“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

TheDoc · 09-08-2017 12:23PM

Grayson wrote: »

Read that article. It's dumb. take this bit.

It's not arbitrary. It's not unfounded. She heard them talking. She's not denying that they have no right to an opinion, she's saying that the opinion is wrong. I seriously want to bitch slap anyone who says that someone's entitled to an opinion. Of course they fcuking are. However, it doesn't put that opinion above criticism. She didn't name them. She didn't dox them. She just said she overheard people saying this.

And then the idiot used the phrase trigger warning.

The author is a moron. I'm not a fan of Dunham, I find her irritating in the extreme but the author is being an idiot.

Yah I love that "everyone entitled to opinion", and everyone is entitled to be called a ****ing moron.

You know who also had an opinion, Hitler, and he wasn't found of a few types of people.

The sad reality is that everyone is not entitled to an opinion. I'm an authority on some things over others, as are other people to me. There are things where people have expertise and where people have genuine authority or understanding. So yes everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they also need to accept to be torn asunder if that opinion is incorrect, ridiculous or can be challenged.

"I'm entitled to my opinion" is typically what follows an absolutely outrageous comment or statement that flies in the face of accepted thinking or behaviour, or has so many holes in the logic you wouldn't know where to start.

Bob24 · 09-08-2017 12:30PM

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm saying that this reach from people to explain why this sort of action is unacceptable, is somewhat pointless since the people defending this action clearly are either not in employment, or have worked in a professional environment.

To explain why this document/memo is inappropriate due to it creating a hostile work environment for colleagues along with isolating the employee in question from being able to effectively work with peers, well I just shouldn't need to explain it to properly functioning adults...

Again this is pure PR talk designed to deliver a pre-concieved message and refuse to discuss its justifications with anyone. You keep qualifying the document in certain ways but you never ever quoted the actual facts which justify these qualifiers.

All you're saying is that those who don't draw the same conclusions as yours are not "properly functioning adults" but you have to date refused to articulate how you reached those conclusions when asked by other posters to do so.

Grayson · 09-08-2017 12:33PM

TheDoc wrote: »

Yah I love that "everyone entitled to opinion", and everyone is entitled to be called a ****ing moron.

You know who also had an opinion, Hitler, and he wasn't found of a few types of people.

The sad reality is that everyone is not entitled to an opinion. I'm an authority on some things over others, as are other people to me. There are things where people have expertise and where people have genuine authority or understanding. So yes everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they also need to accept to be torn asunder if that opinion is incorrect, ridiculous or can be challenged.

"I'm entitled to my opinion" is typically what follows an absolutely outrageous comment or statement that flies in the face of accepted thinking or behaviour, or has so many holes in the logic you wouldn't know where to start.

I think you misunderstood. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. We can't and shouldn't ban people from having an opinion. We can however call it out and especially laugh at how stupid it is.
As far as I'm concerned actions are what matter. The guy in google is fully entitled to think the idiotic things he thought. However the second he opens his mouth and says them (or writes them) then they are fair game. And google can fire him if his actions make for an uncomfortable workplace.

TheDoc · 09-08-2017 12:40PM

Bob24 wrote: »

Again this is pure PR talk designed to deliver a pre-concieved message and refuse to discuss its justifications with anyone. You keep qualifying the document in certain ways but you never ever quoted the actual facts which justify these qualifiers.

All you're saying is that those who don't draw the same conclusions as yours are not "properly functioning adults" but you have to date refused to articulate how reached those conclusions when asked by other posters to do so.

I'm not entertaining the timesink of going through his memo line by line to break down for you how the actual memo itself is ridiculous, but also how the action itself is outragous.

Better placed and more intelligent people then me have already done it. You can find numerous links in this thread along with the multiple commentary which has taken place in general media etc since the memo leaked.

And I actually have taken some quotes from the memo to explain some points, like how the employee clearly doesn't understand his role, by trying to portray engineering and coding should be more collaborative to "help" woman, as a "biological trait" of theirs is working better with other or having that preference. As if that is not already a thing that happens in coding or engineering, never mind places of work.

I'm also not into this "entertaining" stupidity or purposeful obtuseness. Like I said, maybe it's so abundantly obvious to the likes of me, and people I've spoken to in depth about it, because we work in professional environments or have worked in diverse companies or organisations.

silverharp · 09-08-2017 12:40PM

he is interviewed here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro

Bob24 · 09-08-2017 12:46PM

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm not entertaining the timesink of going through his memo line by line to break down for you how the actual memo itself is ridiculous, but also how the action itself is outragous.

Better placed and more intelligent people then me have already done it. You can find numerous links in this thread along with the multiple commentary which has taken place in general media etc since the memo leaked.

And I actually have taken some quotes from the memo to explain some points, like how the employee clearly doesn't understand his role, by trying to portray engineering and coding should be more collaborative to "help" woman, as a "biological trait" of theirs is working better with other or having that preference. As if that is not already a thing that happens in coding or engineering, never mind places of work.

I'm also not into this "entertaining" stupidity or purposeful obtuseness. Like I said, maybe it's so abundantly obvious to the likes of me, and people I've spoken to in depth about it, because we work in professional environments or have worked in diverse companies or organisations.

Remember my original post you quated: I was saying people don't even agree on what is message is (i.e. is he actually advocating against diversity as many headlines has said).

To which you replied it is clearly inappropriate so not discussion is to be had.

If you go through your subsequent answers you still never ever quoted in context sections of the actual document to explain why his message is unquestionably clear and not appropriate. So yeah I guess we're going around circles.

jackofalltrades · 09-08-2017 12:47PM

Grayson wrote: »

It's not arbitrary. It's not unfounded. She heard them talking. She's not denying that they have no right to an opinion, she's saying that the opinion is wrong. I seriously want to bitch slap anyone who says that someone's entitled to an opinion. Of course they fcuking are. However, it doesn't put that opinion above criticism. She didn't name them. She didn't dox them. She just said she overheard people saying this.

And then the idiot used the phrase trigger warning.

The author is a moron. I'm not a fan of Dunham, I find her irritating in the extreme but the author is being an idiot.

First off it was a private conversation, she should mind her own business.
Secondly she reported this to the airline, giving them the location where she heard the conversation.
That's could be enough for them to identify the employees and land them in trouble.
She also published these details online, so there was always going to be the possibility of this turning into a witch hunt.
She's using her influence to silence opinions she doesn't agree with and put pressure on others to do the same.

TheDoc wrote: »

You know who also had an opinion, Hitler....

Did you really need to bring Hitler into the discussion?

TheDoc · 09-08-2017 01:00PM

Bob24 wrote: »

Remember my original post you quated: I was saying people don't even agree on what is message is (i.e. is he actually advocating against diversity as many headlines has said).

To which you replied it is clearly inappropriate so not discussion is to be had.

If you go through your subsequent answers you still never ever quoted in context sections of the actual document to explain why his message is unquestionably clear and not appropriate. So yeah I guess we're going around circles.

Yup. Posted some quotes and indications that he made in pages gone back, and outlining why its inappropriate.

TheDoc · 09-08-2017 01:01PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

First off it was a private conversation, she should mind her own business.
Secondly she reported this to the airline, giving them the location where she heard the conversation.
That's could be enough for them to identify the employees and land them in trouble.
She also published these details online, so there was always going to be the possibility of this turning into a witch hunt.
She's using her influence to silence opinions she doesn't agree with and put pressure on others to do the same.
Did you really need to bring Hitler into the discussion?

It's the perfect example for the "I've my opinion so respect it" type of argument

09-08-2017 01:37PM

TheDoc wrote: »

No one would be fired for wearing a repeal hoodie. Granted in my place of work if someone came in wearing it I would pull them into the office, probably give them a dressing down and leave it at that.

Wow - if you did that I can guarantee you would be all over Twitter within hours, you would have a lot of people demanding you be fired, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were.

I'm in tech, Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform, the idea that someone would get a 'dressing down' for wearing one is absurd.

Bob24 · 09-08-2017 01:48PM

The guy might have actually played it well: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html?action=click&contentCollection=technology&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0&referer=https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/8/9/16117616/google-engineer-diversity-memo-files-complaint-damore

It seems he did file a complaint to US authorities *before* being fired saying his management had been misrepresenting his opinion and trying to silence him when he expressed concerns about his work environment.

Whether or not his complaint is valid, he can now present his dismissal as a retaliation for exercising is legal right to seek assistance from labour relations authorities, which could be a problem for google at least in the short term.

Pichai is cutting his vacation short to return to the office because of what's been going on - so Google is clearly seeing the events of the past few days as a possible threat.

TheDoc · 09-08-2017 01:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow - if you did that I can guarantee you would be all over Twitter within hours, you would have a lot of people demanding you be fired, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were.

I'm in tech, Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform, the idea that someone would get a 'dressing down' for wearing one is absurd.

Yeah there might well be the twitter brigade out looking for my firing, but I wouldn't care to be honest, as I'd be following company policy and what is called creating a comfortable environment for staff.

Considering the behaviours that go along with the repeal campaign(both sides tbh), I would, as my company would, have to cater for the environment and well being of someone who is not comfortable with the idea of abortion or who is pro-choice, anti repeal or whatever.

Again this sounds like people not familiar with working an an office environment, trying to comment on how an office environment works?

There is a reason that most companies dress policy strictly outlines and prohibits the wearing of offensive, politically motivated or insensitive slogans or clothing. And someone coming in a repeal shirt, or a pro-Israel or pro-palestine jumper, or pro gay or anti gay tshirt, is going to cause problems.

There is no, and shouldn't be any preferential treatment provided, as it breads the exact type of situation that this employee in Google seems to have gotten himself into, whereby he felt vexed by the liberal and left musing of the company. "Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform" what a load of nonsense. This is the sort of brash activism and behaviour that makes it difficult for many to even broach certain topics, with both sides or certain sides being so immature or hostile.

It is a place of work, not a place of protest. And in a place of work, all employees need to be in, and are entitled to having an environment that isn't pressuring on topics or influences totally unrelated to the working environment.

I'd be interested to know what tech you are in, or company you work for, that would be totally fine with employees wearing political slogans in the work place.

TheDoc · 09-08-2017 02:00PM

Well what opinion are you looking for? Plenty have debunked it in the thread, plenty of links have been posted.

What sort of credentials are you after? You can Google "Why the Google memo is factually incorrect" or "Why the Google memo is wrong" and you will have plenty to go by.

Or you can bing search it if you prefer.

conorhal · 09-08-2017 02:08PM

TheDoc wrote: »

Yeah there might well be the twitter brigade out looking for my firing, but I wouldn't care to be honest, as I'd be following company policy and what is called creating a comfortable environment for staff.

Considering the behaviours that go along with the repeal campaign(both sides tbh), I would, as my company would, have to cater for the environment and well being of someone who is not comfortable with the idea of abortion or who is pro-choice, anti repeal or whatever.

Again this sounds like people not familiar with working an an office environment, trying to comment on how an office environment works?

There is a reason that most companies dress policy strictly outlines and prohibits the wearing of offensive, politically motivated or insensitive slogans or clothing. And someone coming in a repeal shirt, or a pro-Israel or pro-palestine jumper, or pro gay or anti gay tshirt, is going to cause problems.

There is no, and shouldn't be any preferential treatment provided, as it breads the exact type of situation that this employee in Google seems to have gotten himself into, whereby he felt vexed by the liberal and left musing of the company. "Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform" what a load of nonsense. This is the sort of brash activism and behaviour that makes it difficult for many to even broach certain topics, with both sides or certain sides being so immature or hostile.

It is a place of work, not a place of protest. And in a place of work, all employees need to be in, and are entitled to having an environment that isn't pressuring on topics or influences totally unrelated to the working environment.

I'd be interested to know what tech you are in, or company you work for, that would be totally fine with employees wearing political slogans in the work place.

I believe that was the point the guy was making right before he got fired...

09-08-2017 02:11PM

TheDoc wrote: »

Yeah there might well be the twitter brigade out looking for my firing, but I wouldn't care to be honest, as I'd be following company policy and what is called creating a comfortable environment for staff.

Considering the behaviours that go along with the repeal campaign(both sides tbh), I would, as my company would, have to cater for the environment and well being of someone who is not comfortable with the idea of abortion or who is pro-choice, anti repeal or whatever.

Again this sounds like people not familiar with working an an office environment, trying to comment on how an office environment works?

There is a reason that most companies dress policy strictly outlines and prohibits the wearing of offensive, politically motivated or insensitive slogans or clothing. And someone coming in a repeal shirt, or a pro-Israel or pro-palestine jumper, or pro gay or anti gay tshirt, is going to cause problems.

There is no, and shouldn't be any preferential treatment provided, as it breads the exact type of situation that this employee in Google seems to have gotten himself into, whereby he felt vexed by the liberal and left musing of the company.

"Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform" what a load of nonsense. This is the sort of brash activism and behaviour that makes it difficult for many to even broach certain topics, with both sides or certain sides being so immature or hostile.

It is a place of work, not a place of protest. And in a place of work, all employees need to be in, and are entitled to having an environment that isn't pressuring on topics or influences totally unrelated to the working environment.

Plenty of repeal sweatshirts where I work (in an office, in tech) so I am not sure on what basis you say it is "a load of nonsense"?

You also seem to be ignoring the frequent political activism of tech companies in particular. How does your take on this fit in with large employers actively supporting marriage equality in the run up to the referendum, for example? Isn't that alienating to employees who don't agree with it for whatever reason?

BTW what REALLY makes it 'difficult for many to even broach certain topics' is getting disciplined by their employer for doing so, I would have thought that was obvious.

You sound like someone who doesn't know anything about how tech companies work to be honest.

20Cent · 09-08-2017 02:14PM

silverharp wrote: »

he is interviewed here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro

If you want to convince people that you aren't a sexist and are being smeared going on Stefan Molyneux's show should be one of the last things you do.

silverharp · 09-08-2017 02:29PM

20Cent wrote: »

If you want to convince people that you aren't a sexist and are being smeared going on Stefan Molyneux's show should be one of the last things you do.

not really an argument but I believe Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson want to interview him

. or whats the alternative go on CNN where he will get a fair hearing ? :rolleyes:

conorhal · 09-08-2017 02:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Plenty of repeal sweatshirts where I work (in an office, in tech) so I am not sure on what basis you say it is "a load of nonsense"?

You also seem to be ignoring the frequent political activism of tech companies in particular. How does your take on this fit in with large employers actively supporting marriage equality in the run up to the referendum, for example? Isn't that alienating to employees who don't agree with it for whatever reason?

BTW what REALLY makes it 'difficult for many to even broach certain topics' is getting disciplined by their employer for doing so, I would have thought that was obvious.

You sound like someone who doesn't know anything about how tech companies work to be honest.

Indeed, though I supported marriage equality I was horrified to see Google (them AGAIN) here all but telling it's employees how to vote and by doing so making it implicit that anybody with a different opinion should probably not voice it. Foreign multinationals should not be involved in referenda and it is not their place to politically indoctrinate employees.

The fact that repeal sweatshirts are commonplace in your work speaks to a particular groupthink mindest (which verges on cultish in tech companies like Google) that I suspect would be very hostile to anybody that walking in wearing a pro life sweatshirt but would neither see the irony or have the slightest problem making a pariah of anybody not on board with their 'right-think'.

conorhal · 09-08-2017 02:31PM

20Cent wrote: »

If you want to convince people that you aren't a sexist and are being smeared going on Stefan Molyneux's show should be one of the last things you do.

You'd be better going to the Wall St. Journal or doing an interview on CNN?

At least he can be sure Molyneux's not going to edit down what he says into a hit-peice.

09-08-2017 02:39PM

conorhal wrote: »

Indeed, though I supported marriage equality I was horrified to see Google (them AGAIN) here all but telling it's employees how to vote and by doing so making it implicit that anybody with a different opinion should probably not voice it. Foreign multinationals should not be involved in referenda and it is not their place to politically indoctrinate employees.

The fact that repeal sweatshirts are commonplace in your work speaks to a particular groupthink mindest (which verges on cultish in tech companies like Google) that I suspect would be very hostile to anybody that walking in wearing a pro life sweatshirt but would neither see the irony or have the slightest problem making a pariah of anybody not on board with their 'right-think'.

Funnily enough I used to work with someone in our US office who would occasionally wear a "Make America Great Again" t-shirt into work. I never figured out if he was taking the piss or not, I suspect he was serious.

20Cent · 09-08-2017 02:41PM

conorhal wrote: »

You'd be better going to the Wall St. Journal or doing an interview on CNN?

At least he can be sure Molyneux's not going to edit down what he says into a hit-peice.

How about just make his own video or statement. Not someone who says feminism is socialism in panties.

Bob24 · 09-08-2017 02:46PM

conorhal wrote: »

Indeed, though I supported marriage equality I was horrified to see Google (them AGAIN) here all but telling it's employees how to vote and by doing so making it implicit that anybody with a different opinion should probably not voice it. Foreign multinationals should not be involved in referenda and it is not their place to politically indoctrinate employees.

The fact that repeal sweatshirts are commonplace in your work speaks to a particular groupthink mindest (which verges on cultish in tech companies like Google) that I suspect would be very hostile to anybody that walking in wearing a pro life sweatshirt but would neither see the irony or have the slightest problem making a pariah of anybody not on board with their 'right-think'.

Yeah that's the problem. The company I work for is more old-fashioned which sometimes is frustrating, but at least they are apolitical.

The company never engages employees about political topics unless of course they directly have to do with the business, but on the other hand people feel pretty free to have discussions about things like gay marriage with colleagues at the canteen and express whatever opinion as long as it is done is a sensible way.

Google (and other Silicon Valley companies) are extremely politicised however and not just about topics directly related to their business (of course there's no probablem if Google wants to express a political opinion about let's say net neutrality as it is a question which is deeply linked to the way they operate their business).

TheDoc · 09-08-2017 02:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Plenty of repeal sweatshirts where I work (in an office, in tech) so I am not sure on what basis you say it is "a load of nonsense"?

You also seem to be ignoring the frequent political activism of tech companies in particular. How does your take on this fit in with large employers actively supporting marriage equality in the run up to the referendum, for example? Isn't that alienating to employees who don't agree with it for whatever reason?

BTW what REALLY makes it 'difficult for many to even broach certain topics' is getting disciplined by their employer for doing so, I would have thought that was obvious.

You sound like someone who doesn't know anything about how tech companies work to be honest.

I know how companies work, just because a company might be "tech" doesn't mean they should be frivolous to maintaining parity with employees of different mindsets and opinions.

This Google example is slightly different in the point the employee is trying to make is probably, and hopefully, more widespread accepted as nonsense. With how he describes coding and engineering and how to better tailor that to woman or how biological traits for woman being less able to deal with stress being a reason for their barrier to higher status jobs, that is not as nuanced as something like abortion, the repeal campaign where people do feel uneasy portraying their views where its against the grain.

But that is why those things, topics have no place in the workplace, outside of immediate employee chatter.

Companies taking a stance on political or social topics like that, at the end of the day down to them, but plenty of instances whereby I'd imagine employees within with different views might object through proper channels.

I'm quiet "left" leaning when it comes to social issues, but doesn't mean I'm ignorant to other peoples sensitivities, and them not wanting to confront those issues or topics in a place of work.

So cool your company are fine with people coming in with repeal clothing, and what, someone who is in the opposite camp is supposed to sit there and just be cool with it? It's ok if they are made uncomfortable in their place of work by peers wearing political clothing, especially considering there is general hostility immediately flung at anyone who dares be opposed to the repeal campaign?

For clarity, while I'm not hotly involved or have a developed care persay, similar to the marriage referendum, I'm in favour of repealing the 8th, but seeing the typical response those against get online and even in person, it's not something that should be easily ignored.

And to be honest all forms part of this modern hostility that comes attache with social views or issues, where it just seems hostile.

And in terms of my "dressing down" comment, I thought that would be pretty fair considering I get some people get very emotive and principled over certain beliefs or social issues. So I wouldn't make a formal thing out of anything unless it was some horrendously offensive material, but I think pulling someone into an office and reminding them of the dress code, of which they would be in breach of, and for them to sort it out, is a pretty fair way about dealing with it.

So yeah sorry I havn't worked in tech companies where it's t-shirts, sandals and open flannel shirts(well I have, and even there it had clear dress code relating to political slogans and clothing) but being a tech company with a few bean bags around the office isn't an excuse nor a template for making certain portions of the workforce uncomfortable or feeling alienated because of their stance on an issue.

Important on that last part to caveat assuming, like with most people who feel alienated due to certain views or beliefs, how they would likely keep this to themselves and circumvent certain conversations to avoid their true beliefs be known, or seperate to them holding ignorant or clearly unacceptable beliefs or views as deemed by civilised society.

silverharp · 09-08-2017 02:47PM

conorhal wrote: »

You'd be better going to the Wall St. Journal or doing an interview on CNN?

At least he can be sure Molyneux's not going to edit down what he says into a hit-peice.

the editing of his document and taking out his sources and then saying the document had no sources was grindingly annoying to hear.

charlie_says · 09-08-2017 02:50PM

09-08-2017 02:58PM

TheDoc wrote: »

So cool your company are fine with people coming in with repeal clothing, and what, someone who is in the opposite camp is supposed to sit there and just be cool with it? It's ok if they are made uncomfortable in their place of work by peers wearing political clothing, especially considering there is general hostility immediately flung at anyone who dares be opposed to the repeal campaign?

Whether it's right or not is another matter (doesn't really bother me, but I am an old school grown up who doesn't lose their **** at the idea that someone thinks differently to me), but I can honestly say I can't think of a single tech industry workplace that would discipline someone, even informally, for wearing a Repeal sweatshirt. Maybe somewhere slightly more old-fashioned like Microsoft but definitely not Google, Twitter, LinkedIn etc and certainly nothing start-up or growth.

And there would be an almighty storm if any of them did.

Anyway I suspect this is a different argument.

Bob24 · 09-08-2017 03:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe somewhere slightly more old-fashioned like Microsoft but definitely not Google, Twitter, LinkedIn etc and certainly nothing start-up or growth.

And there would be an almighty storm if any of them did.

Yes pretty much my experience. This is why I insisted on people explaining clearly why they find the memo unacceptable (is it for expressing an opinion in general or expressing that particular option). I reckon none answered clearly quoting the document because it would show their concern is with that specific opinion and they know that to some extend they are therefore supporting double standards.

Personally I'd tend to agree that for the most part the t-shirts you mentioned or the guy's manifesto should be kept away from the work environment (while employees can of course have private discussions about anything during their break if they want to). But the very problem of a company like Google is that they are actually actively encouraging their employees to express their valued opinions *within the work environment* through emails or workshops - so people take it at face value and do so without realising that there are some double-standards and only some opinions are acceptable (or even encouraged, not to say mandatory).

TheDoc · 09-08-2017 03:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Whether it's right or not is another matter (doesn't really bother me, but I am an old school grown up who doesn't lose their **** at the idea that someone thinks differently to me), but I can honestly say I can't think of a single tech industry workplace that would discipline someone, even informally, for wearing a Repeal sweatshirt. Maybe somewhere slightly more old-fashioned like Microsoft but definitely not Google, Twitter, LinkedIn etc and certainly nothing start-up or growth.

And there would be an almighty storm if any of them did.

Anyway I suspect this is a different argument.

Yeah probably is, and to be honest I'm a bit surprised that it would be ok. I'm similar to you in that it doesn't bother me personally and I'm generally pretty laid back. And I know having to deal with issues historically in terms of how one person spoke to another or how someone took offence to something someone else said and I'll be sitting there to myself thinking "Wow you need to lighten up" but the point being that it's not really a call I get to make.

If someone is aggrieved by something, and they make a formal complaint about it or even an informal complaint, it needs to be addressed. Regardless of how frivolous it might be. That's how it goes.

I'm not comfortable with Repeal slogans and t-shirts appearing in the Dail, so I'd be surprised to know its something that fine in places of work. And the surprise is because it's such a nuanced topic. **** I'm not getting into it here, but its not something clean slate (from what I can tell) like say Marriage equality, where the counter arguments were for me nonsense and it just wasn't an issue I needed to think about, just made sense.

What I guess is the potential issue here, like someone else posted, someone wears a repeal t-shirt, gets a chat about it, goes straight onto twitter or facebook to cry fowl, and then a horde envelops saying how its a disgrace, even though its not accepted dress code.

Anyway I've gone off on a tangent, and I'm not overt to being held accountable or pointed incorrect on anything, so I'm interested to learn that there are companies or workplaces that are cool with this, but yet I suspect wouldn't be cool with all types of political or belief declarations and it does beg the question where does the line get drawn.

TheDoc · 09-08-2017 03:47PM

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes pretty much my experience. This is why I insisted on people explaining clearly why they find the memo unacceptable (is it for expressing an opinion in general or expressing that particular option). I reckon none answered clearly quoting the document because it would show their concern is with that specific opinion and they know that to some extend they are therefore supporting double standards.

ok since I've been asked a few times even though I mentioned it some pages back.

One of the cornerstones of the guys memo is that a change should be made to how coding and engineering is done, that more "pairing" environments should be made.

Now typically "pair" coding (from what I did) is a more senior or experienced programmer or engineer being "paired" with a beginner or novice. That it provides an environment where the standards and ingrained methods from the expert transfer to the novice, but the novice, has more scope for questioning "why" as they are new and not ingrained in a companies/applications methods or practice.

It's also not to dissimilar to general "buddy" programmes or mentoring that so many companies in so many areas employ.

In the memo, the author suggests more of these programmes be put in place for female engineers or programmers. He suggests this, from his interpretation of a biological difference, whereby woman are more efficent and more at ease working in tandem with another person or people, as opposed to themselves. He outlines that men, are more systemised, and would be more comfortable working alone.

So there is an issue here in that he just ignores the characteristics and personality traits in people, regardless of sex. Whereby a man could easily be more comfortable working as part of a team or group, or a woman could be more comfortable working alone in solitude.

He also, and I'd imagine unintentionally, furthermore in that section, basically outlines woman arn't as good engineers. Again I don' think that is his intention, but that is what he does. He basically says his female peers are not as good as him.

As many have pointed out, even existing and former google employees or tech employees since this came out, he shows a gross misunderstanding of collaboration and engineering. Where he obviously doesn't understand the wider picture, and questions are raised on what this guy actually does (his name seems to be public now, so maybe people have worked out what he actually did?) but from just his memo where it appears he tunnel visions on the isolated coding/problem fixing aspect it is assumed he is either new, or a low level engineer.

Because a basis for any system design, application design or infrastructural design, is collaboration with multiple stakeholders be it customers, departments, inter team communication etc. So that everyone is on the same page and there is one system,application or infrastructure being built, and not multiple versions or iterations by all those involved being silos.

The problem with it (granted there are issues with some of what he portrays as fact) is not so much he is claiming anything outrageous or inflammatory (although he kinda is depending on your viewpoint) but that he is inadvertently degrading peers and colleagues and in his attempt to portray a scientific or factually based document, he is deriding woman in his workplace.

And then separate to it all, regardless of the context or the facts he is trying to portray or the solutions, is that because he created this and sent it out (the fact it become widespread unintentionally, well sorry mate, you work for Google and if you dont know what can happen with e-mail ) he created a situation where he became isolated and alienated, he became a problem employee and created a hostile environment for woman, whereby questions were being asked about their suitability and fitness for the roles they operated in.

RDM_83 again · 09-08-2017 05:09PM

TheDoc wrote: »

The problem with it (granted there are issues with some of what he portrays as fact) is not so much he is claiming anything outrageous or inflammatory (although he kinda is depending on your viewpoint) but that he is inadvertently degrading peers and colleagues and in his attempt to portray a scientific or factually based document, he is deriding woman in his workplace.

I can agree with a lot of your reasoning in terms of the above post (and I know nothing much about programming!) but isn't the obvious defense to this charge that the conversation is already saying that both genders bring different things to the table (hence why we have these diversity targets), I would hazard that there have been numerous documents passed around in google that talk about the advantages of having a more mixed workforce surely if (in general) both genders have strengths doesn't that logically mean they have weaknesses too?

I am personally very much on-board with completely depoliticized workplaces, AFAIK thats how most of the operate in Northern Ireland, the issue is that these work places are already socially and politically partisan.

In terms of the impact on Google I am not sure if this has been mentioned before but they will have to be mindful of how they handle this in relation to hiring in the future.
As far as I am aware there is presently very high demand for highly skilled engineers/programmers, like it or not at the minute most of these will be male and of these IMO STEM and IT are much more politically diverse than the social sciences.
If your a skilled male who holds some skepticism about the way "Social Justice" issues are framed and a number of companies are courting you, this would like make you hesitant, now Google will likely never suffer from not being able to find somebody to fill a role, but it may impact their ability to hire the cutting edge.

“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

Comments