Was Google right to sack anti-Diversity engineer?

Yes. He was bad for business. Welcome to capitalism.

 

Comedy Central is little more than a propaganda mouthpiece at this point.

 

There's been no suggestion I'm aware of that he violated anything.

This fellow made a strong, if pretty obvious, case for the fact that men and women are biologically different, and that that, rather than victimisation by us white supremacists, is what leads to differing roles. He also offered ways of handling the differences that recognised the actual differences, and did not rely of SJW victim culture that says women are oppressed:

Having called for "reason-based diversity", he was sacked and Google circulated this response:

You couldn't get a more confused response. "Diversity is a fundamental part of our values" precedes directly a refusal to either show, or even respond to, the argument, which completely contradicts the claim to diversity. And again, there is no attempt to counter the arguments put forward. Google's response to an uncomfortable, challenging critique was to remove the author and attempt to keep his views hidden.

That's leftist "diversity": disagree with me and, to all intents and purposes, you and your opinions will no longer exist. Communist systems have only ever failed, but they create a load of unnecessary pain along the way. Read Orwell's 1984 for a satirical look on what's happening here.

Jordan Peterson interviews James Damore:

 

Actually, Colbert is apparently perfectly happy to crack homophobic jokes, so who knows, maybe he will pick it up.

 

yes they did the right thing... no action would have been taken as a sign of condoning what he wrote. He chose to pen the memo, he should be prepared for any ramifications that goes with opening your mouth on sensitive issues.

 

Saying that men and women have differences is a 'sensitive' issue these days? Damn.

 

That's not what he said now is it....

men and women have differences.... how is that possibly the same as what he said?

 

Well what did he say then? You mean when he critisised Google diversity policy?

 

Is he anti-diverse?

 

Most employees disagree with Adolf Google:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/10/s...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

 

https://www.recode.net/2017/8/10/16125452/google-sundar-pichai-fire-james-damore-diversity-memo

 

As a private company they had every right to fire the guy.

However a close examination of what he wrote shows that he was basically correct.

The reasons they gave for firing him as a that a very few people might have been intimidated by what he said which is absurd. Not that no one would be intimidated but it is absurd for anyone to think that such shallow and weak people deserve protection for their precious feelings.

What makes this issue important is not that one guy was fired but that google controls such vast amounts of access to information for all including Youtube.

The recent implementation of adpocolypse rule by google is frightening to many many successful youtubers who challenge the status quo.

Google appears to be poised on the brink of big brother tyranny by regulating what information and opinions we can all have access to by simply decreeing any opinion which is not dogmatically correct may be removed and silenced.

The firing of this guy is just the start.

It is also simply poor business decision in as much that google and youtube became what they are by having very few limitations on what information or content is available to all.

 

Yes in essence that is what he said albeit with more detail.

And he was accurate and correct.

 

Guilty of WRONG-THINK!

 

no not i

 

bias liberal corporate liberal pc bs,opinions are welcome at google as long as they are liberal socialist opinions.

 

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY: Google’s ‘tolerance’ requires repression.

“Part of building an open, inclusive environment,” said Google’s vice president “for diversity, integrity and governance,” “means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But” — key word — “that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies and anti-discrimination laws.”

Similarly, Google’s CEO said Tuesday, “We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves. However” — key word — “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

George Orwell would recognize this doublespeak. We totally support free speech except when we call it heresy. Tolerance requires repression.

Ironically, for a company that makes money by transmitting information, Google’s position is intellectually incoherent. What its CEO dismisses as “harmful gender stereotypes” are the conclusions, after years of painstaking research, of serious neuroscientists.

And Google’s tacit endorsement of the quasi-religious dogma that a fair society must produce gender balance and proportionate ethnic representation is at war with both experience and logic.

Mostly though this progressive dogma is at war with both liberty and individual rights. We need SCOTUS to refind the lost clause of the 14th amendment that an ancient court stripped from the Constitution by Judicial Fiat:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....

 

My view is that he should keep those "fake" thoughts to himself. However, they should not have fired him for that. My view is that
women that he works with will create an antagonistic and untenable environment for him, which may be a reason to fire him.

 

Good post.

 

Where does this guys research reside?

Where are his in depth studies...scientific papers, experiments, peer reviews ???


Or did a woman just get a promotion he wanted ? Men DO pout more than women...and tend to strike back like 2 year olds..

 

Funny how it ended up being proven by female Google employees not being able to face work in the days following!

"Penning a long memo" is not the same as having a voice. It means nothing unless it is actually considered to be a worthy point of view. How can someone be considered to have a voice if they are promptly fired for trying to have a voice? This memo was likely his last remaining option to try to have a voice.

Oh yeah, just like you can find any study to justify the crazy notion of women and men being 100% identical in every way, shape and form!

Well, there are no studies which indicate that there are biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ. So, apples and oranges I'm afraid.

Was he saying that women should be discriminated against? Uh, NO.

 

He was fired... he deserved to be... I don't care what spin you put on it.

 

According to today's f*ked up standards, he probably did deserve to be fired, as that is the world in which we now live in.
A world where you can be fired by having a perfectly reasonable, science backed opinion. Quite sad. I note that you didn't attempt to counter argue my points, so I'm glad to know that I argued them as well as I did.

 

I'm going to nuance what I said earlier after some thought. First, I do believe that Google has the right to fire him. I believe that any corporation is allowed to fire employees for speech related to the company or that puts the company in a bad light. That said, I don't necessarily think that what he wrote was all that bad, and I, personally, wouldn't have fired him if I had that power, but I probably would have admonished him for widely circulating it on a company server.

 

He just said what a lot of people have thought for a long time.

Many people (within and without Silicon Valley) agree with his essential premise.

But, it was certainly non-PC (to the Nth degree) and it was NECESSARY for Google to fire him.