18 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 54.3 ms ] thread
It' frightening to learn how many hateful, vindictive people have settled into positions of power at one of the most powerful companies in the world.
These two statements struck me:

> At a “Diversity Team Kickoff” event, a director announced plans “to freeze headcount so that teams could find diversity candidates to help fill the empty roles,”

> Next time you get invited to speak at a conference, especially if you’re a white male – ask the organizer to confirm you’re the only white male on the panel / in the speaker lineup. If not, say you are honored, but must decline, and give the reason. And because you are at Google, guess what – they’re going to change the panel for you.

Sounds like a really good tutorial on leveraging your privilege to marginalize someone
Seems to be the definition of racism/sexism.
Maybe an unpopular view on HN but I have no problem with Google letting Damore go.

Work is to do work and in the US you often times do not even know who the person one cube over voted for.

Damore shared his views on Reddit without using Google name is fine but at work and multiple times even after told to stop is going to be a problem, imo.

> multiple times even after told to stop

What does this refer to? Damore shared his views, as well as his arguments, in an internal group devoted to such issues, and there was no issue until it was leaked, and people made a fuss about it. Also see "course of events" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...

>Maybe an unpopular view on HN but I have no problem with Google letting Damore go.

But federal labor law likely does have a problem with his dismissal.

If Google treated all poiltical discourse within it's walls like it did Damore, there probably wouldn't be an issue. The whole problem is with favoring one type of speech/thought in a militant fashion that violates federal law.

And regardless of the law, it's UNETHICAL to discriminate in the name of diversity. In 2018, companies are expected to do the right thing. This article paints a very damaging picture of Google discriminating against white males (Disclaimer: I'm NOT a white male)

> In 2018, companies are expected to do the right thing.

What? They're only expected to make money.

> it's UNETHICAL to discriminate in the name of diversity.

I think Amazon disagrees with you. They include this in their job postings:

>Amazon is an Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer – Minority / Female / Disability / Veteran / Gender Identity / Sexual Orientation.

I don't think you can be both equal opportunity and affirmative action at the same time.

You've completely misunderstood & mis-represented my viewpoint. Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action IS the law of the land, and that's the same law that forbids setting artificial quotas for ANY group that discriminates against others. For instance, some Google execs called for a 25% minority quota - THAT is discrimination against other groups, especially if the overall statistics in the talent pool/job market make it impossible for the said quota to be fulfilled in a manner compliant with "Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action"

For instance, you might want to setup a workforce of coders with a 50-50 Men-Women breakdown. But since STEM graduation rates indicate a Men:Women ratio of 85:15, it is unlikely, if not impossible to construct a 50:50 workforce without willfully discriminating against men. If you now force the entire industry to adopt the 50:50 rule with a 85:15 talent pool to choose from, you're both discriminating AND defying logic/math!!

In summary - no corporation can possibly disagree with me for I'm calling for the law to be followed as intended.

> Work is to do work and in the US you often times do not even know who the person one cube over voted for.

Then why do they have diversity training seminars and ask for feedback on the information received? He gave them feedback with his memo. Then he posted it to an internal board. They asked for feedback, wanted a conversation and he provided. Someone else released it to the public.

> but at work and multiple times even after told to stop

He was told to stop multiple times? Where is this from?

Surprisingly, you're offtopic here - and your votes reflect it. It doesn't seem like you read the article.
The comments on that article remind me why I should never read comments on online articles.
Oh no, another interesting news concerning google getting immediately flagged. Googlers, please don't be evil, at least provide your motives.
The motive seems pretty clear - cover up, accuse, and be a hypocrite.
>Oh no, another interesting news concerning google getting immediately flagged. Googlers, please don't be evil, at least provide your motives.

It may not be Googlers flagging this. Any issues where leftists are consistently losing the argument tend to get flagged and buried on HN.

Damore's lawsuit is a huge story in the tech industry, yet, for some reason, stories about it always get flagged on HN.