Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gramarye

Does Google Discriminate Against Conservatives?

Recommended Posts

If political beliefs are a protected class in California, which I did not know, then just skimming through the Federalist article and looking at the screenshots, there's definitely a case. There's no excuse for telling a coworker "I will hurt you" but what we don't see is whether or not Damore ran around picking fights with people and provoking them, and then sounds the alarm and claims hostile work environment when they fight back. I'm incredibly skeptical of the idea that Damore represents some sort of average Google conservative. I imagine most of them just mind their own business and don't have people threatening them in the morning. Guy clearly wants to cause trouble, like Milo Yiannaianainiopolis, who I imagine inspired him greatly in his noble quest.

 

A lot of this Nazi punching and other stuff has no business on a workplace forum. There's a reason you shouldn't talk politics at work. I question why they should have these forums in the first place. I worked at a large corporate HQ once that, like Google, didn't just view themselves as an employer but some kind of "identity" and really they want it to be a cult. So weird, No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second issue here is whether the culture at Google created an environment that was hostile to a particular group of people, in this case white hetero men,  or conservative leaning men. Now political affiliation on the federal level is not a protected class but it is in California. Secondly, if he can show that the culture of the employees and the emails created a hostile environment for him and that he felt threatened, he has a decently strong case there. In this case, the emails and the message boards that were company sponsored can create that hostile environment. This is a separate issue from whether or not Google had the right to fire him.

 

What do you think is an adequate punishment for employers that create a work environment that is hostile to an entire class of people, whether it's race, gender, or political beliefs (in California)?

 

Do you believe that if Damore's lawsuit is successful, Google should be required to ... hire 50% conservatives? ban all political speech within company message boards? or what?

 

I think it would be utterly hilarious if Damore were ordered to be installed as chief diversity officer of Google.  However, that's obviously not going to happen.  I don't know what California state law (which is the only set of laws that I've seen suggested as giving him an even possibly viable path to victory in court) provides as a remedy, but obviously it's whatever that law provides.

 

If you're seriously asking about what the legal punishment should be, I think you already have my answer from earlier in the thread (or maybe in the PC thread from which this one was forked) ... zero.  I'd vote to repeal such laws.  But since they exist, Damore might as well try to see if California courts are actually willing to enforce them for the benefit of people that don't tick any of the identity-politics preferential treatment boxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing sounds like a disagreement between and employer and employee.  This may or may not amount to discrimination.  But there are thousands of employment discrimination cases each day.  The fact that the only getting a huuuuuuuge amount of attention involves a white male tells me all I need to know about PC not being a real thing.  Perhaps that's why this discussion was given its own thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This whole thing sounds like a disagreement between and employer and employee.  This may or may not amount to discrimination.  But there are thousands of employment discrimination cases each day.  The fact that the only getting a huuuuuuuge amount of attention involves a white male tells me all I need to know about PC not being a real thing.  Perhaps that's why this discussion was given its own thread.

 

You mean it confirms biases that are all you want to know.  There is a great deal that you need to know that you clearly have no interest in knowing.

 

I think you'll see a lot more such suits if people like Damore either actually win or get favorable settlements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ which other discrimination lawsuit is taking up this much news?  Thousands are filed all the time but we only care about this one case.  It is interesting to say the least. It kinda proves that the anti-PC side likes to find the exception to prove their point (speaking of confirmation bias.)  I'm glad this thread was moved out the PC thread which should be relegated to fantasies as mythologies.  This thread can deal with a lawsuit claiming discrimination by one individual.  That is an actual thing happening.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second issue here is whether the culture at Google created an environment that was hostile to a particular group of people, in this case white hetero men,  or conservative leaning men. Now political affiliation on the federal level is not a protected class but it is in California. Secondly, if he can show that the culture of the employees and the emails created a hostile environment for him and that he felt threatened, he has a decently strong case there. In this case, the emails and the message boards that were company sponsored can create that hostile environment. This is a separate issue from whether or not Google had the right to fire him.

 

What do you think is an adequate punishment for employers that create a work environment that is hostile to an entire class of people, whether it's race, gender, or political beliefs (in California)?

 

Do you believe that if Damore's lawsuit is successful, Google should be required to ... hire 50% conservatives? ban all political speech within company message boards? or what?

 

Legally, and really practically, specific performance (hiring him back) is not really an option or a good option for either party. You should not be forced to hire someone back you don't want and who was fired from your company because the trust is gone and they can come back and sabotage the company. So that is not an option.

 

The only punishment is a significant fine. Also, more significantly they are exposed as a company that created a hostile culture which does not look good. This is much worse than any fine for a company like Google.

If political beliefs are a protected class in California, which I did not know, then just skimming through the Federalist article and looking at the screenshots, there's definitely a case. There's no excuse for telling a coworker "I will hurt you" but what we don't see is whether or not Damore ran around picking fights with people and provoking them, and then sounds the alarm and claims hostile work environment when they fight back. I'm incredibly skeptical of the idea that Damore represents some sort of average Google conservative. I imagine most of them just mind their own business and don't have people threatening them in the morning. Guy clearly wants to cause trouble, like Milo Yiannaianainiopolis, who I imagine inspired him greatly in his noble quest.

 

A lot of this Nazi punching and other stuff has no business on a workplace forum. There's a reason you shouldn't talk politics at work. I question why they should have these forums in the first place. I worked at a large corporate HQ once that, like Google, didn't just view themselves as an employer but some kind of "identity" and really they want it to be a cult. So weird, No thanks.

 

I do not think that all the screenshots specifically dealt with Damore but were other random screen shots that were identified to show the overall culture at Google and their employees. I think only 1 or 2 actually dealt with Damore directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The screenshots are ones that Damore used to prove his point.  But again I'm sure though screenshots are an honest sampling of all the discussion  ::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only punishment is a significant fine. Also, more significantly they are exposed as a company that created a hostile culture which does not look good. This is much worse than any fine for a company like Google.

 

I find that funny, since you have openly admitted in other threads that your workplace is a hostile culture for women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some conservatives who once decided to create their own version of Wikipedia because they felt it was too liberal.  When the facts don't match change the facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

out of boredom, I decided to look up California's laws about discrimination against political belief and I don't think he has a case. The protection has to do with people running for office or their political affiliations.  I don't see how him feeling like women are inferior at programming is a political belief.  that is quite a stretch there.

 

also, the researchers he cited think he is full of it.

 

https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It still would likely be wise for Google to settle and make it go away. As mentioned earlier, if it harms their ability to get top talent, even marginally, the company will suffer over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I would not be betting on winning in court. If the case goes to trial, odds are not in the company favor, despite what the law might say. You only have to convince a jury of yahoos that he has a point. Which I feel he does. The law at that point is a bit secondary when the jury is involved. Moral of the story, don't take your chances with a jury. It looks bad when you are big corporation going after an individual. No matter what he will be seen as sympathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all you seem to be implying that the law is on my side here and I appreciate that.  With that said you then say it's up to a jury which I agree but you seem to be implying not that PC is out of control but the opposite really.  I think his case is so bad it never makes it to a jury. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ not agreeing with your side at all. I will caveat I have not looked into the law specifically or examined his case, but no offense down4cle, I really don't put much merit into your legal analysis, since you have no legal training. PC being out of control really is irrelevant to seating a jury and finding enough people who may have an ax to grind or sympathetic to an individual over a corporation. It is why many corporate contracts have jury waiver clauses. They are complete wildcards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed when you said regardless of what the law says that you implied that the law was on my aside. I wasn't trying to be a smasta$$ at all.  but if PC is  running amok, then  the jusry would surely side with the PC argument, especially in PC CA.  That is if PC is actually a real thing that has run amok.

 

Also, you are unaware of what type of training or education I may or may not have.  Other than I do have a Planning Degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if PC is rampant and out of control then surely a CA jury would embody that "reality."

 

Oh good lord, I assumed The Federalist to be an intellectual conservative site but I looked at it and now I need to wash my PC.  It's like dailykos for the right.  I would be embarrassed to link to the dailykos here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ you may think so, but jury is like a coin flip. Remember CA jury let OJ off, and they gave the lady who spilled coffee on herself millions too. I know not PC per say but nobody really knows what a jury may think. I am not sure about CA law or the local rules there but many civil cases juries do not have to be unanimous either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spilled coffee case is not a good example. McDonald's got what they deserved.  You should read up on that case. But we shall see about Damore.  I predict Damore doesn't make it to a jury.  I just don't see what political activity he was taking part in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be really interesting if Google offered to settle with Damore, and agreed to give him a ton of money under the condition that Damore signs an NDA and doesn't talk to the media for the next decade.

 

I don't think Damore would take such a deal, because I think he wants to start a new career as a media personality. He could be a guest on Fox News every time the topic of "reverse racism" comes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a very socially awkward nerd and barely talks during interviews. I don't think he wants to start a new career as a media personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The memo never mentioned anything about women not being good enough at math or engineering. He didn't mention anything about their intellectual minds. He talked about their preferences, not abilities. He wasn't even talking about his colleagues, just applicants and why they weren't applying for engineering jobs. He wasn't anti-diversity; he promoted it. He just had a problem with their method, which he thought were discriminatory against people like him and in favor of women.

 

Google and so much of the media either blew this out of proportion or flat out lied about what he said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While he doesn't directly say "women are not as good as math and science as men," there are a dozen quotes from his memo where certainly implied it.

 

One example:

 

He didn't mention anything about their intellectual minds.

 

Direct quote from Damore's memo: "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)."

 

What he's trying to imply here is that "women are not as good as math and science as men" but of course he doesn't actually say those words. He's very smart. He wants to walk right up to the line but not actually cross it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course he would have to sign an NDA, that is pretty much required in any settlement case. That is the value to the company in the settlement. People know Google settled but they don't know if it was for $10 million or $10k. It helps deter copycats from bringing suits because of the uncertainty.

But also and probably more importantly, it shuts down discussion of the case in the media since nobody will go on the record to give an account of what happened and how the matter was settled. Damore could not even give an interview to discuss his firing or any particular parts of the case.  It just dies and creates finality. The issue dies and people forget that this even happened. Google does not need to change its culture and just budgets for an occasional dust up that may happen, which they can just pay something to make it go away.  Google settles because they want the matter out of the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While he doesn't directly say "women are not as good as math and science as men," there are a dozen quotes from his memo where certainly implied it.

 

One example:

 

He didn't mention anything about their intellectual minds.

 

Direct quote from Damore's memo: "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)."

 

What he's trying to imply here is that "women are not as good as math and science as men" but of course he doesn't actually say those words. He's very smart. He wants to walk right up to the line but not actually cross it.

 

I don't think difference implies inferiority or superiority. It might in certain roles, though. 'Difference' is kinda the whole point in promoting diversity.

 

Women do get hired over men in STEM jobs at a 2-1 ratio, which is pretty high. That does sound like discrimination. On the other hand, diversity is important and I've defended women in tech many times. Personally, I think they're better communicators, more in-touch with the market their company serves (they tend to be the biggest consumers in the household.) People of different backgrounds and biology can inherently add value to a company.

 

I heard Demore and his lawyer on the news last night talking about how groups of white men working under certain Google subsidiaries would be met with 'boo!' by other groups, at meetings. That also creates a hostile work environment. It makes it easy for me to believe, when YouTube, owned by Google, has algorithms in place to demonetize conservative Youtubers or how their search engine lists Conservative news sites lower in their rankings.

 

I just typed "Trump" into Google's search engine and the first thing that popped up is featured recent news from The Washington Post, CNN and CNBC. Those sources range from very left-leaning to left-leaning. I'm not an expert on this subject but I think these examples might say a lot about their company culture and how they might be suppressing opposing views internally, causing someone to lash out with a memo like this.

 

He shouldn't have brought up IQ, it's not an accurate way to measure overall intelligence and it certainly wouldn't accurately predict job performance in tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While he doesn't directly say "women are not as good as math and science as men," there are a dozen quotes from his memo where certainly implied it.

 

One example:

 

He didn't mention anything about their intellectual minds.

 

Direct quote from Damore's memo: "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)."

 

What he's trying to imply here is that "women are not as good as math and science as men" but of course he doesn't actually say those words. He's very smart. He wants to walk right up to the line but not actually cross it.

 

he clearly states throughout that men are superior and better suited to the job by making leaps of logic and misinterpreting research.  But it sounds smart and not shouty at all so it's totally a valid opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is apparently a resounding "yes:"

 

Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/

 

(New York City) — Project Veritas has released a new report on Google which includes undercover video of a Senior Google Executive, leaked documents, and testimony from a Google insider.  The report appears to show Google’s plans to affect the outcome of the 2020 elections and “prevent” the next “Trump situation.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, posts legitimizing Project Veritas.  This forum has really gone to the dogs.


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hootenany said:

^Project Veritas...

 

... you can't be serious.

 

2 minutes ago, bfwissel said:

Ugh, posts legitimizing Project Veritas.  This forum has really gone to the dogs.

 

These are pretty low effort posts.

 

Anyway, this luckily isn't the only front Google is facing right now (apologies in advances as I assume you two might have a problem with this source, as well):

 

Google’s Enemies Gear Up to Make Antitrust Case

https://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-enemies-gear-up-to-make-antitrust-case-11561368601

 

As U.S. officials prepare an antitrust probe of Alphabet Inc.’s GOOG -0.51% Google and possibly other Silicon Valley giants, a loose-knit crew of its rivals is gearing up to help.

 

In industries from news to travel to online shopping, competitors of Google are readying documents and data in anticipation of meetings with the Justice Department, according to industry representatives.

 

Many of these companies have long argued that Big Tech platforms illegally abuse their market power. In recent years some of them have found a receptive audience in Europe, where authorities have thrice fined Google for alleged monopolistic practices. Google has paid the fines but is challenging them in court.

 

Now rivals are stepping up their advocacy in the U.S., where antitrust enforcers recently divvied up the job of examining antitrust concerns at large tech platforms, with the Justice Department preparing a Google probe. The Wall Street Journal reported on the potential probes by the department and the Federal Trade Commission earlier this month, citing people familiar with the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really earth shattering news. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren also want to break up big tech. I think only big tech doesn't want to break up big tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

These are pretty low effort posts.

 

Here's a low-effort post with some facts linked (not that they matter). They just ask leading questions and heavily edit videos.  Anyone without a conscience could get people to say anything and, without their consent, post it on the internet.

Edited by 10albersa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article has an image showing the difference in "suggested results" between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I don't know when they took that screenshot (or if it was doctored), but I tried the same search terms and the results are identical -- neither search suggest anything.

 

https://www.projectveritas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Screen-Shot-2019-06-21-at-3.13.29-PM.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

These are pretty low effort posts.

 

More effort put in than anything from Project Veritas.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Conservative "victims": Liberals won't even go in Facebook anymore because the site is so overwhelmingly Republican -- both in user base and politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 1:04 PM, Ram23 said:

The answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is apparently a resounding "yes:"

 

Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/

 

(New York City) — Project Veritas has released a new report on Google which includes undercover video of a Senior Google Executive, leaked documents, and testimony from a Google insider.  The report appears to show Google’s plans to affect the outcome of the 2020 elections and “prevent” the next “Trump situation.”

 

Do you really believe Project Veritas videos, even after they've been exposed as lies over and over again? Or are you just trolling? This is what people were talking about on the Trump thread about UO meet ups. This is beyond the pale. If you really turn to this organization to better understand the world I feel sorry for you. If you're just trolling, then why? What joy do you get out of it? Why waste your time? I cannot understand it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

Hey, Conservative "victims": Liberals won't even go in Facebook anymore because the site is so overwhelmingly Republican -- both in user base and politics.

 

MySpace is for liberals.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...