Google done' goofed - fires employee for "opinions"

[theeedude]

Google is hiring way too fast, they don't take the time to screen the alt-right riff raff out.

 

[Moonbeam]

If that were the case then most wouldn't last as long as they have. If you look at it as an evolutionary ecosytem these are the survivors.

If you look at any period of the dinosaur reign on the planet you will notice that all of the successful ones are dead. What is the selective gradient for corporations? It's quarterly stock reports. That is a ticket to the destruction of the environment that makes corporations possible. They are specializing for extinction because the time is coming when very few will be able to buy anything.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well said. Before responding, I have to ask. How does it feel to have @agent00flail tether his flaccid intellectual noodle to your response after not so long ago dismissing you as a degenerate sympathizer?

As for your point, let's instead look at it from the perspective of the average white male. Google has the luxury of attracting from the very best talent pool. If you are a female Stanford grad with an offer from Google, you are in an incredible position of privilege relative to 90% of the population. The only reason diversity is even part of this conversation is for political reasons. This whole discussion seems like a bunch of flailing over solving 1st world problems for which the urgency to do so is driven by optics rather than ethics.

Ethics can become a matter of optics for a corporation that wants to hire ethical people. Two very big ethical concerns, ones shared about equally between liberals and conservatives alike are justice and equality. Even monkeys will not play games if the rewards are unjustly distributed, so it takes very very very little of brain power to feel when you're getting the shaft. People who are advantaged are less sensitive to inequality than others because they don't experience it. But put up something like gender inclusion and suddenly those who have enjoyed the privileges historically and traditionally suddenly begin to squeal. They start experiencing how unjust it is for the privileged to have a whole new set of competitors. Justice was fine as long as they were a shoe in.

The problem with all moral feelings is the belief, say with justice and fairness, that one's own definition of them is the real thing.

 

[agent00f]

If you look at any period of the dinosaur reign on the planet you will notice that all of the successful ones are dead. What is the selective gradient for corporations? It's quarterly stock reports. That is a ticket to the destruction of the environment that makes corporations possible. They are specializing for extinction because the time is coming when very few will be able to buy anything.

What selects for successful public corps is successively good quarterly stock reports.

 

[Moonbeam]

What selects for successful public corps is successively good quarterly stock reports.

Right, an evolutionary dead end, like all the prehumen lines that selected for big grinding teeth.

 

[agent00f]

Right, an evolutionary dead end, like all the prehumen lines that selected for big grinding teeth.

It's somehow fallen on me of all of people to explain how capitalism works to people who can't manage even that. Somehow I don't think it's your goal to highlight species which were around for a lot longer than humans will be all likelihood.

 

[mcmilljb]

Maybe if Google wanted to reach out to more minorities and/or other groups, they would open more offices outside Silicon Valley. The area is super expensive, and the premiere schools in the area that they hire from already have low minority populations. This just doesn't seem like a very good recipe for Google to attract diverse populations. If you can make half as much money in another area of the country but your dollar goes almost twice as far, then why would you want to go to Silicon Valley for work? I have to imagine that plays into why some people opt out of Silicon Valley companies. Open up to areas with higher diversity, and you might get a little bit in return.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's somehow fallen on me of all of people to explain how capitalism works to people who can't manage even that. Somehow I don't think it's your goal to highlight species which were around for a lot longer than humans will be all likelihood.

I don't know how well you understand capitalism, but your understanding of evolution is weak. Humanity has the potential to determine its evolution and the societies and ideologies we create and adapt to can truly stink.

 

[bshole]

It's somehow fallen on me of all of people to explain how capitalism works to people who can't manage even that. Somehow I don't think it's your goal to highlight species which were around for a lot longer than humans will be all likelihood.

How capitalism works in America.... a few ultra wealthy pricks purchase politicians on both sides of aisle to ensure that all economic/trade policy passed benefits them to the detriment of everybody else.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe if Google wanted to reach out to more minorities and/or other groups, they would open more offices outside Silicon Valley. The area is super expensive, and the premiere schools in the area that they hire from already have low minority populations. This just doesn't seem like a very good recipe for Google to attract diverse populations. If you can make half as much money in another area of the country but your dollar goes almost twice as far, then why would you want to go to Silicon Valley for work? I have to imagine that plays into why some people opt out of Silicon Valley companies. Open up to areas with higher diversity, and you might get a little bit in return.

Because Google is trying to compete for the best software engineering talent and the talent is there.

 

[pmv]

This is evidently true, and also for other reasons besides what is under discussion. I was surprised when I read this just now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Feminism



Obviously this is not all feminists, just some. But I have to say, I'm rather tired of people who advocate for the rights of certain traditionally disadvantaged groups not supporting other groups facing similar disadvantage. Like all the black people in California who voted against allowing gay marriage. It's hypocritical.

I've found repeatedly that there's a marked generation-gap among feminists over this topic. It seems to parallel the earlier generation gap over attitudes to lesbianism. Though 'political lesbians' (aka radfems) seem to be the most hostile to the trans cause. Because, as you said, there's a rather awkward contradiction between ideologies there.

But I disagree with you about the lack of solidarity between groups. With respect, it seems naive to expect otherwise. It struck me even as a child that humans just don't work like that. After all, if every disadvantaged group naturally sympathised with every other, all forms of injustice and oppression would have disappeared long ago.

And, on the contrary, when you don't expect it, its all the more cheering on those occasions where it does happen.

E.g. the Sans-Culottes of Paris rioting in support of the Haitian slave revolt, or (in the same situation) the Polish troops sent by Napoleon to put down the revolt instead deciding to join their fellow subjugated people (apparently there are still black people with Polish surnames in Haiti today). Or the UK gay community rallying in support of the miners' strike - and the miners sending delegations to gay pride marches in return. But I don't see that that sort of thing is the rule.

Plus I think it's actually potentially a bit dodgy to use those sorts of arguments ('you of all people should want equal rights for this other group') with people of a disadvantaged group. I don't think it often goes well.

 

[Jaskalas]

I want people hired based on merit.
But the best way to accomplish that is to not know the gender of the applicant. This would make it truly random...
But truly random can be a bad thing, if suddenly their team was 100% men or 100% women. So we cannot leave it to chance...
But then that would mean merit after... quota, to eliminate chance from harming diversity.

The crux of the topic really wants to !@# in my cornflakes by telling me the moral route is impossible, and that maybe google has chosen the best path possible given the circumstances.

 

[Atreus21]

Should any employee of Google who agreed with the memo also be fired?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Ethics can become a matter of optics for a corporation that wants to hire ethical people. Two very big ethical concerns, ones shared about equally between liberals and conservatives alike are justice and equality. Even monkeys will not play games if the rewards are unjustly distributed, so it takes very very very little of brain power to feel when you're getting the shaft. People who are advantaged are less sensitive to inequality than others because they don't experience it. But put up something like gender inclusion and suddenly those who have enjoyed the privileges historically and traditionally suddenly begin to squeal. They start experiencing how unjust it is for the privileged to have a whole new set of competitors. Justice was fine as long as they were a shoe in.

The problem with all moral feelings is the belief, say with justice and fairness, that one's own definition of them is the real thing.

Privilege, ethics, justice and fairness are all relative to where you enter the conversation. Diversity raises awareness to those varied entry points. Given some of the emails and message board posts now leaking out of Google, it seems some managers and employees on the blue pill end of the spectrum are engaging in some stereotype perpetuating of their own. I wonder if they too will face termination.

 

[UglyCasanova]

David Brooks from the NYT's take on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region


Interesting topic.

 

[pmv]

Should any employee of Google who agreed with the memo also be fired?

Only if they post a long, pompous, and incredibly-geeky document explaining their agreement at tedious length on a company network, I'd say.

(Though in fact I still tend to think the guy should have been given a formal warning/reprimand for a first offence, rather than immediately fired, just out of some kind of natural justice - but then the US has never been hugely keen on employee rights, so I doubt this is the worst such case)

 

[Atreus21]

Only if they post a long, pompous, and incredibly-geeky document explaining their agreement at tedious length on a company network, I'd say.

That's not why the guy was fired.

 

[interchange]

This is evidently true, and also for other reasons besides what is under discussion. I was surprised when I read this just now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Feminism



Obviously this is not all feminists, just some. But I have to say, I'm rather tired of people who advocate for the rights of certain traditionally disadvantaged groups not supporting other groups facing similar disadvantage. Like all the black people in California who voted against allowing gay marriage. It's hypocritical.

This just in: people are hypocrites. Well, perhaps the newsworthy thing is that it is both normal and healthy to be hypocritical. It just depends on how much and how flexible you are to adapt to new information. So, although many people see themselves as having objective egalitarian moral principles, the truth is people's behavior follows along with what is advantageous to them or by proxy an other or group of others that they identify with. And any explanation of behavior that disagrees with this self interest is likely to be a rationalization. Now, we are not all overt narcissists, so some are much better at acting objectively in concert with their moral compass than others. But, honestly, even if simply through availability bias, we all pretty well suck at it.

Funny about the narcissism though. People always point to the person at the top. And while the person at the top is much more likely to be narcissistic than in general, the most narcissism is in those who associate themselves closest with the person at the top. Either they are less capable of getting there or hindered in trying by their own fears if inadequacy. It's a great compromise. You can fluff up the power of the individual you associate with and draw your own strength from being associated with them. And if you're really feeling shitty about yourself, you can rip them to shreds and tell them precisely how you ought to be in their place.

Should any employee of Google who agreed with the memo also be fired?

I don't think Google should have fired the guy in the first place, but I support their ability to do so. So as a moral judgment, my personal answer here is no. But would I support their right to? Depends. Was the employer who agreed with the guy engaging in actions (e.g. message board posts) that undermine your chosen corporate culture? If so, sure. Otherwise, hell no. But again that is largely moral. I'm conflicted but in favor of only very careful exclusions to the legal right to fire anyone at any time for any reason. This does not leave employees powerless. They can seek an employment contract which protects them beyond legal minimums, and they can organize into a labor union if that's not enough.

 

[interchange]

Ethics can become a matter of optics for a corporation that wants to hire ethical people. Two very big ethical concerns, ones shared about equally between liberals and conservatives alike are justice and equality. Even monkeys will not play games if the rewards are unjustly distributed, so it takes very very very little of brain power to feel when you're getting the shaft. People who are advantaged are less sensitive to inequality than others because they don't experience it. But put up something like gender inclusion and suddenly those who have enjoyed the privileges historically and traditionally suddenly begin to squeal. They start experiencing how unjust it is for the privileged to have a whole new set of competitors. Justice was fine as long as they were a shoe in.

The problem with all moral feelings is the belief, say with justice and fairness, that one's own definition of them is the real thing.

I find that many people even with specific training don't understand the most fundamental thing about ethics. People are often searching for an objectively right answer. If one existed, they wouldn't be searching!

Instead, there are a host of ethical principles and an ethical question rests on deciding how best to balance the fact that there is no answer which satisfies all of them.

In medicine, the AMA defines the pillars as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and (social) justice.

For example, people often spout the Hippocratic oath's "first, do no harm". Well, myself and every other physician has violated that. Sometimes it's because a patient wants to try something we don't recommend but think it's reasonable enough to do and balance autonomy ahead of non-maleficence. Sometimes it's because without a surgery someone is reasonably likely not to survive, they won't have meaningful function in life and it seems better to try. Or to do a chemotherapy that you know will hurt someone but hope it saves their life. Or even to give Jim an emergent cardiac catheterization instead of Bob an urgent one because you've only got one cath lab and Jim needs it more (despite not being able to pay).

Sometimes common scenarios posing ethical conflicts are weighed by society strongly and consistently enough that you can make laws or professional guidelines about how you should handle them. And I would say always, but many professional codes also say that if even breaking the law is deemed important enough for the patient's interest, it is ethical to do so.

But even in very straightforward cases, decisions involving ethics require compromise.

 

[Rebel_L]

Of course they should try to understand the reason for the distress, but this does not necessitate treating it as a separate diagnostic category. I assume when you treat something like "major depression" you try to understand what is causing it. If it is caused by occupational stress, you wouldn't call it "occupational dysphoria," but you might suggest ways to better manage job stress. I think PTSD may warrant a classification because the pattern of distress is distinguishable, i.e. it involves things like experiencing flashbacks which is not necessarily common to distress from other causes.

The thing is, the distress of TG or gays is probably because of social alienation. In that sense, it isn't any different than being bullied/ostracized because you're black, or ugly, or Jewish, or fat. People who are ridiculed and ostracized are going to experience emotional distress. I guess I just don't understand why one reason for this social alienation warrants a separate diagnosis but not others. It wouldn't be so bothersome if it wasn't so obvious that the one still has its own diagnostic label is the one where social acceptance is lagging behind the others. Gays still experience distress from social alienation but because society as a whole has leaned toward tolerance, this distress is now just generic depression. The conclusion that TG remains a "disorder" because of lagging social acceptance is pretty inescapable.

Does TG not have another stress factor other than social alienation? At least pre-op I would suspect the internal conflict between mental identity and physical form would also be a huge stress component. For homosexuality the social pressure seems to me to be towards pushing mind and body into conflict, whereas for TG it seems to be the exact opposite. Diagnosis I thought is required before someone will perform the surgery so in that case that stress factor would always be present at time of diagnosis.

 

[Starbuck1975]

David Brooks from the NYT's take on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region


Interesting topic.

Great article. There is another great article now on Harvard Business Review that took Google's leadership to task.

 

[OutHouse]

Maybe if Google wanted to reach out to more minorities and/or other groups, they would open more offices outside Silicon Valley. The area is super expensive, and the premiere schools in the area that they hire from already have low minority populations. This just doesn't seem like a very good recipe for Google to attract diverse populations. If you can make half as much money in another area of the country but your dollar goes almost twice as far, then why would you want to go to Silicon Valley for work? I have to imagine that plays into why some people opt out of Silicon Valley companies. Open up to areas with higher diversity, and you might get a little bit in return.

Googles new campus in Boulder. i drive by it nearly everyday and its almost done.

 

[agent00f]

I don't know how well you understand capitalism, but your understanding of evolution is weak. Humanity has the potential to determine its evolution and the societies and ideologies we create and adapt to can truly stink.

You should've learned from degens by now to leave understanding science to people who know something about it.

How capitalism works in America.... a few ultra wealthy pricks purchase politicians on both sides of aisle to ensure that all economic/trade policy passed benefits them to the detriment of everybody else.

OMG shocker, people act in their self interests. Somebody publish a paper.

 

[agent00f]

Privilege, ethics, justice and fairness are all relative to where you enter the conversation. Diversity raises awareness to those varied entry points. Given some of the emails and message board posts now leaking out of Google, it seems some managers and employees on the blue pill end of the spectrum are engaging in some stereotype perpetuating of their own. I wonder if they too will face termination.

Should any employee of Google who agreed with the memo also be fired?

Degen olympics of playing dumb.

 

[pmv]

This just in: people are hypocrites. Well, perhaps the newsworthy thing is that it is both normal and healthy to be hypocritical. It just depends on how much and how flexible you are to adapt to new information. So, although many people see themselves as having objective egalitarian moral principles, the truth is people's behavior follows along with what is advantageous to them or by proxy an other or group of others that they identify with.

Surely the critical point there is 'that they identify with'. That's not a fixed objective thing. Depending on the situation it can change. At certain moments groups can find they _do_ identify with others (as with the aformentioned gay community raising funds to support the striking miners, or the Parisian poor intervening in support of a slave revolt). It can also change back again, of course.

And with that critical priviso, I'm inclined to think politics is more honest when it's about self-interest, rather than supposed abstract moral principles. I would never vote for a conservative because conservatives don't share my self-interests (which aren't purely individual but embedded in a social identity), not because I think they are evil according to an abstract moral code.