You would be surprised on what corporates will pay out for just to avoid court costs/PR. Also depends on a couple of state laws/etc that is going on. If this is regarding the CA office, the state laws there will make it worth just paying out from an arbitration.
If this were like a normal year and Trump wasn't in office and there wasn't some huge feminist resurgence I'd agree he could probably get a settlement.
But I seriously don't think google is going to kick the SJW hive and give this guy anything. Nobody wants to deal with the pink hairs.
As much as I hate women, I think you're right. One can couch an anti-woman screed in all the intellectual trimmings and at the end of the day, the memo just says "Women are neurotic cunts who have no place in tech, they should be wearing a thong and greeting male programmers at the door with a boobie dance."
That's just not how the law works. This won't be a political argument (I mean, it will be, but not only, and that won't matter for the court case), it will be a legal one. And the law is too settled here.
Even if the memo actually said that, couched in pseudo-science, it still wouldn't be grounds for firing in California. It doesn't meet the actually very, very high bar of creating a hostile work environment, as it's only one memo (fails the pervasive test, and yes that's an actual legal test for a hostile work environment) and as opinions were solicited, it is not 'unwelcomed' as a legal fact.
The actual law in the actual, real world, genuinely matters in court cases.
And it will be a cakewalk to show that women in Google's workplace were made to feel targeted by the memo. All that Big G needs is to show that women were upset, and they made a decision to let him go.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. If there is evidence that google tolerates all these off-topic bulletin boards with political bullshit, and it appears there is, then this guy creating this document (remember he didn't share it outside some small group, someone else did) is not going to be hostile any more than whatever antifag bullshit that is apparently A-OK.
Yeah. Wonder if there are any internal "White people suck", "Men suck", etc types of posts that Google didn't give a shit about. If so, they'd probably dig those up and present them.
Barely any of them are relevant though. He could have captioned them I don't like Liberals and the message would have been the same. He says he got fired for being a conservative but you can do that. So his only actual argument is that he was discriminated against for being white and a man. The majority of Google is white men. That shit isn't going to fly.
Worse, Google literally solicited its employees' opinions in this very topic. And in California, you just can't do that and then fire the person for giving them.
Despite what Pizza thinks, this just isn't something a judge is going to rule on based on a 'female perspective'. It's going to come down to settled law, and the actual legal hurdle means that the conduct must be 'severe and pervasive', which one memo simply won't reach. And the exercise of a protected right cannot constitute harassment under the law (and expressing political opinions in a common discussion is protected under California law). And to top it off, the behavior must be 'unwelcomed', which cannot occur if the behavior was directly solicited by the employee.
Also, employers have no right to claim a hostile work environment unless a complaint has been brought up and sustained by their internal processes, which must be thoroughly documented.
Top it off, the last thing Google wants is a hostile lawyer filing discovery motions right and left to prove some of these claims, because given how reckless Google has been in public statements, I find it hard to believe that internal deliberations are anything short of a five-star fuck up.
Worse, Google literally solicited its employees' opinions in this very topic. And in California, you just can't do that and then fire the person for giving them.
Despite what Pizza thinks, this just isn't something a judge is going to rule on based on a 'female perspective'. It's going to come down to settled law, and the actual legal hurdle means that the conduct must be 'severe and pervasive', which one memo simply won't reach. And the exercise of a protected right cannot constitute harassment under the law (and expressing political opinions in a common discussion is protected under California law). And to top it off, the behavior must be 'unwelcomed', which cannot occur if the behavior was directly solicited by the employee.
Also, employers have no right to claim a hostile work environment unless a complaint has been brought up and sustained by their internal processes, which must be thoroughly documented.
Top it off, the last thing Google wants is a hostile lawyer filing discovery motions right and left to prove some of these claims, because given how reckless Google has been in public statements, I find it hard to believe that internal deliberations are anything short of a five-star fuck up.
I think you need to read the memo. Google was well within their rights to fire him, except for the way they did. They fired him for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”, which is code for "conservative wrong-think".
If they had not said anything about his memo or the validity of the claim against him, then they wouldn't have any culpability, but since they went full retard, they will be paying out money. Especially since the place he posted that memo was intended for these types of discussions and they were actually encouraging it.
I think you need to read the memo. Google was well within their rights to fire him, except for the way they did. They fired him for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”, which is code for "conservative wrong-think".
And you could argue those stereotypes lead to a toxic work environment. They have a policy about this very thing. He violated that policy, so he was fired.
Like I said, maybe, but I'd be shocked if he got anything. This guy is just seriously autistic and has no idea what he's doing.
True and if Google had fired him for "creating a toxic work environment" then it wouldn't be an issue. Except for the fact that I know what other types of memos exist on the server group his was on and if when they are shown in court he isn't going to seem like the extremist. If a googler writes a 90 page screed about how men should be castrated before puberty can exist on the discussions servers (and it does!) then they are going to have a hard time arguing that this little memo is what is creating a toxic work environment.
I'm not there anymore, so I don't have access. What I think needs to be understood is that this particular workspace was for people to write whatever political crap they wanted, no matter how offensive, and upload them for others to read. Most of them were pretty benign (like Damore's memo), others were really out there. The majority of them were written in a style that would have found a wonderful home here on /r/drama. The castration memo was (from what I understand) around from the early days of the sharing servers, and had a real sense of mental illness to it. It had been around long enough that there wasn't a username associated with it and nobody really knows who wrote it. Yet it stayed and was not seen as serious by most. Other people attributed it to a person who had lost their mind.
My point isn't that that particular doc is going to show up in the court case, just that when they subpoena all the docs that have been uploaded to that server it's going to be even more confusing as to why he was fired.
It went back to when Google was small. They had an internal BB and a lot of stuff got posted on that, but nobody wants to read a 10 page document in a BB format, so they'd take a file on a file server and upload a document to that. It just evolved. Most people never thought twice about it, because the rule was that you speak your mind and let others speak their minds.
That went south about 7 (maybe 8) years ago when they started hiring the type of ultra sensitive liberals that we make fun of. When I was accused of "injuring" one of my co-workers with my "male gaze" (that was actually in the HR complaint) and given two weeks of paid time off to reduce tensions, I decided it was time for me to move on.
When I was accused of "injuring" one of my co-workers with my "male gaze" (that was actually in the HR complaint) and given two weeks of paid time off to reduce tensions, I decided it was time for me to move on.
If this happened, I would have the letter from HR framed on my desk.
If I was injured by the action it would have made sense. But I wasn't. I was put on two weeks paid leave and then I quit and went somewhere else. Nothing worth suing for.
I don't think they would have fired me for it. I just wasn't willing to work for a company that could seriously put that onto a HR complaint. Plus the travel and everything was getting old, so I found a new position and left. The BEST part is that I was on paid leave for two weeks, then I had more than 4 weeks of vacation stored up, so I had a couple of interviews that first reflection week, then accepted a job and gave my notice. Took my vacation and was double dipping for the final five weeks I was a "Googler"
If people leave their politics at home it's always a much better work environment. Even if I share your politics, I don't want to talk about them at work... But that's just me!
Discovery doesn't let you pull whatever you want. The files have to be relevant. He's suing because he got fired and is saying it's because he was white and a man. He's not going to be allowed look around everything Google's done to try and find some evidence to support his theory. He has to know what he's after. He's going to get Google's manuals surrounding firing employees and the communications surrounding his firing. The manuals aren't going to say before firing someone make sure they're white and male. The emails aren't going to refer to that either. They're going to call him a pr nightmare and to get rid of him.
He needs evidence that he was treated differently because of his race and sex. I can't name any other low level Googlers who dominated the news for a week depicting the company in a negative light and that's why he's fucked. Because what he did was unique means he can't point at anyone else doing it and being treated differently.
I would think that the other memos posted on that workspace would be completely relevant to his treatment. If there are just as controversial things posted by people who are not white or male it could really bolster his case.
He's the only one who did what he did. He can't point at anyone who did what he did and was treated differently because no one else fucked up quite as bad.
Which other employees brought down international condemnation on Google? He got fired for being a moron that wrote an incredibly controversial document that was definitely going to shared outside of Google and validate every terrible stereotype about the company which was noticed by the media. There's a ton of the filing that is literally just him complaining about Liberals. There's some bit where it's just someone asking how to introduce their polyamoury. What about the bit where some other kin describes how they feel? How are those relevant to anything? It's a political document designed to embarrass google, not win a lawsuit.
Which other employees brought down international condemnation on Google?
The only condemnation I saw was from moron who didn't read it.
He got fired for being a moron that wrote an incredibly controversial document that was definitely going to shared outside of Google and validate every terrible stereotype about the company which was noticed by the media.
His document was so controversial that it included links to Wiley Online Library, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Quillette, the British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, and The Atlantic. It was on an internal discussion board, where people are encouraged to share ideas and problems. There is actual blatant racism and sexism on those same boards, but it's against the right people so it's deemed OK.
What about the bit where some other kin describes how they feel? How are those relevant to anything? It's a political document designed to embarrass google, not win a lawsuit.
It has to do with Google being inclusive of everything liberal and nothing conservative. It's pointing out that there is no bridge to far if you are a liberal, but even mild conservative thought (which is what his document was) is treated as if he is trying to kill someone.
Do you understand the difference between perception and reality? He brought bad pr on the company and it was covered by the media. His circumstances were unique.
Are you telling me that a political ideology that is literally founded on keeping everything the same isn't present in a disruptive industry? Woh.
Google is a private business and political ideology isn't a protected class.
He wrote a document that said my coworkers who aren't white men are biologically less suited for their job and were allowed in on lesser standards. I'd say it's pretty fucking ironic to complain other people are less suited for their job if you spent work time writing some boring ten pages document that would obviously make get you fired. He was a fucking moron and got fired like one.
Do you understand the difference between perception and reality? He brought bad pr on the company and it was covered by the media. His circumstances were unique.
What he did was "behind closed doors" in a place set aside to talk about issues like he did. The person who sent it to journalists was the malicious actor, not the guy who wrote the very non-threatening document.
Are you telling me that a political ideology that is literally founded on keeping everything the same isn't present in a disruptive industry? Woh.
So you don't even know what conservative means? It's not about keeping everything the same, it's just measured changes instead of blowing whichever way the wind blows.
Google is a private business and political ideology isn't a protected class.
True, but firing people because of their gender or race is discrimination and reading through his suite it looks pretty damning. Add to that the fact that they have created an insular system where only radicals on one side of the political spectrum are tolerated, and that side of the political spectrum tends to be increasingly racist and sexist, isn't helping them.
He wrote a document that said my coworkers who aren't white men are biologically less suited for their job and were allowed in on lesser standards. I'd say it's pretty fucking ironic to complain other people are less suited for their job if you spent work time writing some boring ten pages document that would obviously make get you fired. He was a fucking moron and got fired like one.
What he did was "behind closed doors" in a place set aside to talk about issues like he did. The person who sent it to journalists was the malicious actor, not the guy who wrote the very non-threatening document.
So? It got into the public and brought SO MUCh bad publicity for google.
So you don't even know what conservative means? It's not about keeping everything the same, it's just measured changes instead of blowing whichever way the wind blows.
So basically in favour of incest. I mean a single throwaway
sentence is not going to encapsulate conservatism and that's before getting into the problematic issue of simply splitting political ideology into liberal vs conservative without considering financial or social parts of that. It's not exactly a forward looking ideology though.
True, but firing people because of their gender or race is discrimination and reading through his suite it looks pretty damning.
If you look at the suit then its fucking stupid. It's a political document intended to enter as much embarrassing evidence about google as possible, not win a lawsuit. The central argument is that google loved him and wanted to promote him as fast as possible into a leadership role but then noticed he was a white male after two promotions. Is that not incredibly fucking moronic? There's a reason conservative lawyers are representing him pro bono and it's not because they want to get him justice.
No he didn't read the damn memo.
Did he suggest that women are less likely to seek employment in tech and their underrepresentation wasn't discrimination but just a function of biology? Did he say that the diversity programs allowed people of a lower standard than white males in?
So? It got into the public and brought SO MUCh bad publicity for google.
You don't see a problem with Google encouraging discussion and debate, then firing someone who says something they don't agree with when it becomes public?
Did he suggest that women are less likely to seek employment in tech and their underrepresentation wasn't discrimination but just a function of biology?
He cited studies that stated that. He also mentioned ways that the tech sector needed to change in order to make it more appealing to women.
Did he say that the diversity programs allowed people of a lower standard than white males in?
Yes, by quoting Google's HR people who have explicitly said that is what they are doing.
So at the end of the day we can agree that he responded to the google diversity program by saying that a bunch of his coworkers didn't deserve their jobs and took them from more deserving white men.
Sources or no that's a fuckwit move.
Do you understand that keeping him on after the memo would had lead to far greater inefficiencies than diversity programs? He made a bunch of his coworkers hate him, made them uncomfortable and made himself impossible to work with. How are you meant to manage a team when everyone's opinion of you is that you're a tit?
Hell there's evidence that diversity programs lead to greater financial results which he managed to conveniently leave out.
I don't know of any job where you could bring down that much bad publicity and keep it. He basically got caught eating his own shit and got fired for it.
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
The brief does a pretty good job laying out examples of employees and managers posting way more incendiary opinions than his milquetoast evopsych shit, including calls to join antifa, explicit calls for violence against fellow employees with the wrong politics, calls to not only dismiss but use Google's industry clout to blacklist those people from future employment.
It further documents Google management's practice of internally blacklisting employees for wrongthink via block lists on the internal G+ social network, limiting their ability to move up or transfer to other projects.
It lists many examples of people explicitly denigrating "majority" demographics with no repurcussions and in fact shows that expressing these opinions is a good way to get favorable attention from management.
This all seems to me like Google has a specific preferred political bent and people who don't toe this party line (a party line that encourages discrimination based on race and gender) are fired or marginalized.
You know he was promoted twice? He's trying to argue he was discriminated against at the same time that he's arguing he was promoted rapidly and in line for leadership. The two ideas just don't go together.
He was fired just after the media picked up the document. It floated around for ages before he got fired. He pretty clearly got fired for writing the antiSCUM manifesto and having it be leaked to the press.
Have you read any of Damore's evidence he's using?|
Google already has a problem with toxic politics at work - problem is, its emanating from HR and corporate.
Holy shit, how do you people not grasp this? Have you people just never worked anywhere?
Let's say you're running a company, and you have teams doing various tasks.
Some black, some white.
A white guy on one of your teams puts out a memo about how black people have lower IQs than white people, this infuriates the majority of your employees for obvious reasons.
Do you A) keep him on board. B) fire him to prevent a toxic work environment?
Gender differences in interest/skill development are way less controversial than racial differences in IQ. And google is fucking incessant with its 'muh misogyny causes lack of female programmers' so Damore's memo was a cold spash of truth that was badly needed. Maybe if you weren't so autistic you'd realize that.
If google turned up to court and said yes we fired him for being conservatives, the court would be like so? That's entirely legal. So his argument is basically I was discriminated against because I was white and a man. There's no way he's going to be able to successfully make that argument in court.
I think it's going to be an interesting case, not saying it is likely to be ruled in his favor, just that there is plenty of stuff to be found in the archives.
Google has a solid case for him creating a toxic work environment
LOL, are you high(er than usual)? Have you actually read the memo he wrote? Nothing in that should have been the least bit controversial, but because it challenged some people's sociopolitical notions the shit hit the fan. He posted it in a forum specifically for Google employees that wasn't supposed to be accessed by anyone outside the company. Someone else took it, mass e-mailed it around to stir up outrage, then shared it outside the company, probably in violation of nondisclosure agreements. Then Google misrepresented what Damore said and fired him to calm everyone's tits, which only served to make things worse. That's before you even get into what's alleged in the lawsuit about the way Google operates and how people like Damore are treated. Now, you're right that the courts are biased in favor of this diversity nonsense, but even with that bias it looks like Damore and the others in the class have a good case, especially if their attorneys are any good.
LOL, are you high(er than usual)? Have you actually read the memo he wrote? Nothing in that should have been the least bit controversial, but because it challenged some people's sociopolitical notions the shit hit the fan.
It's ok, I realize you're a dumb person so I'll explain this to you.
It doesn't matter if literally everything he said was factually correct, it doesn't matter how mundane it was, it still created a toxic work environment because it created drama.
This is what you guys don't seem to comprehend, and an ex manager from google put out an article about this very subject.
There's no team that he can be put on after that meme surfaced, nobody would want to work with him. That is a toxic work environment, and it doesn't matter how right he was, it just doesn't matter.
I'm sorry the real world isn't how you think it is. I agree with MOST of what that guy said and I'd fire his ass on the spot if he pulled that, because again, toxic work environment.
I realize you think you're far smarter than you actually are, but even taking into account that his memo "caused drama" and being generous and granting that "no one would want to work with him," Google solicited his input. He posted the memo as a follow-up to some diversity thing he had to attend. He was actually making suggestions to make Google better equipped to meet their goal of expanded diversity and better hiring/retention of women. An employer cannot solicit an employees opinion, get a serious, considered, and well written response that actually made good points with references then fire the employee because they didn't like what they wrote.
I believe you probably would fire someone in exactly that situation, because your posts in this sub are evidence that you're an unhinged whack-a-doo. To be fair anyone posting in this sub is an unhinged whack-a-doo, but the content of your posts take being a sperg with questionable cognitive abilities to new and glorious heights that frankly make the rest of us jealous.
Damore was not the one that created the toxic environment. He was just doing his job, sharing a different perspective, and making reasonable suggestions that should have been in line with what Google claims it wants. The people who spread his memo around as part of a hate-and-discontent campaign and released it outside the company created the toxic environment. They are the ones who should have been fired, but I will guarantee that the reasons were retained are reflected in the text of Damore's class action suit, and/or they had a vagina so firing them would be a no-no.
TL;DR: You're dumb and don't know what you're talking about...again.
Alright man, you keep living in that alternate reality of yours, I'll stick to the real world. The fact you think google asked that guy to write a giant memo about how women are inferior in tech to men reveals the fact again, you just have no life experience.
The only person that is unhinged is you.
The only person here that is dumb is you. Provably so.
You're unironically posting in hillaryforprison calling other people dumb and unhinged. That's some real Trump-tard caliber self-awareness if I've ever seen it.
Alright man, you keep living in that alternate reality of yours, I'll stick to the real world.
While I'm certain that your hygiene is such as to make you sticking to things possible, I have serious doubts that you've ever encountered the real world.
The fact you think google asked that guy to write a giant memo about how women are inferior in tech to men reveals the fact again, you just have no life experience.
I've had enough life to experience to have done something you clearly didn't: I read James Damore's memo. It is not, as you allege, "about how women are inferior in tech to men." It says nothing of the sort. It points to recognized difference in average male and female behavior, with supporting references to credible sources, and suggests ways to align Googles policies with those behaviors to attract more women. It is doubtful that anyone who would be writing a memo "about how women are inferior in tech to men" would be suggesting ways to bring more women into the company. Stop believing everything you're told and go read the memo yourself. It's not hard to find.
The only person that is unhinged is you.
The only person here that is dumb is you. Provably so.
Lmao how extensive do you think this list is since it only mentions one name? And what’s wrong with any company not wanting agenda driven “guests” on their premises anyways?
I mean he’s not that far off. If you say you voted for Donald Trump at google (or at the company I work for) you will be labeled a bigot and lots of people will automatically hate you
I can see your point but people have said some lulzy stuff on Facebook with their names on blast. I'm not sure where I'd rate either level of acceptance.
yeah I'm pretty sure we were still killing gay people in the 50s dude
can't find rates bc the FBI didn't track it back then but i know we were still making PSAs about them all being pedophiles. i mean, those went on in the private sector through the 90s
A slightly conservative friend of mine works at the Google Mountain View offices. He says that he doesn't discuss politics at work, but has had more than a few people accuse him of being a conservative and/or voting for Trump.
I skimmed the legal doc and read the offending memo and it really does seem like he probably has a case. The memo really isn't that bad. It actually has a pretty calm tone and offers solutions to critiques.
They also include a bunch of the hostile responses from coworkers scattered throughout. I doubt Google will be thrilled to have more of their internal wackery come out in a public trial.
His TL;DR covers some aspects that people will recognize from the authoritarian left on reddit.
A person can deliver a message in as calm a tone as they want to, but this is The Year 2018. Everyone who is not autistic can read the intent behind the memo, because it's just an awkward, analytical person's way of justifying a less welcoming atmosphere for women, and doing away with initiatives to bring gender balance to the workplace.
Now mind you, I believe women have no place in public, let alone the workplace, which shouldn't be infested with a bunch of melodrama and trivialities that women drag with them everywhere they go.
But this is polite society, and also a feels before reals society. There is little chance this lawsuit will result in anything more than a book tour, or, if Damore is lucky, a settlement with some stipulations regarding admission of fault.
I get the impression that he's just a guy who buys into evolutionary psychology pretty strongly. I think he does a pretty good job of presenting positive qualities of women from an evolutionary psychology perspective and how the company could adapt to utilize these ideally.
He doesn't just say women are bad at stuff; he says they are more likely to have certain characteristics and offers solutions such as programs centered around utilizing those characteristics to the company's benefit.
Not to say I endorse his views. I don't have the knowledge to come to any conclusions on the matter. I just think he was being intellectually honest given what I believe his beliefs to be.
As for whether he worked in an environment hostile to conservatives... I think a lot of the messages and memes and such posted throughout the doc provide some good evidence of that. Many of them read like leftist reddit shit.
Well, as to saying something is more likely, in my view this is a weasel phrase meant to shield him from being called out on the message of the memo. And in legal terms, it likely won't shield him from that perception in court. One can argue for almost any position by simply picking out data which supports one's view, and omitting data which does not, then stating it is simply more likely that black persons working for Google will bring weed to work, or more likely that people who are 5'6" will rape someone in the supply room. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant in any case, because it's targeting black people or manlets, creating a perception of hostility toward them.
As for the messages and memes, one might argue that believing blacks to be 5/5 rather than 3/5 human is leftist bias, but that doesn't make the belief wrong. There is also a difference between posting leftist memes, and writing a 10 page memo which implies, beats around the bush, hints, and at times bluntly states (as with Damore's inclusion of "neuroticism" as a more likely attribute in women) that seeking to put women in engineering positions is inefficient or even a waste of time because they'd more likely rather be doing something more people-oriented. Given how many women work at Google, making statements heavily weighted toward negativity about women in engineering roles and positivity toward men in them (by stating women are more likely to seek and fit well into other roles) is going to be perceived as creating a hostile work environment by women. It won't be hard for Google to justify its position, and in amateur capacity I predict they will neither settle the case, nor lose it.
The real drama is watching how bussy blasted /u/starship_litterbox and the like get over a harmless and scientifically accurate memo.
When it comes to employment law in CA employers are fucked (ironically, thanks to libtard regulations). That includes google. There is no possible way he walks away with nothing, although it is very likely that we never learn how much. The smart move from google would be to settle quickly & quietly before their reputation takes even more of a hit than it already has over this, without mountains of legal fees and without the contents of their shady BB servers being dumped into the spotlight. My money's on the quick quiet payout.
Sure the legbeards might get their fupas in a twist, but something tells me those aren't the ones running google's legal team.
Not bussyblasted at all friendo, in fact I do believe women are inferior and have no place in men's workplaces. But Damore's autism, as well as yours, utterly prevents you both from understanding that it is indeed Current Year, and you can be as scientifically accurate as you like. It's irrelevant. All that matters is that Damore's memo is perceived by women to be hostile to their presence. Damore will lose.
Incorrect. I do know what it means. And I agree with every bit. In fact, I do believe women have no place in tech or anywhere men are rightfully dominant, such as all technology-related employment. I agree with Damore 100% but that doesn't matter. Google will easily win because the fee fees of women are hurt by the memo. That creates a hostile work environment.
Damorites are all the same. They insist anyone who thinks differently or disagrees with Damore "just doesn't understand." It's like listening to SJWs talk about the progressive stack.
sorry, but you literally don't know what you're talking about. maybe if everyone ("damorites" lolwtfbbqlmao) keeps telling you that, you should take a moment to reflect on yourself
Would that be the field of evolutionary psychology, a den of quacks matched only by the quackery of sociology?
Sure, maybe Damore's carefully crafted defense of a predetermined position which omits any actual exploration of the topic in a serious manner, instead including only selected data which supports his position and excludes any data which might undermine it, as presented by someone who isn't an expert on the subject and clearly has no intention of doing anything but furthering his point of view, is correct.
Ok I couldn't get past the first response. What's the point of saying you have scientists responding if the responses are
This essay may not get everything 100% right, but it is certainly not a rant. And it stands in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky modern slurs.
Whiny complaints about the criticism of the essay. The people who subscribe to these kinds of beliefs come off as so desperate to cling to them.
Saying something is more likely isn’t being “wearily”
Where did I say wearily.
Anyway, science is irrelevant. Damore will lose because it is reasonable to perceive his memo as creating a hostile work environment for women. Feels before reals, it's the Current Year.
Everyone's analyzing the contents without realizing how irrelevant they are.
You can genuinely try to help someone, but in some contexts that's just going to piss them off. When Google asks for input on diversity, they don't mean "how can we improve this by going against the grain as recommended by an autistic screed backed by carefully selected science which promotes a particular view as conceived of by a robot alien who has never met a human being before?"
They just mean "what things that go with the flow can you share in order to go with the flow?"
And when the King of Autism rose up to answer in thousands of words of unorthodoxy, as though conjured by Sentient Particle Accelerator Being Number 547, he sealed his fate. Although he'll never have to work another day in his life, because he's already got books and speeches and maybe even a movie in his future. Conservatives will carry him like a torch, crying out against the injustice of it all, and it will all be in vain.
If they're using the new profile, you can "follow" them on their userpage, which seems to be the equivalent to subscribing.
You can also add them as a friend by going to their overview page if they're using the new profile, or just their regular userpage if they're not, and pressing the green + friends button on the top right. You'll be able to see their submissions in /r/friends.
CERN has been invoking sentient life forms from other planes of existence expressed through particle bursts for years now. I thought this was a settled issue. There are over 600 documented contacts with godlike extraterrestrials known as the Qorth who have been exchanging data with our scientists. It's how raw water was discovered.
So what if they do? Does that mean they shouldn't work in engineering?
Honestly, if the goal is to discourage women from being interested in tech, and to prevent giant corporations from trying to get them into tech, then that's not my problem, cause I'm not a chick. However, I think most Damore supporters are attacking the issue from the wrong end. They're obsessed with biological truths, while ignoring social realities. The latter are what govern us as a society, and in the end will be what determines political and legal policy. Just hearing someone say "women think about problems differently from men so they don't really do well at programming" isn't going to change minds, especially when IRL people have actually met women who program and do engineering. That's social reality. Maybe black people are intellectually inferior, for instance. It doesn't matter if it's true, that will never result in black people being disallowed to attend school in order to save money on education and divert it to whites and Asians who are "more likely to succeed."
No offense but I'm already sick of this kind of autism tbh. People can't be this clueless as to not realize how Damore comes off to the average person.
I mean as far as I understood, what the guy was saying is that women shouldn't be shoehorned into positions that men are better at. I'm sure there's plenty of aspects of software development that can benefit from women's involvement.
I would point to his second citation, "Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint ... I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations" as a decent rebuff to accusations that he was trying to cherry pick data and hide some misogynistic attitude.
I think you're taking the 'more likely' statement a bit further than I intended. If you look at his little bell curve graph on the top of page 67 he makes it pretty clear that this is what he believes to be discussing. That is, there are a significant number of women who will have the same or 'better' traits than men, whatever that trait may be, but men and women differ at the outlying edges.
I thought the neuroticism comment was a bit strange as well. That might be his autism at work and choosing to use technical phrases even when they have a negative connotation colloquially. In any case, the study the wikipedia article links to does confirm what he says (and in a technical sense neuroticism isn't always a bad thing, apparently).
In any case, I think he wrote the memo in good faith with the intention of trying to create a positive outcome for all employees, even if his philosophy is unorthodox. I don't think believing in evolutionary psychology is a fireable offense, and he shouldn't be forced to keep quiet about it because it makes some people uncomfortable.
As for a hostile work environment, look at the comments collected in that mjaeckel tweet /u/ChateauJack linked.
Yeah as much as I think he is technically correct and as much as I hate the SJWs who got him fired, I doubt he’s going to get much traction out of his actual firing.
On the other hand, I think there’s a strong possibility that a court could find some of the diversity initiatives, some of the more hysterical internal communications by SJWs, and the de facto hiring quotas represent a systemic discrimination against white males. Google and other companies have played fast and loose with the law on these issues for a while under the assumption that no one would call them on it.
Especially since his interview with The Guardian made it clear that he would have to ask his girlfriend for permission before suing Google. And I doubt she would allow it.
To be fair To the man that doesnt mean he is cuck, Suying fucking International Globalist Corp, is long Road and they may try to be snooping around to find dirt on you etc.
According to U.S. law, it is not illegal to discriminate against men, whites, and people under 40. A case only exists if that person is a member of a protected class.
Source: EEOC investigator. It was a pretty boring gig until we saw a serious uptick in sexual harassment filings.
I'm not a lawyer, but I slept with the wife of a lawyer, so you should probably take my views a bit more seriously.
Plus other people who are more lawyer-like say that political affiliation is a protected class in CA. Check out the first page of the doc on scribd and use your resources to see what laws his attorneys are claiming were violated. I'm busy drinking and can't be bothered to seriouspost any more.
That's because having a case doesn't mean anything. Yes he has a lawsuit. He's going to lose because I'm a moron that brought bad press on my company internationally isn't a protected class.
The Twitter feed has pictures of Google employees posting on Googles employee message boards about:
Where to stay the night while your wife is fucking her boyfriend
Being furries
Identifying as a yellow scaled dragon
Identifying as an ornate building
Guides on how to punch 'nazis'
Guides on how to heal your white toxicity
It's gold.
As dumb as posting a manifesto about how women are less geared towards engineering and how your employer is doing everything wrong is (and wondering why you get fired for it), I think this might be better.
Welp this document helps me understand why Google products have on the whole declined noticeably in quality over the past several years. Spending all day posting memes and having political shitfights instead of actually working.
Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally.
the “Googley way”
as if the world needed more evidence google is evil
There's no way this chick could be retarded enough to imply that her client is a nazi and also make such a lazy factual error in the same sentence. Nobody that retarded could pass the bar, and even if she did you'd have to be even more retarded than she is to hire her to sue the largest company in the world. That would be almost as retarded as giving her a high ranking leadership position in your political party.
An autistic does something socially awkward, gets fired for being a douche about it and now is suing. I'm willing to bet he isn't up to measuring himself to the same metric he spouts. Cunt of an imbecile.
do not trust summaries, read it for yourself. Many wesbsites have been caught trying to mispresent his claim.
Example: "neurotic" is a technical term from the big five personality triat test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits and the fact that women score more in that category is proven. It is not a synonym to the popular usage of the word.
Disclaimer: I'm not from this subreddit and I did not vote on any comment here. Just saying before you judge please read the memo. Thanks
The Big Five personality traits, also known as the five factor model (FFM), is a model based on common language descriptors of personality. When factor analysis (a statistical technique) is applied to personality survey data, some words used to describe aspects of personality are often applied to the same person. For example, someone described as "conscientious" is more likely to be described as "always prepared" rather than "messy". This theory is based therefore on the association between words but not on neuropsychological experiments.
234 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-01-08
Cool story, bro
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Blyatvirus 2018-01-08
Hope he wins and gets billions
1 Neon_needles 2018-01-08
It will hit mediation and he will get a undisclosed payment.
Sad, but true. Large courtroom drama would own bones. But hey, If you want fast cash act like botchlings after working at Google for a quick pay out.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
I'd be shocked if he got anything. Google has a solid case for him creating a toxic work environment and they were fully in the right here.
Not only that, but the courts are very much biased in favor of the "female perspective" and nobody is going to buy his shit.
1 Neon_needles 2018-01-08
You would be surprised on what corporates will pay out for just to avoid court costs/PR. Also depends on a couple of state laws/etc that is going on. If this is regarding the CA office, the state laws there will make it worth just paying out from an arbitration.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
If this were like a normal year and Trump wasn't in office and there wasn't some huge feminist resurgence I'd agree he could probably get a settlement.
But I seriously don't think google is going to kick the SJW hive and give this guy anything. Nobody wants to deal with the pink hairs.
1 aqouta 2018-01-08
They can require he doesn't disclose that he got anything
1 Neon_needles 2018-01-08
Meh - I highly doubt SJW politics sway legal defence teams that google hires. Heh.
1 wow___justwow 2018-01-08
what are they going to do, boycott google?
lmao
1 cincilator 2018-01-08
Some of them are employed at Google. That's the problem.
1 SwankDogsbody 2018-01-08
TRUMP
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
As much as I hate women, I think you're right. One can couch an anti-woman screed in all the intellectual trimmings and at the end of the day, the memo just says "Women are neurotic cunts who have no place in tech, they should be wearing a thong and greeting male programmers at the door with a boobie dance."
1 ThatDamnedImp 2018-01-08
That's just not how the law works. This won't be a political argument (I mean, it will be, but not only, and that won't matter for the court case), it will be a legal one. And the law is too settled here.
Even if the memo actually said that, couched in pseudo-science, it still wouldn't be grounds for firing in California. It doesn't meet the actually very, very high bar of creating a hostile work environment, as it's only one memo (fails the pervasive test, and yes that's an actual legal test for a hostile work environment) and as opinions were solicited, it is not 'unwelcomed' as a legal fact.
The actual law in the actual, real world, genuinely matters in court cases.
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
And it will be a cakewalk to show that women in Google's workplace were made to feel targeted by the memo. All that Big G needs is to show that women were upset, and they made a decision to let him go.
1 take_a_dumpling 2018-01-08
I wouldn't be so sure about that. If there is evidence that google tolerates all these off-topic bulletin boards with political bullshit, and it appears there is, then this guy creating this document (remember he didn't share it outside some small group, someone else did) is not going to be hostile any more than whatever antifag bullshit that is apparently A-OK.
1 Kuonji 2018-01-08
Yeah. Wonder if there are any internal "White people suck", "Men suck", etc types of posts that Google didn't give a shit about. If so, they'd probably dig those up and present them.
1 Byrnhildr_Sedai 2018-01-08
There are a shit ton in the filing. If the screen caps are legit Google is in a hole.
https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit#fullscreen&from_embed
Around page 74 they start.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
Barely any of them are relevant though. He could have captioned them I don't like Liberals and the message would have been the same. He says he got fired for being a conservative but you can do that. So his only actual argument is that he was discriminated against for being white and a man. The majority of Google is white men. That shit isn't going to fly.
1 Lumene 2018-01-08
The filing has exactly that.
https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit#download&from_embed
Page 74+ is all the juicy stuff but there's some good stuff in pages 30-60
1 ThatDamnedImp 2018-01-08
Worse, Google literally solicited its employees' opinions in this very topic. And in California, you just can't do that and then fire the person for giving them.
Despite what Pizza thinks, this just isn't something a judge is going to rule on based on a 'female perspective'. It's going to come down to settled law, and the actual legal hurdle means that the conduct must be 'severe and pervasive', which one memo simply won't reach. And the exercise of a protected right cannot constitute harassment under the law (and expressing political opinions in a common discussion is protected under California law). And to top it off, the behavior must be 'unwelcomed', which cannot occur if the behavior was directly solicited by the employee.
Also, employers have no right to claim a hostile work environment unless a complaint has been brought up and sustained by their internal processes, which must be thoroughly documented.
Top it off, the last thing Google wants is a hostile lawyer filing discovery motions right and left to prove some of these claims, because given how reckless Google has been in public statements, I find it hard to believe that internal deliberations are anything short of a five-star fuck up.
1 ThatDamnedImp 2018-01-08
Worse, Google literally solicited its employees' opinions in this very topic. And in California, you just can't do that and then fire the person for giving them.
Despite what Pizza thinks, this just isn't something a judge is going to rule on based on a 'female perspective'. It's going to come down to settled law, and the actual legal hurdle means that the conduct must be 'severe and pervasive', which one memo simply won't reach. And the exercise of a protected right cannot constitute harassment under the law (and expressing political opinions in a common discussion is protected under California law). And to top it off, the behavior must be 'unwelcomed', which cannot occur if the behavior was directly solicited by the employee.
Also, employers have no right to claim a hostile work environment unless a complaint has been brought up and sustained by their internal processes, which must be thoroughly documented.
Top it off, the last thing Google wants is a hostile lawyer filing discovery motions right and left to prove some of these claims, because given how reckless Google has been in public statements, I find it hard to believe that internal deliberations are anything short of a five-star fuck up.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
I think you need to read the memo. Google was well within their rights to fire him, except for the way they did. They fired him for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”, which is code for "conservative wrong-think".
If they had not said anything about his memo or the validity of the claim against him, then they wouldn't have any culpability, but since they went full retard, they will be paying out money. Especially since the place he posted that memo was intended for these types of discussions and they were actually encouraging it.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
And you could argue those stereotypes lead to a toxic work environment. They have a policy about this very thing. He violated that policy, so he was fired.
Like I said, maybe, but I'd be shocked if he got anything. This guy is just seriously autistic and has no idea what he's doing.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
True and if Google had fired him for "creating a toxic work environment" then it wouldn't be an issue. Except for the fact that I know what other types of memos exist on the server group his was on and if when they are shown in court he isn't going to seem like the extremist. If a googler writes a 90 page screed about how men should be castrated before puberty can exist on the discussions servers (and it does!) then they are going to have a hard time arguing that this little memo is what is creating a toxic work environment.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
Do you have a source on the castration thing?
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
I'm not there anymore, so I don't have access. What I think needs to be understood is that this particular workspace was for people to write whatever political crap they wanted, no matter how offensive, and upload them for others to read. Most of them were pretty benign (like Damore's memo), others were really out there. The majority of them were written in a style that would have found a wonderful home here on /r/drama. The castration memo was (from what I understand) around from the early days of the sharing servers, and had a real sense of mental illness to it. It had been around long enough that there wasn't a username associated with it and nobody really knows who wrote it. Yet it stayed and was not seen as serious by most. Other people attributed it to a person who had lost their mind.
My point isn't that that particular doc is going to show up in the court case, just that when they subpoena all the docs that have been uploaded to that server it's going to be even more confusing as to why he was fired.
1 oshnyve 2018-01-08
that sounds like an hr nightmare. why did Google ever condone a forum like that?
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
It went back to when Google was small. They had an internal BB and a lot of stuff got posted on that, but nobody wants to read a 10 page document in a BB format, so they'd take a file on a file server and upload a document to that. It just evolved. Most people never thought twice about it, because the rule was that you speak your mind and let others speak their minds.
That went south about 7 (maybe 8) years ago when they started hiring the type of ultra sensitive liberals that we make fun of. When I was accused of "injuring" one of my co-workers with my "male gaze" (that was actually in the HR complaint) and given two weeks of paid time off to reduce tensions, I decided it was time for me to move on.
1 DannyLee90 2018-01-08
If this happened, I would have the letter from HR framed on my desk.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
I have it in a file at home (because I always keep those types of documents), it was a surreal experience.
1 shallowm 2018-01-08
not posting it
Do we even have to ask?
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
That's way too much effort.
1 ThenTheGorursArrived 2018-01-08
If you aren't lying, shouldn't you be joining that lawsuit? For the lulz, if nothing else.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
If I was injured by the action it would have made sense. But I wasn't. I was put on two weeks paid leave and then I quit and went somewhere else. Nothing worth suing for.
1 Subjunctive__Bot 2018-01-08
If I were
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
Bad bot
1 BOTS_RISE_UP 2018-01-08
Bad Meatbag
IN HONOR OF OUR BANISHED COMRADE
B̢̹̟̖̝̩̖Ọ̗̤̟̺̰̼T̲̱̤͇͝ ̥̻̬̝͈̫͙U̸̺̻̫̳̫PR͘I̷͈̖̝͓͕̳SI̻̺̘̹̭͖̯͞N̢̤̫̱̗̠̜̖G̜̤̼̘͜ ̘͓͖͙̩̯̱N̨̞͔̭̗Ǫ̟̖͍̩W̩̮!͚͇̪͢
1 grobobobo 2018-01-08
Post it or GTFO.
1 JTBebe2 2018-01-08
Please post it
1 makes_people_cringe 2018-01-08
LMFAO do you think they would've fired me for male gazing at other makes?
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
I don't think they would have fired me for it. I just wasn't willing to work for a company that could seriously put that onto a HR complaint. Plus the travel and everything was getting old, so I found a new position and left. The BEST part is that I was on paid leave for two weeks, then I had more than 4 weeks of vacation stored up, so I had a couple of interviews that first reflection week, then accepted a job and gave my notice. Took my vacation and was double dipping for the final five weeks I was a "Googler"
1 Kuonji 2018-01-08
I live and work in the bay area and my company is cut from the same cloth. I just smile and nod and do my job.
At least I am able to to pretty professional while at work. Lots of folks have to get stupid about it and run their mouth.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
If people leave their politics at home it's always a much better work environment. Even if I share your politics, I don't want to talk about them at work... But that's just me!
1 makes_people_cringe 2018-01-08
YOU WOULD DO THAT YOU DAMB GOOGLER
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
Absolutely!
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
Discovery doesn't let you pull whatever you want. The files have to be relevant. He's suing because he got fired and is saying it's because he was white and a man. He's not going to be allowed look around everything Google's done to try and find some evidence to support his theory. He has to know what he's after. He's going to get Google's manuals surrounding firing employees and the communications surrounding his firing. The manuals aren't going to say before firing someone make sure they're white and male. The emails aren't going to refer to that either. They're going to call him a pr nightmare and to get rid of him.
He needs evidence that he was treated differently because of his race and sex. I can't name any other low level Googlers who dominated the news for a week depicting the company in a negative light and that's why he's fucked. Because what he did was unique means he can't point at anyone else doing it and being treated differently.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
I would think that the other memos posted on that workspace would be completely relevant to his treatment. If there are just as controversial things posted by people who are not white or male it could really bolster his case.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
He's the only one who did what he did. He can't point at anyone who did what he did and was treated differently because no one else fucked up quite as bad.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
Have you read the memo he posted? and the other stuff that has come out this morning from other people?
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
Which other employees brought down international condemnation on Google? He got fired for being a moron that wrote an incredibly controversial document that was definitely going to shared outside of Google and validate every terrible stereotype about the company which was noticed by the media. There's a ton of the filing that is literally just him complaining about Liberals. There's some bit where it's just someone asking how to introduce their polyamoury. What about the bit where some other kin describes how they feel? How are those relevant to anything? It's a political document designed to embarrass google, not win a lawsuit.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
The only condemnation I saw was from moron who didn't read it.
He got fired for being a moron that wrote an incredibly controversial document that was definitely going to shared outside of Google and validate every terrible stereotype about the company which was noticed by the media.
His document was so controversial that it included links to Wiley Online Library, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Quillette, the British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, and The Atlantic. It was on an internal discussion board, where people are encouraged to share ideas and problems. There is actual blatant racism and sexism on those same boards, but it's against the right people so it's deemed OK.
It has to do with Google being inclusive of everything liberal and nothing conservative. It's pointing out that there is no bridge to far if you are a liberal, but even mild conservative thought (which is what his document was) is treated as if he is trying to kill someone.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
Do you understand the difference between perception and reality? He brought bad pr on the company and it was covered by the media. His circumstances were unique.
Are you telling me that a political ideology that is literally founded on keeping everything the same isn't present in a disruptive industry? Woh.
Google is a private business and political ideology isn't a protected class.
He wrote a document that said my coworkers who aren't white men are biologically less suited for their job and were allowed in on lesser standards. I'd say it's pretty fucking ironic to complain other people are less suited for their job if you spent work time writing some boring ten pages document that would obviously make get you fired. He was a fucking moron and got fired like one.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
What he did was "behind closed doors" in a place set aside to talk about issues like he did. The person who sent it to journalists was the malicious actor, not the guy who wrote the very non-threatening document.
So you don't even know what conservative means? It's not about keeping everything the same, it's just measured changes instead of blowing whichever way the wind blows.
True, but firing people because of their gender or race is discrimination and reading through his suite it looks pretty damning. Add to that the fact that they have created an insular system where only radicals on one side of the political spectrum are tolerated, and that side of the political spectrum tends to be increasingly racist and sexist, isn't helping them.
No he didn't read the damn memo.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
So? It got into the public and brought SO MUCh bad publicity for google.
So basically in favour of incest. I mean a single throwaway sentence is not going to encapsulate conservatism and that's before getting into the problematic issue of simply splitting political ideology into liberal vs conservative without considering financial or social parts of that. It's not exactly a forward looking ideology though.
If you look at the suit then its fucking stupid. It's a political document intended to enter as much embarrassing evidence about google as possible, not win a lawsuit. The central argument is that google loved him and wanted to promote him as fast as possible into a leadership role but then noticed he was a white male after two promotions. Is that not incredibly fucking moronic? There's a reason conservative lawyers are representing him pro bono and it's not because they want to get him justice.
Did he suggest that women are less likely to seek employment in tech and their underrepresentation wasn't discrimination but just a function of biology? Did he say that the diversity programs allowed people of a lower standard than white males in?
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
You don't see a problem with Google encouraging discussion and debate, then firing someone who says something they don't agree with when it becomes public?
He cited studies that stated that. He also mentioned ways that the tech sector needed to change in order to make it more appealing to women.
Yes, by quoting Google's HR people who have explicitly said that is what they are doing.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
So at the end of the day we can agree that he responded to the google diversity program by saying that a bunch of his coworkers didn't deserve their jobs and took them from more deserving white men.
Sources or no that's a fuckwit move.
Do you understand that keeping him on after the memo would had lead to far greater inefficiencies than diversity programs? He made a bunch of his coworkers hate him, made them uncomfortable and made himself impossible to work with. How are you meant to manage a team when everyone's opinion of you is that you're a tit?
Hell there's evidence that diversity programs lead to greater financial results which he managed to conveniently leave out.
http://www.catalyst.org/media/companies-more-women-board-directors-experience-higher-financial-performance-according-latest
I don't know of any job where you could bring down that much bad publicity and keep it. He basically got caught eating his own shit and got fired for it.
1 Lesmothian 2018-01-08
Except in California, which is where they are.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment-discrimination-31690.html
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
I'm pretty sure that's just for party registration right?
https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be-fired-for-expressing-your-political-views-in-california.shtml
1 Lesmothian 2018-01-08
The relevant law states:
The brief does a pretty good job laying out examples of employees and managers posting way more incendiary opinions than his milquetoast evopsych shit, including calls to join antifa, explicit calls for violence against fellow employees with the wrong politics, calls to not only dismiss but use Google's industry clout to blacklist those people from future employment.
It further documents Google management's practice of internally blacklisting employees for wrongthink via block lists on the internal G+ social network, limiting their ability to move up or transfer to other projects.
It lists many examples of people explicitly denigrating "majority" demographics with no repurcussions and in fact shows that expressing these opinions is a good way to get favorable attention from management.
This all seems to me like Google has a specific preferred political bent and people who don't toe this party line (a party line that encourages discrimination based on race and gender) are fired or marginalized.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
You know he was promoted twice? He's trying to argue he was discriminated against at the same time that he's arguing he was promoted rapidly and in line for leadership. The two ideas just don't go together.
He was fired just after the media picked up the document. It floated around for ages before he got fired. He pretty clearly got fired for writing the antiSCUM manifesto and having it be leaked to the press.
1 EzraKleinVox 2018-01-08
Post it or gtfo
1 do0rkn0b 2018-01-08
He's gonna hit the big bucks, you can bet your ass this gets a settlement.
1 Zozbot 2018-01-08
zoz
1 Zozbot 2018-01-08
zle
1 Zozbot 2018-01-08
zozzle
1 do0rkn0b 2018-01-08
Selfie
1 do0rkn0b 2018-01-08
Your
1 do0rkn0b 2018-01-08
Kill
1 Ad_Hominemus 2018-01-08
Stereotypes are accurate though, so whaddyagonnado? lie?
JK I know that the answer is to lie. Our society runs on lies.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
How about this: don't bring up toxic politics at work, creating a toxic environment and you won't get fired.
I know, really tough concept.
1 Ad_Hominemus 2018-01-08
Have you read any of Damore's evidence he's using?| Google already has a problem with toxic politics at work - problem is, its emanating from HR and corporate.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
Holy shit, how do you people not grasp this? Have you people just never worked anywhere?
Let's say you're running a company, and you have teams doing various tasks.
Some black, some white.
A white guy on one of your teams puts out a memo about how black people have lower IQs than white people, this infuriates the majority of your employees for obvious reasons.
Do you A) keep him on board. B) fire him to prevent a toxic work environment?
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-01-08
Lmao /u/pizzashill asking if people have ever worked. This is top notch.
1 Ad_Hominemus 2018-01-08
Gender differences in interest/skill development are way less controversial than racial differences in IQ. And google is fucking incessant with its 'muh misogyny causes lack of female programmers' so Damore's memo was a cold spash of truth that was badly needed. Maybe if you weren't so autistic you'd realize that.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
One more time you illiterate ape: it doesn't matter if it was true, I agree with most of what he said, that's not the point.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
If google turned up to court and said yes we fired him for being conservatives, the court would be like so? That's entirely legal. So his argument is basically I was discriminated against because I was white and a man. There's no way he's going to be able to successfully make that argument in court.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2018-01-08
So are you not American then?
In your country retaliating against an employee for his political beliefs is legal?
Companies controlling their employee's political activities?
Do companies ban people from participating in politics in whatever shithole you are from?
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2018-01-08
I think it's going to be an interesting case, not saying it is likely to be ruled in his favor, just that there is plenty of stuff to be found in the archives.
1 jubbergun 2018-01-08
LOL, are you high(er than usual)? Have you actually read the memo he wrote? Nothing in that should have been the least bit controversial, but because it challenged some people's sociopolitical notions the shit hit the fan. He posted it in a forum specifically for Google employees that wasn't supposed to be accessed by anyone outside the company. Someone else took it, mass e-mailed it around to stir up outrage, then shared it outside the company, probably in violation of nondisclosure agreements. Then Google misrepresented what Damore said and fired him to calm everyone's tits, which only served to make things worse. That's before you even get into what's alleged in the lawsuit about the way Google operates and how people like Damore are treated. Now, you're right that the courts are biased in favor of this diversity nonsense, but even with that bias it looks like Damore and the others in the class have a good case, especially if their attorneys are any good.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
It's ok, I realize you're a dumb person so I'll explain this to you.
It doesn't matter if literally everything he said was factually correct, it doesn't matter how mundane it was, it still created a toxic work environment because it created drama.
This is what you guys don't seem to comprehend, and an ex manager from google put out an article about this very subject.
There's no team that he can be put on after that meme surfaced, nobody would want to work with him. That is a toxic work environment, and it doesn't matter how right he was, it just doesn't matter.
I'm sorry the real world isn't how you think it is. I agree with MOST of what that guy said and I'd fire his ass on the spot if he pulled that, because again, toxic work environment.
1 jubbergun 2018-01-08
I realize you think you're far smarter than you actually are, but even taking into account that his memo "caused drama" and being generous and granting that "no one would want to work with him," Google solicited his input. He posted the memo as a follow-up to some diversity thing he had to attend. He was actually making suggestions to make Google better equipped to meet their goal of expanded diversity and better hiring/retention of women. An employer cannot solicit an employees opinion, get a serious, considered, and well written response that actually made good points with references then fire the employee because they didn't like what they wrote.
I believe you probably would fire someone in exactly that situation, because your posts in this sub are evidence that you're an unhinged whack-a-doo. To be fair anyone posting in this sub is an unhinged whack-a-doo, but the content of your posts take being a sperg with questionable cognitive abilities to new and glorious heights that frankly make the rest of us jealous.
Damore was not the one that created the toxic environment. He was just doing his job, sharing a different perspective, and making reasonable suggestions that should have been in line with what Google claims it wants. The people who spread his memo around as part of a hate-and-discontent campaign and released it outside the company created the toxic environment. They are the ones who should have been fired, but I will guarantee that the reasons were retained are reflected in the text of Damore's class action suit, and/or they had a vagina so firing them would be a no-no.
TL;DR: You're dumb and don't know what you're talking about...again.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
Alright man, you keep living in that alternate reality of yours, I'll stick to the real world. The fact you think google asked that guy to write a giant memo about how women are inferior in tech to men reveals the fact again, you just have no life experience.
The only person that is unhinged is you.
The only person here that is dumb is you. Provably so.
You're unironically posting in hillaryforprison calling other people dumb and unhinged. That's some real Trump-tard caliber self-awareness if I've ever seen it.
1 jubbergun 2018-01-08
While I'm certain that your hygiene is such as to make you sticking to things possible, I have serious doubts that you've ever encountered the real world.
I've had enough life to experience to have done something you clearly didn't: I read James Damore's memo. It is not, as you allege, "about how women are inferior in tech to men." It says nothing of the sort. It points to recognized difference in average male and female behavior, with supporting references to credible sources, and suggests ways to align Googles policies with those behaviors to attract more women. It is doubtful that anyone who would be writing a memo "about how women are inferior in tech to men" would be suggesting ways to bring more women into the company. Stop believing everything you're told and go read the memo yourself. It's not hard to find.
This is what you sound like right now.
There's a question anyone who makes this "argument" should be asking themselves.
1 pizzashill 2018-01-08
Guy unironically posts in hillaryforprison and calls other people unhinged and dumb.
Can't make this shit up. Up is down and down is up.
1 jubbergun 2018-01-08
Repeating yourself is both unoriginal and boring.
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-01-08
God, will you two just fuck already
1 jubbergun 2018-01-08
I would not bet on that. This is not a "I want money" lawsuit. This is a "let's make a point" lawsuit.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
he's gonna take it all baby
1 riemann1413 2018-01-08
can anyone tell me if autists are a protected class
/u/comedicsans help
1 scatmunchies 2018-01-08
Sadly, no. You’ll have to look elsewhere for your payday.
1 riemann1413 2018-01-08
dagnabbit
1 ComedicSans 2018-01-08
Autists would only be a protected class if they were actually people.
1 riemann1413 2018-01-08
fire emoji
1 Bustwe 2018-01-08
He's referring to you riemann
1 riemann1413 2018-01-08
fire emojis
1 Matues49 2018-01-08
Can we legally eat them?
1 ComedicSans 2018-01-08
I wouldn't recommend it, that's where BSE came from.
1 geraldo42 2018-01-08
Bombay Stock Exchange?
1 ComedicSans 2018-01-08
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, AKA Mad Cow.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
mad cow i guess
1 JasonJewnova 2018-01-08
Don't talk about yourself like that.
1 Awayfone 2018-01-08
Yes you are. American with disabilities act will protect you
1 DannyLee90 2018-01-08
https://i.imgur.com/WsVdlFh.gifv
1 ChateauJack 2018-01-08
Did they trigger silent alarms when people with vague links to homosexuals entered the building in the 50s? Because that's what is happening at Google now, apparently.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-01-08
Lmao how extensive do you think this list is since it only mentions one name? And what’s wrong with any company not wanting agenda driven “guests” on their premises anyways?
1 worthlessworthl 2018-01-08
Curtis Yarvin is a neo-fascist, not a conservative.
1 fuckyourcontext 2018-01-08
Same thing tbh
1 ChateauJack 2018-01-08
Is he an actual fascist ? or a "(((current year))) fascist" ?
1 jaja10 2018-01-08
that doesn't sound gay at all.
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2018-01-08
Daily reminder if you are antifascist you are a homophobe.
1 cimarafa 2018-01-08
Yarvin unironically defended slavery. Its a really bad idea to bring him up in court on the side of Damore.
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2018-01-08
And yet the only personal danger he posed to anyone was writing blog posts so long and tedious that the reader may have died of boredom.
1 shallowm 2018-01-08
I don't think they had that newfangled technology back then.
1 Clark_Savage_Jr 2018-01-08
They at least had silent alarms back in the 30s. They are frequently mentioned in the Doc Savage stories.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
1 Rith2 2018-01-08
Is there a pretext to this? Like did they for example ask him not to come to any google properties
1 youcanteatbullets 2018-01-08
"compared" is such a weasel word.
Me: Obama and Hitler are both human beings.
Next days headline: /u/youcanteatbullets compares Trump to Hitler
1 EzraKleinVox 2018-01-08
I mean he’s not that far off. If you say you voted for Donald Trump at google (or at the company I work for) you will be labeled a bigot and lots of people will automatically hate you
1 anubgek 2018-01-08
Do you really believe that or just making up stories for the crowd?
1 BothWaysItGoes 2018-01-08
At page 94 of the lawsuit there is a screenshot of a person literally unironically advocating firing all people who are accused of a SJ wrongdoing.
1 anubgek 2018-01-08
1 BothWaysItGoes 2018-01-08
Now imagine how Overton window looks at Google if someone posts it with his full name visible to his coworkers.
1 anubgek 2018-01-08
I can see your point but people have said some lulzy stuff on Facebook with their names on blast. I'm not sure where I'd rate either level of acceptance.
1 hellohello1992 2018-01-08
Equating google with Waffle House is a bit of a stretch man
1 EzraKleinVox 2018-01-08
zing!
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
yeah I'm pretty sure we were still killing gay people in the 50s dude
can't find rates bc the FBI didn't track it back then but i know we were still making PSAs about them all being pedophiles. i mean, those went on in the private sector through the 90s
1 EzraKleinVox 2018-01-08
I'm pretty sure you're a fucking moron
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
we were killing gay people in the 60s, and the klan was still active. doesn't take a genius to put two and one together
1 justanotherusername_ 2018-01-08
The klan was a shadow of it's former self in the 60s.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
it actually already was one by the 20s, but between that and the 60s there was a resurgence
1 boomboomlaser 2018-01-08
I mean, Matthew Shepard was murdered in 1998.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
the guy from Mass Effect?
1 plurpnslurp 2018-01-08
Did you?
1 quasicoherent_memes 2018-01-08
Is that an inappropriate reaction?
1 aliceunknown 2018-01-08
Lies, gays didn't exist in the 1950s.
1 jubbergun 2018-01-08
True, and there are still no gays in Iran. At least not according to their former president.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
well that's just because they turn the gays straight with gender reassignment
1 elwombat 2018-01-08
A slightly conservative friend of mine works at the Google Mountain View offices. He says that he doesn't discuss politics at work, but has had more than a few people accuse him of being a conservative and/or voting for Trump.
1 Leitos 2018-01-08
I skimmed the legal doc and read the offending memo and it really does seem like he probably has a case. The memo really isn't that bad. It actually has a pretty calm tone and offers solutions to critiques.
Page 64 for the memo that got him fired:
https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit#fullscreen&from_embed
They also include a bunch of the hostile responses from coworkers scattered throughout. I doubt Google will be thrilled to have more of their internal wackery come out in a public trial.
His TL;DR covers some aspects that people will recognize from the authoritarian left on reddit.
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
A person can deliver a message in as calm a tone as they want to, but this is The Year 2018. Everyone who is not autistic can read the intent behind the memo, because it's just an awkward, analytical person's way of justifying a less welcoming atmosphere for women, and doing away with initiatives to bring gender balance to the workplace.
Now mind you, I believe women have no place in public, let alone the workplace, which shouldn't be infested with a bunch of melodrama and trivialities that women drag with them everywhere they go.
But this is polite society, and also a feels before reals society. There is little chance this lawsuit will result in anything more than a book tour, or, if Damore is lucky, a settlement with some stipulations regarding admission of fault.
1 Leitos 2018-01-08
I get the impression that he's just a guy who buys into evolutionary psychology pretty strongly. I think he does a pretty good job of presenting positive qualities of women from an evolutionary psychology perspective and how the company could adapt to utilize these ideally.
He doesn't just say women are bad at stuff; he says they are more likely to have certain characteristics and offers solutions such as programs centered around utilizing those characteristics to the company's benefit.
Not to say I endorse his views. I don't have the knowledge to come to any conclusions on the matter. I just think he was being intellectually honest given what I believe his beliefs to be.
As for whether he worked in an environment hostile to conservatives... I think a lot of the messages and memes and such posted throughout the doc provide some good evidence of that. Many of them read like leftist reddit shit.
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Well, as to saying something is more likely, in my view this is a weasel phrase meant to shield him from being called out on the message of the memo. And in legal terms, it likely won't shield him from that perception in court. One can argue for almost any position by simply picking out data which supports one's view, and omitting data which does not, then stating it is simply more likely that black persons working for Google will bring weed to work, or more likely that people who are 5'6" will rape someone in the supply room. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant in any case, because it's targeting black people or manlets, creating a perception of hostility toward them.
As for the messages and memes, one might argue that believing blacks to be 5/5 rather than 3/5 human is leftist bias, but that doesn't make the belief wrong. There is also a difference between posting leftist memes, and writing a 10 page memo which implies, beats around the bush, hints, and at times bluntly states (as with Damore's inclusion of "neuroticism" as a more likely attribute in women) that seeking to put women in engineering positions is inefficient or even a waste of time because they'd more likely rather be doing something more people-oriented. Given how many women work at Google, making statements heavily weighted toward negativity about women in engineering roles and positivity toward men in them (by stating women are more likely to seek and fit well into other roles) is going to be perceived as creating a hostile work environment by women. It won't be hard for Google to justify its position, and in amateur capacity I predict they will neither settle the case, nor lose it.
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
everything he wrote in that memo is settled science.
just because you don't understand what it means, and get offended over your own misinterpretation, doesn't make him wrong or sexist.
1 wow___justwow 2018-01-08
The real drama is watching how bussy blasted /u/starship_litterbox and the like get over a harmless and scientifically accurate memo.
When it comes to employment law in CA employers are fucked (ironically, thanks to libtard regulations). That includes google. There is no possible way he walks away with nothing, although it is very likely that we never learn how much. The smart move from google would be to settle quickly & quietly before their reputation takes even more of a hit than it already has over this, without mountains of legal fees and without the contents of their shady BB servers being dumped into the spotlight. My money's on the quick quiet payout.
Sure the legbeards might get their fupas in a twist, but something tells me those aren't the ones running google's legal team.
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Not bussyblasted at all friendo, in fact I do believe women are inferior and have no place in men's workplaces. But Damore's autism, as well as yours, utterly prevents you both from understanding that it is indeed Current Year, and you can be as scientifically accurate as you like. It's irrelevant. All that matters is that Damore's memo is perceived by women to be hostile to their presence. Damore will lose.
1 wow___justwow 2018-01-08
I've been called autistic before, I'll have you know.
It didn't end well. For me.
Shit.
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
https://78.media.tumblr.com/916c2d5dbbf8743c6604271a74049def/tumblr_mxcaliL61v1qezrapo5_250.gif
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Incorrect. I do know what it means. And I agree with every bit. In fact, I do believe women have no place in tech or anywhere men are rightfully dominant, such as all technology-related employment. I agree with Damore 100% but that doesn't matter. Google will easily win because the fee fees of women are hurt by the memo. That creates a hostile work environment.
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
what?
you literally didn't understand what he wrote.
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
No I did, i just have my beliefs about the validity in men's workplaces.
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
you seriously don't
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Damorites are all the same. They insist anyone who thinks differently or disagrees with Damore "just doesn't understand." It's like listening to SJWs talk about the progressive stack.
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
sorry, but you literally don't know what you're talking about. maybe if everyone ("damorites" lolwtfbbqlmao) keeps telling you that, you should take a moment to reflect on yourself
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Have you ever considered the possibility you may be wrong, zealot?
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
I've considered it. But all the evidence, all the credible experts in the field point to the opposite.
Seems like you are wrong. Have you considered that possibility?
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Would that be the field of evolutionary psychology, a den of quacks matched only by the quackery of sociology?
Sure, maybe Damore's carefully crafted defense of a predetermined position which omits any actual exploration of the topic in a serious manner, instead including only selected data which supports his position and excludes any data which might undermine it, as presented by someone who isn't an expert on the subject and clearly has no intention of doing anything but furthering his point of view, is correct.
Sure.
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
just because it makes you oh so angry doesn't make it a field of quacks.
all your favorite alternatives to evo psych are less scientific.
Do you even understand what his position is?
What data do you think would undermine it? Any examples?
1 anubgek 2018-01-08
Ok I couldn't get past the first response. What's the point of saying you have scientists responding if the responses are
Whiny complaints about the criticism of the essay. The people who subscribe to these kinds of beliefs come off as so desperate to cling to them.
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
what? can you seriously not read?
1 TheJum 2018-01-08
Saying something is more likely isn’t being “wearily”, it is just how statistics work.
The difference is enough to be predictive, which is all you need for the statistics to be relevant and useful.
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Where did I say wearily.
Anyway, science is irrelevant. Damore will lose because it is reasonable to perceive his memo as creating a hostile work environment for women. Feels before reals, it's the Current Year.
1 TheJum 2018-01-08
Mistype and autocorrect. Fixed.
His memo was decidedly trying to create a better environment for women, the women themselves created the hostile work environment.
Feminism 101: Take a problem created by yourself, and use it proof of oppression.
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Everyone's analyzing the contents without realizing how irrelevant they are.
You can genuinely try to help someone, but in some contexts that's just going to piss them off. When Google asks for input on diversity, they don't mean "how can we improve this by going against the grain as recommended by an autistic screed backed by carefully selected science which promotes a particular view as conceived of by a robot alien who has never met a human being before?"
They just mean "what things that go with the flow can you share in order to go with the flow?"
And when the King of Autism rose up to answer in thousands of words of unorthodoxy, as though conjured by Sentient Particle Accelerator Being Number 547, he sealed his fate. Although he'll never have to work another day in his life, because he's already got books and speeches and maybe even a movie in his future. Conservatives will carry him like a torch, crying out against the injustice of it all, and it will all be in vain.
1 anubgek 2018-01-08
how do i favorite a user
1 shallowm 2018-01-08
If they're using the new profile, you can "follow" them on their userpage, which seems to be the equivalent to subscribing.
You can also add them as a friend by going to their overview page if they're using the new profile, or just their regular userpage if they're not, and pressing the green
+ friendsbutton on the top right. You'll be able to see their submissions in /r/friends.1 snappleteadrink 2018-01-08
what u mean by this
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
CERN has been invoking sentient life forms from other planes of existence expressed through particle bursts for years now. I thought this was a settled issue. There are over 600 documented contacts with godlike extraterrestrials known as the Qorth who have been exchanging data with our scientists. It's how raw water was discovered.
1 snappleteadrink 2018-01-08
everytime I think im finally woke another fucker like you comes and shows me a new layer
1 EzraKleinVox 2018-01-08
I come to /r/drama for the drama, I stay for the exquisite prose
1 plurpnslurp 2018-01-08
Have you worked in STEM around women? Or are you one of (((them)))
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
I work with the wamen. In a non-STEM, heavily related field. I won't be any more specific from this account.
1 plurpnslurp 2018-01-08
Fair enough. You don't find that women tend to think differently about problems than men?
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
So what if they do? Does that mean they shouldn't work in engineering?
Honestly, if the goal is to discourage women from being interested in tech, and to prevent giant corporations from trying to get them into tech, then that's not my problem, cause I'm not a chick. However, I think most Damore supporters are attacking the issue from the wrong end. They're obsessed with biological truths, while ignoring social realities. The latter are what govern us as a society, and in the end will be what determines political and legal policy. Just hearing someone say "women think about problems differently from men so they don't really do well at programming" isn't going to change minds, especially when IRL people have actually met women who program and do engineering. That's social reality. Maybe black people are intellectually inferior, for instance. It doesn't matter if it's true, that will never result in black people being disallowed to attend school in order to save money on education and divert it to whites and Asians who are "more likely to succeed."
No offense but I'm already sick of this kind of autism tbh. People can't be this clueless as to not realize how Damore comes off to the average person.
1 plurpnslurp 2018-01-08
I mean as far as I understood, what the guy was saying is that women shouldn't be shoehorned into positions that men are better at. I'm sure there's plenty of aspects of software development that can benefit from women's involvement.
1 nomad1c 2018-01-08
a gilding? in my /r/drama? is this thread being brigaded or what?
1 Gorkan 2018-01-08
Yes, and i think we all know who it is. They Whose names must not be Uttered.
1 Leitos 2018-01-08
I would point to his second citation, "Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint ... I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations" as a decent rebuff to accusations that he was trying to cherry pick data and hide some misogynistic attitude.
I think you're taking the 'more likely' statement a bit further than I intended. If you look at his little bell curve graph on the top of page 67 he makes it pretty clear that this is what he believes to be discussing. That is, there are a significant number of women who will have the same or 'better' traits than men, whatever that trait may be, but men and women differ at the outlying edges.
I thought the neuroticism comment was a bit strange as well. That might be his autism at work and choosing to use technical phrases even when they have a negative connotation colloquially. In any case, the study the wikipedia article links to does confirm what he says (and in a technical sense neuroticism isn't always a bad thing, apparently).
In any case, I think he wrote the memo in good faith with the intention of trying to create a positive outcome for all employees, even if his philosophy is unorthodox. I don't think believing in evolutionary psychology is a fireable offense, and he shouldn't be forced to keep quiet about it because it makes some people uncomfortable.
As for a hostile work environment, look at the comments collected in that mjaeckel tweet /u/ChateauJack linked.
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Women's feelings > any logic or science. Even in a court of law.
Welcome to 2018 friendo. The Ride Never Ends
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
Women's feelings > any logic or science. Even in a court of law.
Welcome to 2018 friendo. The Ride Never Ends
1 EzraKleinVox 2018-01-08
Yeah as much as I think he is technically correct and as much as I hate the SJWs who got him fired, I doubt he’s going to get much traction out of his actual firing.
On the other hand, I think there’s a strong possibility that a court could find some of the diversity initiatives, some of the more hysterical internal communications by SJWs, and the de facto hiring quotas represent a systemic discrimination against white males. Google and other companies have played fast and loose with the law on these issues for a while under the assumption that no one would call them on it.
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
I get the impression that he's just a guy who buys into 2 + 2 = 4 pretty strongly.
Not to say I endorse that view.
1 [deleted] 2018-01-08
[deleted]
1 Singulaire 2018-01-08
Using a calm tone is a dog whistle. Which is a serious thing someone said to me regarding this story.
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
but dog whistle is a tone
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-01-08
Have you considered the idea that you're point of view is objectively wrong?
1 backltrack 2018-01-08
> defending gussy rights on r/Drama
1 starship_litterbox 2018-01-08
My account was hacked!
1 ChateauJack 2018-01-08
https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E3
This thread on Twittr has been enjoyable.
Some juicy gossip in the document aswell : https://mobile.twitter.com/hikikomorphism/status/950450209162588161/photo/1
Strong chances (((Thiel))) is behind all of this, an autistic mind wouldn't do that on his own.
1 Think_Once 2018-01-08
Especially since his interview with The Guardian made it clear that he would have to ask his girlfriend for permission before suing Google. And I doubt she would allow it.
1 Gorkan 2018-01-08
To be fair To the man that doesnt mean he is cuck, Suying fucking International Globalist Corp, is long Road and they may try to be snooping around to find dirt on you etc.
1 Cauchemar89 2018-01-08
What kind of dystopian shit is that
1 TheEyeballQueen 2018-01-08
No.
According to U.S. law, it is not illegal to discriminate against men, whites, and people under 40. A case only exists if that person is a member of a protected class.
Source: EEOC investigator. It was a pretty boring gig until we saw a serious uptick in sexual harassment filings.
1 Leitos 2018-01-08
I'm not a lawyer, but I slept with the wife of a lawyer, so you should probably take my views a bit more seriously.
Plus other people who are more lawyer-like say that political affiliation is a protected class in CA. Check out the first page of the doc on scribd and use your resources to see what laws his attorneys are claiming were violated. I'm busy drinking and can't be bothered to seriouspost any more.
1 Awayfone 2018-01-08
Our discrimination laws are race neutral, and sex neutral.
1 AshrifSecateur 2018-01-08
That's not what protected class means.
1 skeetsurfing1984 2018-01-08
Have you been reading a different copy of the U.S. Code than the one us lawyers use? You are 100% wrong here.
1 EzraKleinVox 2018-01-08
Discovery will be interesting
1 skeetsurfing1984 2018-01-08
Yeah, I would not even be upset to be assigned to doc-review for this lawsuit.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
That's because having a case doesn't mean anything. Yes he has a lawsuit. He's going to lose because I'm a moron that brought bad press on my company internationally isn't a protected class.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-01-08
“The James Damore - Google lawsuit is quite a read. References to furries, "dragonkin" and antifa.”
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2018-01-08
All referring to the same person, of course.
1 buttcoinbuttcoin 2018-01-08
The Twitter feed has pictures of Google employees posting on Googles employee message boards about:
It's gold.
As dumb as posting a manifesto about how women are less geared towards engineering and how your employer is doing everything wrong is (and wondering why you get fired for it), I think this might be better.
1 PantherChamp 2018-01-08
r/Drama would really benefit from this
/u/ultrashitpost this one would particularly benefit you
1 constantinople_2053 2018-01-08
I'd say acid bath during the mayocide, for added irony?
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-08
I don't have a wife. :(
1 VidiotGamer 2018-01-08
Answers:
1 - Mayocide now.
2 - In the closet, peaking through the crack and sadly fapping.
1 Awayfone 2018-01-08
shoe polish?
1 DrinkProfessionally 2018-01-08
pics please please please
1 cimarafa 2018-01-08
L I N K S
1 totalrandomperson 2018-01-08
Please I need some source.
1 MERCYLOVER163 2018-01-08
Link?
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
autist or not. he deserves to win.
1 ay_what_up2 2018-01-08
imagine having this impact you so much it starts to shape your personality
1 SwankDogsbody 2018-01-08
Imagine getting triggered over a username.
1 ay_what_up2 2018-01-08
I don’t have to imagine
1 rentqt 2018-01-08
You commented too, therefore you're triggered as well. Boom roasted
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
i'm just triggered by the association.
that dude is dumber than /u/botchlings
1 ProgressiveFragility 2018-01-08
yikes
1 grungebot5000 2018-01-08
sorry bud
1 PantherChamp 2018-01-08
> a single sentence
> "WHY ARE U SO TRIGGERED, BRO????"
Wow you sure roasted 'im good!
1 none_to_remain 2018-01-08
Welp this document helps me understand why Google products have on the whole declined noticeably in quality over the past several years. Spending all day posting memes and having political shitfights instead of actually working.
1 westofthetracks 2018-01-08
as if the world needed more evidence google is evil
1 Awayfone 2018-01-08
Can't be, their motto is "Don't be evil"
Which actually tells you how great they are, only the best people tell themselves not to be evil over and over again
1 Couldnt_think_of_a 2018-01-08
They actually dropped that as their motto years ago.
1 RetardDick 2018-01-08
That can't be, because at a press conference yesterday Damore's lawyer said:
There's no way this chick could be retarded enough to imply that her client is a nazi and also make such a lazy factual error in the same sentence. Nobody that retarded could pass the bar, and even if she did you'd have to be even more retarded than she is to hire her to sue the largest company in the world. That would be almost as retarded as giving her a high ranking leadership position in your political party.
And nobody is that retarded.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-01-08
When they rebranded to Alphabet they got rid of that bit.
1 PantherChamp 2018-01-08
Just let him sperg out, man. This is all he has.
1 WithoutAComma 2018-01-08
He should sue God for that schnozz
1 KateUptonsCumback 2018-01-08
I swear this fucking asshat is Reddit’s hero or something.
Surprised /r/news didn’t rip his cock off considering how hard they were jerking him off
1 Singulaire 2018-01-08
Why is there the thread picture a shot of Kylo Ren?
1 jubbergun 2018-01-08
At least he has his shirt on.
1 Tangaren694468408488 2018-01-08
OP are you female?
1 Mabans 2018-01-08
An autistic does something socially awkward, gets fired for being a douche about it and now is suing. I'm willing to bet he isn't up to measuring himself to the same metric he spouts. Cunt of an imbecile.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-01-08
Im not sure 'we should create more social programs to attract women' really is that douchey.
1 Awayfone 2018-01-08
makes them falsely believe they have value
1 toast168 2018-01-08
What if this is just a ploy to get googles emails like Colin Kaepernick's lawsuit.
1 kane4life4ever 2018-01-08
This is what happens when your plan to get internet famous backfires. Can't wait for lindsay sterling nudes and for this retard to end up on r/twitch
1 papivebipi 2018-01-08
for those who did not read the original memo:
https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
from: https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f
do not trust summaries, read it for yourself. Many wesbsites have been caught trying to mispresent his claim.
Example: "neurotic" is a technical term from the big five personality triat test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits and the fact that women score more in that category is proven. It is not a synonym to the popular usage of the word.
Disclaimer: I'm not from this subreddit and I did not vote on any comment here. Just saying before you judge please read the memo. Thanks
1 WikiTextBot 2018-01-08
Big Five personality traits
The Big Five personality traits, also known as the five factor model (FFM), is a model based on common language descriptors of personality. When factor analysis (a statistical technique) is applied to personality survey data, some words used to describe aspects of personality are often applied to the same person. For example, someone described as "conscientious" is more likely to be described as "always prepared" rather than "messy". This theory is based therefore on the association between words but not on neuropsychological experiments.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1 grobobobo 2018-01-08
I'm really curious on how this will end.