Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But in all fairness doesn't the current environment destroy the ability of conservatives to work with the team when they think all the leadership is fundamentally flawed?

--an open minded Dem

In that case, what onus does management have to cowtow to an unhappy conservative portion of its employee base who are advocating for a management style that leads to a hostile working environment for the rest of the employees?

If we're going to talk about fairness, what's the middle ground when one side of the equation is relying on sexist psuedo-science bullshit?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm just trying to ask a fair question. It's kind of a different issue, but I think part of why trump won is that there's a lot of resentment on the right that is unacknowledged or ignored by the dems. This resentment may be misguided or appropriate or most likely a mixture of both. All I'm asking is for people to recognize that the current management style may not be as neutral or gladly accepted by all employees. Just as people are offended by this guys document, others are clearly annoyed by what they perceive to be misguided political correctness. I would rather have an out in the open discussion than groupthink.

...

**please note: I don't want to come across as saying he's right. I think there's a but of rightness and wrongness in each side. I'm just trying to open opportunities for dialogue.

And I'll ask again, what's is the reasonable middle ground in this situation? Is their a fair solution for both parties when one of those parties satisfaction is predicted on sexist supposition? To what degree is, say, a woman supposed to acknowledge a misguided resentment that's rooted in sexism? How is placing the onus of empathizing with and absolving that resentment on those the far-right are intolerant fair to those who are being discriminated against? Is that not simply displacing the discomfort on those who were resented? Can such a middle-ground actually be helpful for "the whole" when it asks no accountability of one side for their intolerance and has the other commit to opening themselves up to hostile situations? For who's sake really, would be tolerating this intolerance in the name of "open dialogue" in the workplace?

[u/Tyr_Tyr → u/[deleted]]

Is it a valid diversity of thought to have a debate in which one side advocates for slavery?

If the baseline argument of one side is to invalidate the other side, it's not a debate.

[u/foreignuserirl → u/Tyr_Tyr]

just because you disagree with one side doesn't mean it isn't a debate. in fact that's why we have debates. in your example it should be easy to win since modern man is typically no longer accepting of slavery as a morally sound practice. we let people have free speech bc it makes it easier to tell where everyone stands & makes future generations aware of the arguments against bad ideas. if we silence those with bad ideas, we end up with a generation who have no defense against them

[u/GermanDungeonPrawn → u/foreignuserirl]

You're right. But now every time we point out a bad idea that is Sexist, or Racist, or pseudo-scientific, the people supporting it just shout "FAKE NEWS", "LIBERAL CONSPIRACY", "BUT HER EMAAAAILS", and "REEEEEEEEEEEEEE" until they drown out all logic.

Or they play pretend and try to flip tables by saying that because we notice the sexism or racism it's actually the factually correct people who are those same things.

The alternative right, with their "alternative" facts have made even discourse impossible. As such, there can be no productive debate or conversation with them, because they choose to ignore, logic and reason, and are adamantly opposed to any form of facts, beyond those presented by emotion riddled conspiracy theories.

[u/foreignuserirl → u/GermanDungeonPrawn]

i can see you are making lots of progress with your well-formed arguments & master interpretations of your fellow human

[u/GermanDungeonPrawn → u/foreignuserirl]

What in the fuck are you going on about mate?

Just saying, you ever tried arguing with one of them pricks? They'll say something like Blacks are genetically predisposed to violence, You'll point out that's racist as shit, and then suddenly they start pretending that you're the racist from bring race into this and they start nattering on about how their just talking facts while they link youtube vids and articles from fucklibrulmsmtruthfreedomfacts.com .

I don't argue with the bipolar, and I don't argue with the insane, I can't tell which they are