The Google memo firestorm

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by ochotona » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:14 pm

My take on it is that Google is not a University or a debate society, it's a frickin' for-profit corporation, so the memo writer was really sticking his nose where it didn't belong, and got slapped for it, and he should've gotten slapped for it regardless of the subject matter.

I come from the traditional Texas oil and gas industry, and over here free spirits ruminating in public about what the Company should or shouldn't do get unemployed ASAP.

It's the height of arrogance and inappropriateness to damage the reputation of your employer just because you feel like it. I'd have fired him too. It's not like a true legally protected whistle-blower situation where people were at risk of getting hurt, like on a rig or in a refinery. These are HR practices he was kvetching about, for God's sake.

What a fricking snowflake.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Xan » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:21 pm

ochotona wrote:My take on it is that Google is not a University or a debate society, it's a frickin' for-profit corporation, so the memo writer was really sticking his nose where it didn't belong, and got slapped for it, and he should've gotten slapped for it regardless of the subject matter.

I come from the traditional Texas oil and gas industry, and over here free spirits ruminating in public about what the Company should or shouldn't do get unemployed ASAP.

It's the height of arrogance and inappropriateness to damage the reputation of your employer just because you feel like it. I'd have fired him too. It's not like a true legally protected whistle-blower situation where people were at risk of getting hurt, like on a rig or in a refinery. These are HR practices he was kvetching about, for God's sake.

What a fricking snowflake.
Wasn't this an internal memo? I don't believe he published it outside the company.
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by ochotona » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:37 pm

Who released it to the public? Anyway if he spammed all of Google with this, then that's stupid conduct. Your employer is not your personal soapbox. If he got fired for discretely sharing his opinion with a few select managers, then he's more a victim.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Mountaineer » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:45 pm

ochotona wrote:Who released it to the public? Anyway if he spammed all of Google with this, then that's stupid conduct. Your employer is not your personal soapbox. If he got fired for discretely sharing his opinion with a few select managers, then he's more a victim.
I have a couple of additional questions after reading the memo one more time. Perhaps I missed the answers?

1. Did he write the lengthy memo on his own time or Google's? Maybe he was fired for not doing the job he was hired to do if he used Google time to write it.

2. It seemed like he was trying to help Google with the memo by pointing out something that could be made better. Why would that be an issue, assuming Google hires people to think and not just be robots?

3. What does his contract say about what he is allowed to write and communicate within Google?
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Tyler » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:51 pm

He posted it to an internal Google discussion group, and (whether you agree with him or not) can make a legit argument that he sought to make constructive suggestions on how to better promote diversity within the company -- an activity protected by both federal and state laws. Apparently it stirred up a lot of internal debate, at which point someone else leaked it to outside websites (very likely violating company policy) in order to instigate the SJW storm. It worked, he was fired, and now people are also leaking the emails of other engineers who dared agree with him. Google needs to get control of this fast, or there may be a crapload of lawsuits on the way.
Last edited by Tyler on Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:16 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Xan » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:53 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
ochotona wrote:Who released it to the public? Anyway if he spammed all of Google with this, then that's stupid conduct. Your employer is not your personal soapbox. If he got fired for discretely sharing his opinion with a few select managers, then he's more a victim.
I have a couple of additional questions after reading the memo one more time. Perhaps I missed the answers?

1. Did he write the lengthy memo on his own time or Google's? Maybe he was fired for not doing the job he was hired to do if he used Google time to write it.

2. It seemed like he was trying to help Google with the memo by pointing out something that could be made better. Why would that be an issue, assuming Google hires people to think and not just be robots?

3. What does his contract say about what he is allowed to write and communicate within Google?

Here's Google's response:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/07/googl ... mo-author/

They go out of their way to say that they have no problem with anything other than the content of the memo. He was fired for "advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace".
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Mark Leavy » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:56 pm

It's really not that hard. On average, men and women are relatively equal. But the standard deviation is higher for men. Thus, at the the 3rd sigma you have noticeably more male idiots, criminals, deviants and morons. Also, on the other end of the graph, you have noticeably more male savants, poker players, CEO's and quants.

If you are in the business of hiring right hand side 3rd sigma - you end up with a few more males than females. It's not exclusive, it's just statistics.

If you are in the business of incarcerating left hand side 3rd sigma - you end up with a few more males than females. It's not exclusive, it's just statistics.
sweetbthescrivener
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:53 pm

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by sweetbthescrivener » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:22 pm

So, a clinical psychologist from the University of Toronto who has had his own trouble with being mobbed by Social Justice Warriors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA) interviewed this kid in a way that really shows the human side of what is going on. It is much more interesting than how this is being spun:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU


Text version of relevant quotes here from zerohedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... etings-and
Peterson: "Why did you do this?"

Damore: "About a month and a half ago, I went to one of our diversity summits, all of it unrecorded and super-secret and they told me a lot of things that I thought just were not right."

Peterson: "Ok, what do you mean 'unrecorded and super-secret?'"

Damore: "Most meetings at Google are recorded. Anyone at Google can watch it. We're trying to be really open about everything...except for this. They don't want any paper trail for any of these things."

"They were telling us about a lot of these potentially illegal practices that they've been doing to try to increase diversity. Basically treating people differently based on what their race or gender are."

Peterson: "Ok, why?"

Damore: "Because I think it's illegal. As some of the internal polls showed, there were a large percentage of people who agreed with me on the document. So, if everyone got to see this stuff, then they would really bring up some criticism."
Damore: "I actually published this document about a month ago; it's only after it had gone viral and leaked to the news, that Google started caring."

"There was a lot of upper management that started to call it out and started saying how harmful it is. This sort of viewpoint is not allowed at Google."

Peterson: "Yeah, what sort of viewpoint exactly? The idea that there are differences between men and women that might actually play a role in the corporate world? That's an opinion that's not acceptable?"

Damore: "Yeah, it seems so. And there's a lot of misrepresentation by upper-management just to silence me, I think."
Peterson: "What was there rationale for firing you exactly? What was the excuse that was given?"

Damore: "So, the official excuse was that I was perpetuating gender stereotypes."
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by WiseOne » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:12 am

I agree with Tyler. I'm amazed that Google hasn't (apparently) made any effort to stop the leaks, or go after the leakers - who are the ones who violated company policy.

And I very much hope that Damore sues Google. We've been evolving for years now to a situation where it's accepted that someone can be fired for expressing a dissenting opinion. Doing so publicly with specific reference to the corporation does potentially cross a line as it's akin to slander or libel, but expressing opinions internally doesn't qualify. A lawsuit would bring this issue up for public debate and examination, and I say it's about time. Until that happens, I consider myself (and anyone else who is employed by a corporation, whether private or non-profit) to work in a hostile environment where it's dangerous to express opinions of any sort. Not good for productivity, personal health, or society. If I worked at Google right now, I'd refrain from participation in any chat rooms, informal discussions, or email chains on anything but strictly work-related topics. I bet a lot of people there are doing likewise.
User avatar
jhogue
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:47 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by jhogue » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:45 am

WiseOne,
As an academic, I suppose that you are aware that Larry Summers was—in effect—forced out as president of Harvard back in 2006 for expressing virtually identical views as the Google memo writer.

If it could happen to one of the Clintons’ favorite economists, it could happen to anyone in academe—and now apparently in prominent corporations too.
“Groucho Marx wrote:
A stock trader asked him, "Groucho, where do you put all your money?" Groucho was said to have replied, "In Treasury bonds", and the trader said, "You can't make much money on those." Groucho said, "You can if you have enough of them!"
User avatar
Greg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 6:12 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Greg » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:17 pm

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-da ... gle-2017-8

Good article on this topic.
- An expert in California labor law tells Business Insider that Damore has a better chance of winning his case than people may think.
- That's because Damore's case is NOT about free speech, discrimination, or his rights as an "at-will" worker.
- Damore filed under a section of the law that deals with protecting statements made by workers' rights activists who have questions about wages and conditions.
- Google may have difficulty establishing that he broke the company's code of conduct because he used message boards the company provided to allow employees to discuss these issues, and because his manifesto repeatedly states he favors diversity and intended to "increase women's representation in tech."
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Maddy » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:56 pm

That's because he filed his complaint against Alphabet (Google's corporate parent) under a provision of the National Labor Relations Act that protects workers' rights activists. . . [T]he provision governs what workers are allowed to talk about in the workplace about pay, conditions, promotions, and other practices. The law was crafted to protect the right of union organisers to discuss pay rates with their colleagues, and more recently to protect anyone asking questions at work about who gets paid what, and why.
* * *
The crux of his claim is whether Google penalized him for raising concerns about working conditions (i.e., unfair treatment of white men?)" Sharpe said. "Whether the manifesto really constitutes a 'concern about working conditions' and whether he was acting for the good of others will be the dispositive issues.
It shouldn't be too hard to find a female witness or two who will testify that Google's policies demean and oppress women by treating female employees as per se incapable of performing in the same "rough and tumble" environment as men, and that these policies perpetuate damaging stereotypes that have limited women's opportunities for advancement.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by WiseOne » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:07 am

Interesting take, Maddy. That's exactly right, although I can't see that opinion getting very far in a public courtroom.

Seems to me that if you want to increase minority representation, the key is to get to them before they're applying for the job, because you want them not only to get the job but to be able to do it competently. That's a much harder job. How do you combat systemic problems with minority cultures and neighborhoods? And is there even really a problem, if an entire group is underperforming at the corporate workplace? Society as a whole is not 100% about supplying full time workers to corporations.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by WiseOne » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:08 am

MangoMan wrote:[Are you saying that corporations have an obligation to hire X% of each ethnic/racial/gender/religious group even if they are not as qualified as other candidates and even if they underperform, just to meet some quota?
That's what happens now - it's called "affirmative action." I'm saying I don't think this is a good idea, because it's putting a bandaid on a systemic problem that needs to be dealt with on a more fundamental level.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Maddy » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:11 pm

WiseOne wrote: Seems to me that if you want to increase minority representation, the key is to get to them before they're applying for the job . ..
Unfortunately, many of the groups and individuals who claim to be underrepresented in professional and technical fields don't want to be "gotten to." Many have no real interest in conforming to the norms of the corporate environment if it requires a change in behavior or runs counter to their natural temperment. They expect the norms to change to accommodate them.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by WiseOne » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:46 pm

So that gets back to the insane, unorthodox thought that I'd had two posts back: maybe the under-representation of certain women and minority groups isn't actually a problem. Because culture and society are a lot more big & complicated than the world of corporate structures. Some groups don't fit into that structure, and maybe that's ok.

In fact, maybe saying they SHOULD fit into that structure is the very definition of the attitudes that are popularly blamed on affirmative action naysayers like us. Now there's a heretical thought!
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Xan » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:05 pm

WiseOne, you've just blown my mind.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Maddy » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:41 pm

WiseOne wrote:So that gets back to the insane, unorthodox thought that I'd had two posts back: maybe the under-representation of certain women and minority groups isn't actually a problem. Because culture and society are a lot more big & complicated than the world of corporate structures. Some groups don't fit into that structure, and maybe that's ok.

In fact, maybe saying they SHOULD fit into that structure is the very definition of the attitudes that are popularly blamed on affirmative action naysayers like us. Now there's a heretical thought!
+1

WiseOne, I'd be curious to know how your experience during your medical residency shaped your views on this. (I'm guessing that was back in the days when they actually believed lack of sleep provided a character building experience.)
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by WiseOne » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:56 am

Maddy wrote:
WiseOne wrote:So that gets back to the insane, unorthodox thought that I'd had two posts back: maybe the under-representation of certain women and minority groups isn't actually a problem. Because culture and society are a lot more big & complicated than the world of corporate structures. Some groups don't fit into that structure, and maybe that's ok.

In fact, maybe saying they SHOULD fit into that structure is the very definition of the attitudes that are popularly blamed on affirmative action naysayers like us. Now there's a heretical thought!
+1

WiseOne, I'd be curious to know how your experience during your medical residency shaped your views on this. (I'm guessing that was back in the days when they actually believed lack of sleep provided a character building experience.)
I've been very aware of gender bias/sexism/whatever you want to call it since I was a kid. Example: when I was around 10 years old, I remember reading a cereal box offer of a customized name plate. The options were "Mr. and Mrs." or "Dr. and Mrs." The next line said "There are no other allowed combinations." That so incensed me that I decided then and there I was going to have that Dr. in front of my name one way or the other. There were lots of other examples, like my high school guidance counselor telling me I couldn't take that fourth advanced placement course because it would be too hard for a girl, or trying to steer me to small, middle of the road liberal arts colleges instead of the Ivy league schools. Then of course there was the infamous "Math class is hard" squawking Barbie doll, that inspired one of my favorite Simpsons episodes of all time. If that stuff were still going on, I'd definitely have something to say about it. However, I don't notice this anymore. If a woman really wants to get into the game, she can. It's just that a lot of them don't want to. And that is perfectly OK!

What I did see were people accepted into schools or training programs, from college to medical school and on up, purely in order to fill diversity goals. You could always tell who they were. They couldn't do the work, and when you had to work with them you had to cover for their incompetence. Worse yet, there's always an attitude that comes with it, something like "You better not mess with me" plus "You should be happy to do my work for me" along with a dash of "let's see what I can do to mess you up." They are always the most toxic people around, I guess because deep down they realize that they're in over their heads and that everyone around them knows it.

How this does anyone any favors I can't imagine. All I can see is how it breeds resentment on both sides. I'd still be the first to complain if I see anyone being actively discouraged from pursuing something they want and are qualified for, but that's a completely different situation from affirmative action hiring/acceptance.
farjean2
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:51 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by farjean2 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:18 am

Maddy wrote:It was reported that a number of women were compelled to stay home from work due to feeling "uncomfortable" over the memo.

You couldn't make this up.
Are they going to be fired for "perpetuating harmful stereotypes about women"?

The women were so outraged by assertions such as women have “lower stress tolerance,” as he put it, they “skipped work” to try to tolerate the extra stress. The more we hear about this hateful document, the more it confirms itself to be true. This is why James was fired. He was naive enough to do his job and explain ways his company can improve. He questioned the liberal narrative and provided cold, hard facts to back up his points. He said we are living in an era where you will be punished if you say conservative ideas, and he was promptly punished for it. Google knows he’s right. They Googled it. They know the truth. They also know most of us can’t handle it.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/google_tech_ ... z4pe2lvFE0
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by dualstow » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:25 am

That so incensed me that I decided then and there I was going to have that Dr. in front of my name one way or the other.


Awesome :-)
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
Mr Vacuum
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:51 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Mr Vacuum » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:34 pm

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-bi ... ogy-sexism

Here is a response to the memo that acknowledges that it was not a rant and actually had something worth saying about the internal political climate at Google. The response proceeds to address conclusions point by point with statistical reasoning. It's nice to see a rebuttal on the memo's terms instead of the more common emotional thrashing. I still find the use of the word manifesto to be a mischaracterization, but the response is otherwise fair on the whole.
Mr Vacuum
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:51 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by Mr Vacuum » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:38 pm

dualstow wrote:
That so incensed me that I decided then and there I was going to have that Dr. in front of my name one way or the other.


Awesome :-)
Ditto. Great post, WiseOne. Thanks for that.
farjean2
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:51 am

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by farjean2 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:05 pm

An interesting chart from this article... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/ ... computing/

Image

The article offers the following as a possible explanation......

Women view the ICT sector as male-dominated and this is putting them off entering the field, according to the International Communications Union, the main partner for International Girls in ICT Day.

Hmmmm.... Weren't medicine, law, and the physical sciences also once seen as male-dominated? How is that we big, bad computer programmers managed to scare the ladies off but doctors and lawyers couldn't?
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: The Google memo firestorm

Post by l82start » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:09 am

farjean2 wrote: Hmmmm.... Weren't medicine, law, and the physical sciences also once seen as male-dominated? How is that we big, bad computer programmers managed to scare the ladies off but doctors and lawyers couldn't?
a weird and probably more humorous than true theory just occurred to me... the nerd effect.. doctors and lawyers tend to be socially skilled alpha male professions, programming (in my imagination) tends to be the profession of choice for the high intelligence low social skilled nerd, having to put up with awkward and uncomfortable crap (the kind that all boys clubs tend to have when they are at there worst) from the former is not so bad... taking it from a guy who could be cast in a revenge of the nerds remake... not so much....

my apologies to all my non nerd socially skilled programing friends here on the forum.. ;D
-Government 2020+ - a BANANA REPUBLIC - if you can keep it

-Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
Post Reply