Google and the James Damore Memo

2»

Comments

  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 12,370
    Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.
    Your first sentence said he basically had no rights, then your last sentence suggests that he did have rights?
    Yes.  That's what that means.
    He has rights no rights. Glad we cleared that up. 
    Ok.  I will help you out his once.   He has rights.  Google was within its rights.   You can stand up for him if you don't want to see your rights trampled in the future.
    Sorry but the Supreme Court spoke on this issue quite awhile ago. But feel free to be outraged and start a petition on whitehouse.gov. It might make you feel better.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.
    HYour first sentence said he basically had no rights, then your last sentence suggests that he did have rights?
    Yes.  That's what that means.
    He has rights no rights. Glad we cleared that up. 
    Ok.  I will help you out his once.   He has rights.  Google was within its rights.   You can stand up for him if you don't want to see your rights trampled in the future.
    Sorry but the Supreme Court spoke on this issue quite awhile ago. But feel free to be outraged and start a petition on whitehouse.gov. It might make you feel better.
    I'm not outraged.  You're missing the point.   I simply don't see how folks can be against him speaking his mind.   It's a dangerous game the liberals play in suppressing what they don't agree with.  Don't get sucked into it.   But, it doesn't anger me in the least.  You have the right to come down on whatever side you want.  Just having a conversation,   That's our problem. We don't have conversations sharing ideas anymore, and this is just another example.  Oh boy, you hurt my feelings.  You must be fired.  Get over it.  
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 12,370
    Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.
    HYour first sentence said he basically had no rights, then your last sentence suggests that he did have rights?
    Yes.  That's what that means.
    He has rights no rights. Glad we cleared that up. 
    Ok.  I will help you out his once.   He has rights.  Google was within its rights.   You can stand up for him if you don't want to see your rights trampled in the future.
    Sorry but the Supreme Court spoke on this issue quite awhile ago. But feel free to be outraged and start a petition on whitehouse.gov. It might make you feel better.
    I'm not outraged.  You're missing the point.   I simply don't see how folks can be against him speaking his mind.   It's a dangerous game the liberals play in suppressing what they don't agree with.  Don't get sucked into it.   But, it doesn't anger me in the least.  You have the right to come down on whatever side you want.  Just having a conversation,   That's our problem. We don't have conversations sharing ideas anymore, and this is just another example.  Oh boy, you hurt my feelings.  You must be fired.  Get over it.  
    Read up on the history of the Supreme Court decision before you blame liberals for suppressing "free speech." The faux outrage on the right is laughable. Big bad google. What doesn't outrage the right these days? Perpetually angry, incapable of having a conversation because they can't see past their "outrage." See Obama, AHCA. It's phony, it's bullshit and it helps keep the status quo. If you're not outraged, good for you. But try, just try to have a conversation with a conservative. Why all the shouting?
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 13,694
    Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.
    HYour first sentence said he basically had no rights, then your last sentence suggests that he did have rights?
    Yes.  That's what that means.
    He has rights no rights. Glad we cleared that up. 
    Ok.  I will help you out his once.   He has rights.  Google was within its rights.   You can stand up for him if you don't want to see your rights trampled in the future.
    Sorry but the Supreme Court spoke on this issue quite awhile ago. But feel free to be outraged and start a petition on whitehouse.gov. It might make you feel better.
    I'm not outraged.  You're missing the point.   I simply don't see how folks can be against him speaking his mind.   It's a dangerous game the liberals play in suppressing what they don't agree with.  Don't get sucked into it.   But, it doesn't anger me in the least.  You have the right to come down on whatever side you want.  Just having a conversation,   That's our problem. We don't have conversations sharing ideas anymore, and this is just another example.  Oh boy, you hurt my feelings.  You must be fired.  Get over it.  
    Googles position seems to be that the memo was against the company values. Further that company property and time was spent to disseminate that memo as well. I dont recall them saying he didnt have the right to say, think, or believe what ever his heart desired. Just dont do it on the company dime.

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 12,370
    edited August 2017
    mickeyrat said:
    Bottom line is Google had right to do this as free speech does not apply within a company.  However, it is an extremely dangerous precedent.  The next time a woman gets fired or not promoted bc she "wrote an email to someone," remember the rights you didn't fight for this young man.
    HYour first sentence said he basically had no rights, then your last sentence suggests that he did have rights?
    Yes.  That's what that means.
    He has rights no rights. Glad we cleared that up. 
    Ok.  I will help you out his once.   He has rights.  Google was within its rights.   You can stand up for him if you don't want to see your rights trampled in the future.
    Sorry but the Supreme Court spoke on this issue quite awhile ago. But feel free to be outraged and start a petition on whitehouse.gov. It might make you feel better.
    I'm not outraged.  You're missing the point.   I simply don't see how folks can be against him speaking his mind.   It's a dangerous game the liberals play in suppressing what they don't agree with.  Don't get sucked into it.   But, it doesn't anger me in the least.  You have the right to come down on whatever side you want.  Just having a conversation,   That's our problem. We don't have conversations sharing ideas anymore, and this is just another example.  Oh boy, you hurt my feelings.  You must be fired.  Get over it.  
    Googles position seems to be that the memo was against the company values. Further that company property and time was spent to disseminate that memo as well. I dont recall them saying he didnt have the right to say, think, or believe what ever his heart desired. Just dont do it on the company dime.

    Exactly. Hence why I'm perplexed by the faux outrage. Imagine a mobile/Exxon employee circulating a 12 page memo about environmental degradation caused by oil exploration and drilling who happens to be a member of the Green Party. There'd be no rush to oppose their firing by conservatives on a free speech basis.
    Post edited by Halifax2TheMax on
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,153
    some crazy stuff in the lawsuit!

    https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/james-damore-just-filed-a-class-action-lawsuit-against-google-saying-it-discriminates-against-white-male-conservatives/

    For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as “a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin” and “an expansive ornate building” presented a talk entitled “Living as a Plural Being” at an internal company event


    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,153
    edited January 11
    Damore google lawsuit tidbits

    “Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with alternative lifestyles, including furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality, for the purpose of discussing sexual topics. The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on internal forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy.”

    Google’s internal forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy.”
    “Alternate proposal: moratorium on hiring white cis heterosexual abled men who aren’t abuse survivors.”


    “At the in-person training, entitled ‘Bias Busting,’ Google discussed how biases against women exist in the workplace, and how ‘white male privilege’ exists in the workplace,” the suit reads. “The training was run by the ‘Unbiasing Group’ at Google.

    “You’re a misogynist and a terrible person,” read a late-night email from Alex Hidalgo, a Google engineer. “I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.”

    “the point of this document is to disallow any defense at all that a man might make when some woman complains about bias. There is no defense. The woman is always right. The man has no alternative but to submit to her superior moral position. We have a word for that attitude, it’s called ‘sexism.'”

    “I’m a queer-ass nonbinary trans person that is fucking sick and tired of being told to open a dialogue with people who want me dead. We are at a point where the dialogue we need to be having with these people is ‘if you keep talking about this shit, i will hurt you.”

    allowing employees to create “blocklists” on their communications systems. “[Google] relies on crowdsourced harassment and ‘pecking’ to enforce social norms (including politics) that it feels it cannot write directly into its policies,” the suit states.

    “I (a white Googler), in an attempt to build a rapport with a Black Noogler and demonstrate my lack of ignorance of Black History, ended up whitesplaining Black History to him…thereby demonstrating my ignorance of Black History in the process. A few minutes later, feeling like a complete idiot, I went back to him and apologized for whitesplaining.”

    “I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team,” he wrote. “Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.”

    “You’re being blacklisted by people at companies outside of Google,” he added. “You might not have been aware of this, but people know, people talk. There are always social consequences.”


    “How do people cope with this?” one employee wrote. “I’ve never been part of a military or war effort before. … I don’t know how useful I’ll be.”

    Another advised: “Get in touch with your friendly local antifa. … I won’t say violence has no place, but if you are going to be doing anything risky, I can’t overemphasize the important of networking with people who’ve been thinking about scenarios like the one we’re in for years, and building relationships with them. We are only powerful if we organize.”



    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.