Fired Google memo writer draws scorn, cheers and a job offer (from Wikileaks)

Some useful ideas in that post which were buried: Google itself has unexamined biases; There's real fear among some people that they can't speak their mind on sensitive issues because they might be ostracized for fired for them (which the author was); Google needs to have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs; Google needs to focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

By my count, zero of those were discussed after the memo. Related to the content of the linked article we're discussing -- the author tried to actually promote diversity with some ideas (albeit in a hamfisted, and potentially offensive, way)

His opponents have some points too... (here's a typical response: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...)

The memo is pushing a fairly outdated and unsupported notion of fundamental biological differences between the genders. The memo did not out and out say "women can't code" but it sure did seem like that's what he meant. The memo author did not for even an instant think about what affect his memo would have on other people, and so whether misinterpreted or not, he may be guilty of creating a hostile work place. The memo called for "De-emphasize empathy". This would validly seem to many people like a really bad idea.

On a sensitive cultural issue, engineers will tend to get upset if what they write/think is misinterpreted. But on emotional issues, you'd best pay attention to how your message arrives, because it's always more important than what you intended your message to mean.

His opponents are currently drowning him out, but the way that even they are doing it isn't terribly intellectually honest. For example, making simple claims that all of his claims are refuted by decades of science but neglecting to proffer that science is a fairly normal but annoying intellectually dishonest thing to do in a debate.

--

Google got put in a bad situation here. Diversity is a very important cultural value to them. So they couldn't do nothing. And I also think it's a terrible idea to fire a person who was explicitly writing about how the company won't permit open discussion of hard issues. This is what makes him a culture war football, because the extremes on both sides will be able to look at this case, and see all of their worst fears.

    http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/  
    Updated on August 8, 4:28 PM    

    The second story related to the firing of 
    a Google employee who wrote an internal 
    manifesto against diversity. In both cases, 
    users amplified existing hashtags as well as
    mainstream news content. Influence operations 
    aim to raise the profile of certain themes and
    issues, but they don't always create the content
    they amplify. This is likely the case with the
    Google story, which has been trending among
    far-right users.

    Russia frequently amplifies content related to
    the far-right in both the U.S. and in Europe, 
    but it does so opportunistically. It's easier 
    to amplify something people are already talking 
    about than to create a trend out of thin air.

These are stories which reasonable shouldn't be more than a "blip" but by amplifying their importance it serves the Russian strategy. There are a number of strategic reasons that it benefits their aims.

They sow chaos & discord. Make the fringe appear larger and more powerful than it is. Embolden & attract people who may have had "leanings" or agreed with smaller parts of it.

It's a propaganda war. It is totally asymmetric and the USA is getting crushed by it.

Recognizing that is important.