Google Fires Engineer Who Wrote Memo Questioning Women in Tech

Maschine_Man

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
14,526
Reputation
-5,525
Daps
16,076
I agree with what ur saying but where does it end? Do u agree with whats happening to Kapernick? By ur logic its perfectly reasonable he is being fukked over.
this is one of those situations where there is no clear winner.

I actually agree with kap's stance and what and why he is doing it. But at the same time I can also accept that the NFL is a private business, and they are free to do what they want if they feel their bottom line is being affected.

He made his choice, but those choices come with consequences. It sucks but it's the way it is.

Free speech is the ONLY way to go. But that doesn't mean that free speech means free of consequences.

The NFL is a petty, authoritarian run league. It's also a privilege to play in the NFL.
 

MalikX

Superstar
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
7,554
Reputation
1,910
Daps
39,318
Reppin
Worldwide Entertainment
I agree with what ur saying but where does it end? Do u agree with whats happening to Kapernick? By ur logic its perfectly reasonable he is being fukked over.

Well that IS the argument cacs are using for why Kaep shouldn't get another job. So yea, it's poetic justice to see white fakkits like this get fired too :yeshrug: As with anything, if you speak out publicly you gotta be prepared for the fallout.
 

Cabbage Patch

The Media scene in V is for Vendetta is the clue
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
14,329
Reputation
1,335
Daps
25,831
Reppin
The Last Frontier

NoGutsNoGLory

Superstar
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
6,610
Reputation
515
Daps
27,414
Well that IS the argument cacs are using for why Kaep shouldn't get another job. So yea, it's poetic justice to see white fakkits like this get fired too :yeshrug: As with anything, if you speak out publicly you gotta be prepared for the fallout.
Oh i agree about firing the google cac fakkit but its just not fair that the consequence means someone trying to do the right thing like kaep gets to be unemployed.
 

Maschine_Man

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
14,526
Reputation
-5,525
Daps
16,076
- The initial post linked back to the original article in a blink and you'll miss it hyperlink.

- @Aviso 's link was google.com, and clicking on it on mobile gives a starting download message. fukk that.

:yeshrug:

Who else posted it?
it's a PDF, so it's going to want to download. or it should open up in a browser.
 

BIXBY

Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
456
Reputation
-410
Daps
1,236
Here's the memo if anyone wants to read it...

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf


Bottom line: his opinion isn't necessarily wrong; the "gender pay gap" as been refuted and debunked over and over (women work less hrs on average and don't take dangerous jobs like oil rigging, steel mill, coal mining, Alaskan Crabing boats etc that are male dominated due to the harsh life threatening environs... they tend to take more time off for children on average... all factors contribute to reduced take-home pay... not that they're actually paid less for the same work). On the other hand, women graduate college at a higher rate and the younger generations of women are equal or more represented in the workplace over male counterparts... which is great for equality.

Then again, I can see how this could easily get spun against POC tho and that allowing this type of thinking to happen only opens up more nefarious possibilities... but going the route of controlling thought by force may not be the right solution here? They just going to go underground and act like they're being oppressed... and it will just rally more people to that side...(see Trumpset as an example)

But if Kaep is going to take an L for not towing the company line, then this dude should expect the same... google ain't the government. It's a private organization that gives you the privilege to work with them as they see fit. Private companies have policies.. follow them or take an L... period!
 

Breh13

Smh.
Supporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
13,132
Reputation
3,501
Daps
67,434
08GOOGLE-master768.jpg

Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, said a memo written by an engineer had promoted “harmful gender stereotypes.”

In an email titled “Our Words Matter,” Mr. Pichai said that he supported the right of employees to express themselves but that the memo had gone too far.

“The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender,” Mr. Pichai wrote. “Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being ‘agreeable’ rather than ‘assertive,’ showing a ‘lower stress tolerance,’ or being ‘neurotic.’”

James Damore, the software engineer who wrote the original memo, confirmed in an email to The New York Times that he had been fired. Mr. Damore had worked at Google since 2013. He said in his memo that he had written it in the hope of having an “honest discussion” about how the company had an intolerance for ideologies that do not fit into what he believed were its left-leaning biases

150216163064126-1-e1502161381780.jpeg


Mr. Damore, who worked on infrastructure for Google’s search product, said he believed that the company’s actions were illegal and that he would “likely be pursuing legal action.”

“I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does,” Mr. Damore said.

Mr. Pichai’s memo was reported earlier by Recode, and Bloomberg confirmed Mr. Damore’s dismissal.

Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He added that it was “illegal to retaliate” against an N.L.R.B. charge.

Mr. Pichai said he would be cutting short a family vacation to return to Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., to deal with the matter. He said the company intended to hold an all-hands meeting to discuss the issue on Thursday.


Looks like Google didn't want to deal with him so they fired him. :lolbron: I do think Google knew what they were doing when they fired him so good luck with that lawsuit.
Dude thinks Google didn't go through their lawyers before firing him? :mjgrin:

It's illegal!:mjcry:
 

Aviso

Pro
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
382
Reputation
300
Daps
1,158
Reppin
NULL
:what:

Wut?

This is akin to someone starting a racist diatribe by saying "I'm not a racist...BUT".

You're missing the point of why he mentioned that. And you failed to address the second part of my post that provides the context. He's not arguing against diversity. Rather, he is arguing that when companies adopt either an extreme left or conservative stance toward diversity it actually alienates those individuals that the policy initially intended to help. For example, he stated that most women and minorities are isolated and given separate diversity classes. The end result is tension because on one side you have those that feel slighted because they're not included. On the other hand you have those that feel their jobs are on the line because of diversity. Simply put, he is arguing that we should treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
 

Aviso

Pro
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
382
Reputation
300
Daps
1,158
Reppin
NULL
Exactly... Only cacs think that starting a statement with "Im not racist but.." or a derivation thereof actually fukking WORKS.. Them motherfukkers are stupid. Got me looking at Aviso a little sideways...
Okay so we as black people want to be treated as individuals and not a monolithic group but if someone like myself expresses a difference of opinion I'm not down with the cause all of a sudden? That's a myopic view of dealing with life. I call a spade a spade. If I truly believed the guy was injecting a racial approach to his argument I would point that out. This guy was basically arguing against corporate ignorance relative to diversity. Read the memo and you'll see what I mean.
 

BIXBY

Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
456
Reputation
-410
Daps
1,236
You're missing the point of why he mentioned that. And you failed to address the second part of my post that provides the context. He's not arguing against diversity. Rather, he is arguing that when companies adopt either an extreme left or conservative stance toward diversity it actually alienates those individuals that the policy initially intended to help. For example, he stated that most women and minorities are isolated and given separate diversity classes. The end result is tension because on one side you have those that feel slighted because they're not included. On the other hand you have those that feel their jobs are on the line because of diversity. Simply put, he is arguing that we should treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

Your logic is not complete. You're saying social programs for the disadvantaged make the non-disadvantaged side feel "slighted"... but the whole reason for the social programs in the first place is that the disadvantaged groups are monetarily and socially slighted in the first place. Social actions are only correcting for that initial inequality.

It's akin to saying "providing medicine to sick people will leave healthy people left out.."

Not that I think women are necessarily systematically slighted... I actually thought the CAC made some good points about the myths of "gender gap"... but this could so easily be turned into an anti-affirmative action sententiment and people who actually need these social measures will suffer...
 

AJaRuleStan

All Star
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
2,466
Reputation
-2,575
Daps
5,473
Reppin
Killa Queens
Your logic is not complete. You're saying social programs for the disadvantaged make the non-disadvantaged side feel "slighted"... but the whole reason for the social programs in the first place is that the disadvantaged groups are monetarily and socially slighted in the first place. Social actions are only correcting for that initial inequality.

It's akin to saying "providing medicine to sick people will leave healthy people left out.."

Not that I think women are necessarily systematically slighted... I actually thought the CAC made some good points about the myths of "gender gap"... but this could so easily be turned into an anti-affirmative action sententiment and people who actually need these social measures will suffer...

I wouldn't characterize their motivation behind their stance as simply feeling "slighted", that seems like a strawman to me. Matter of fact, I think the reasons for why quota programs would be desired is completely irrelevant to their entire position. Its the factual question of what actually happens as a result of affirmative action or quota policies that's being disputed. And from that perspective, the argument that is commonly given is that group quotas as it functions currently are attempting to correct something they just don't have the power to correct which result in unintended consequences like showing no real statistical change in the outcomes it desires to alter, or simply increasing the amount of individuals on the job who can't complete the requested task, which result in making life dreadful for the individual and their co-workers who depend on them to complete said task.
 

YouMadd?

Chakra Daddy
Bushed
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
24,192
Reputation
1,590
Daps
69,855
Reppin
California
I see why they fired him. However, you made him a matyr to the conservatives right wingers who think the world is out to get the almighty white man.

I know multiple people who work for google. Google is probably the least stressful place to work from what I can see(Facebook is easily number 1). Just go to work type your code, solve your problem, save the company money, and collect your check for god sake!
 

Maschine_Man

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
14,526
Reputation
-5,525
Daps
16,076
Here's the memo if anyone wants to read it...

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf


Bottom line: his opinion isn't necessarily wrong; the "gender pay gap" as been refuted and debunked over and over (women work less hrs on average and don't take dangerous jobs like oil rigging, steel mill, coal mining, Alaskan Crabing boats etc that are male dominated due to the harsh life threatening environs... they tend to take more time off for children on average... all factors contribute to reduced take-home pay... not that they're actually paid less for the same work). On the other hand, women graduate college at a higher rate and the younger generations of women are equal or more represented in the workplace over male counterparts... which is great for equality.

Then again, I can see how this could easily get spun against POC tho and that allowing this type of thinking to happen only opens up more nefarious possibilities... but going the route of controlling thought by force may not be the right solution here? They just going to go underground and act like they're being oppressed... and it will just rally more people to that side...(see Trumpset as an example)

But if Kaep is going to take an L for not towing the company line, then this dude should expect the same... google ain't the government. It's a private organization that gives you the privilege to work with them as they see fit. Private companies have policies.. follow them or take an L... period!
Only difference is Google Fired this dude, the NFL is just not hiring Kap.
 
Top