

 

[agent00f]

and.... you didn't follow the link.... IT HAS THE SALARIES. Go back again and read it again. The dental hygienist is the highest salaried position and it is almost exclusively female. It pays more than double that for logging workers which is almost exclusively male.

Males in dentistry become the dentists.

 

[J.Wilkins]

and.... you didn't follow the link.... IT HAS THE SALARIES. Go back again and read it again. The dental hygienist is the highest salaried position and it is almost exclusively female. It pays more than double that for logging workers which is almost exclusively male.

I'm referring to a conversation I had with Starbuck1985. Sorry for not being more clear.

In reality, nearly all the highest paying jobs are male only because who wants some anxious woman who suffers from depression and suicidal attempts damn near daily (as women do, as argued in this very thread).

You are aware that damn near all higher positions in most companies are held by men? You do realize that Google wanting to change that isn't such an incredible threat to you gamergaters that you have to be scared shitless about it?

 

[agent00f]

I'd like to point out that the Gizmodo article linked by the OP does worse than just over-simplify the memo author's views. It flat out lies about them:

The author clearly states, more than once, that women do face bias and discrimination in the work place. He doesn't say it is all biology and no discrimination. He says it's some of both. This is a willfully inaccurate description of his views.

Not saying blacks aren't discriminated against but they're pretty lazy and criminal. Checkmate libtards.

 

[bshole]

As mentioned above the main reason why this is contentious is because programming pays well for what it is.

And it should! Software engineers bring MILLIONS of dollars of value to the company. A great software engineer is worth 100 mediocre ones. As a software engineer for the past 30 years, I have run across three female software engineers in my entire career. I worked with one at my first job. She was really damn good.

If there is anything that bothers me about software engineering, it is that there are no women coworkers. Other software engineers have expressed the same opinion to me.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I'd like to point out that the Gizmodo article linked by the OP does worse than just over-simplify the memo author's views. It flat out lies about them:



The author clearly states, more than once, that women do face bias and discrimination in the work place. He doesn't say it is all biology and no discrimination. He says it's some of both. This is a willfully inaccurate description of his views.

This is like the affirmative action discussions all over again.

 

[agent00f]

And it should! Software engineers bring MILLIONS of dollars of value to the company. A great software engineer is worth 100 mediocre ones. As a software engineer for the past 30 years, I have run across three female software engineers in my entire career. I worked with one at my first job. She was really damn good.

If there is anything that bothers me about software engineering, it is that there are no women coworkers. Other software engineers have expressed the same opinion to me.

It's like asking why brown people don't apply for trump admin internships when there are so many white knights for guys like this.

Pretty easy to see why women have had a hard time over the millennia, against what can only be presumed to be some male brain genetics.

 

[J.Wilkins]

And it should! Software engineers bring MILLIONS of dollars of value to the company. A great software engineer is worth 100 mediocre ones. As a software engineer for the past 30 years, I have run across three female software engineers in my entire career. I worked with one at my first job. She was really damn good.

If there is anything that bothers me about software engineering, it is that there are no women coworkers. Other software engineers have expressed the same opinion to me.

Well, let google do their thing and that may be resolved.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't think he was arguing that it would be more desirable, I think he was arguing that Google's attempts to rectify these problems were actively harmful and I don't think he provided effective evidence for this.



I have to say I hang around a lot of very liberal people and I haven't experienced this sort of view on gender. There's definitely a view on the left that a lot of what people think of as immutable gender are in fact social constructs (something that in my opinion is correct). This could be taken too far in some cases but people I know are accepting of some innate biological differences between the sexes.

Regardless, I share your concerns with creeping authoritarianism on the left and a liberalism that imposes cultural and social restraints in the same way as the right does, just on different topics.

My experiences in talking with fellow liberals, of which SF bay area is loaded, aren't dissimilar to yours. In private these liberals are not so PC. Yet what they say in private isn't necessarily what they would always say in public. The problem on the left is that a vocal minority has created an authoritarian environment, and the majority of liberals understand that they are not immune to its social sanction. The trouble is that this highly vocal minority, along with the reluctance of the majority of liberals to publicly confront it, lends superficial credence to the incorrect idea coming from the right that this position is mainstream on the left.

 

[agent00f]

My experiences in talking with fellow liberals, of which SF bay area is loaded, aren't dissimilar to yours. In private these liberals are not so PC. Yet what they say in private isn't necessarily what they would always say in public. The problem on the left is that a vocal minority has created an authoritarian environment, and the majority of liberals understand that they are not immune to its social sanction. The trouble is that this highly vocal minority, along with the reluctance of the majority of liberals to publicly confront it, lends superficial credence to the incorrect idea coming from the right that this position is mainstream on the left.

lol, always the Real victims