There's been endless discussion about Damore. In particular podcasts you'd think that the firing of a random engineer at Google ranked alongside 9/11 as a defining event in modern history. If I circulated a memo to my co-workers that not only opposed a new policy from management, but did obvious harm to the expressed intent of that policy, I might be fired. It doesn't matter if the memo I circulated would have gotten a passing grade in a college class. The fact that people use that as an argument tells me that they've never worked a normal job before.
I can't tell if you're trying to say that a policy from management is beyond all reproach or if "these things just happen in the real world". Either way, the former shouldn't be true and the latter should be wrong. Of course, correctness doesn't stop anyone from being terminated, but that's not the point.
There are appropriate and inappropriate avenues for disagreeing with corporate policy; publicly on a large mailing list is going to get you in hot water no matter what the policy is.
I guess I take issue with this. Google encouraged discussion and disagreement on large mailing lists, unlike most companies. It doesn't seem right that Google would simultaneously sollicit such feedback and then punish somebody for giving them negative feedback.
I think what you're saying is valid, but the point I've been making is that the entire James Damore affair is interesting for pretty much the opposite reason to that which people who tend to bring it up claim.
"It doesn't seem right" is one thing, but that's not why it's still brought up 3 years after the memo was written. A lot has gone on in the world in the past 3 years that doesn't seem right that we've forgotten about or didn't hear about in the first place. Damore is used as a data point (in fact, as a central data point) in the thesis that "political correctness gone awry" or "social justice warriors run amok" are problems that rank highly in a list of society's most concerning. I think it's absurd. That this random dev's firing is doing so much work in bolstering this thesis just highlights the absurdity.
It’s unclear exactly what the limits of such a forum are; if I were to hypothetically respond with a pro-nazi screed, I think that most people here would be fine with me being fired. But there’s certainly a gray area.
I will say that it was extremely short sighted of google to setup such a forum in a public and non-anonymous manner. That was just begging for trouble.
Policy from management is not beyond all reproach, but what venue you have for expressing disagreement varies by company. Do you think the firing of James Damore warranted the attention it got?
> If I circulated a memo to my co-workers that not only opposed a new policy from management, but did obvious harm to the expressed intent of that policy, I might be fired.
Google had fostered a culture were it was expected to respond with to new policies from management that you didn't agree with.
Google wasn't a normal job where whatever management says gos. Although, it's certainly seems to be moving in that direction from the outsiders perspective.
I think that's because a lot of people think that some corporations now have much greater power than governments, especially when it comes to influencing / controlling social thought.
My understanding is that it was "normal" for Google to have these kind of discussions on internal boards. A remnant of the libertarian message board and usenet culture of the early silicon valley.
They only fully cracked down on political speech like a big boring company last year:
It was never normal. The politically charged boards were always playing with fire. Damore also shared his ideas outside of these spaces where it was even less “normal”. What might be okay to say in an opt-in discussion board about politics may be less okay to say in a training session, for example. Time and place and all that.
Saying that people who disagreed with him must not have read the memo is a cliche at this point. It wouldn’t add anything to the conversation even if it wasn’t factually incorrect, and the guidelines here discourage that kind of behavior.
As someone who did read it, I also don’t see how the comment you’re dismissing is inaccurate. Can you point out exactly why you feel it is?
How so, I didn't say anything about the content of the memo? Or you disagree that it did obvious harm to Google's policy on gender? We know that female employees received the memo and stated that it made them feel excluded, which did harm to the intent of the policy. That's not really debatable is it?
The phrasing implied that Damore willfully created that harm. It's a simpler explanation, at the time of authorship, that he did not expect the reaction it got. It seemed to be an attempt to explain his logic in an inoffensive way, in fact.
