In the spirit of good faith, I will simply say "poorly defined."
Yes, the earlier strict self-definition is Spencer's, who are white supremacists. The term right now is applied liberally to large groups of people, generally under the age of 40, not agreeing with left-leaning social views. It seems to operate under a one-strike rule of sorts, in which you need only disagree with one aspect of the left's ideals to be considered under the umbrella of alt-right.
Case-in-point, the current thread centres on, again, discussions about women in tech and general social justice topics (see the original article; there is mention of a single unidentified employee doing 'race realism' on an outside blog, but Altheide was posting on 'general social justice' topics), as with the previous one. But by then describing the Google people arguing about women in tech as alt-right, you then daisy chain them to Richard Spencer and get to call them Nazis, so anyone arguing against you is defending Nazis (and the second half of your post is exactly that! "Do you realise you're defending Nazis?")
When you choose to partner up with alt-right community leaders, you shouldn't be surprised when people associate you with the alt-right.
Damore has also given shifting reasons for his apparent affinity for the alt-right. Initially, he pleaded “ignorance about many of people’s past and political positions…that’s a weakness of mine as I’ve been thrust into this,” despite having listed several media figures well-known among alt-right followers, as well as a desire to interview with Dave Rubin, a YouTube host known for featuring alt-right celebrities. Damore defended this choice saying he “wasn’t mentally prepared to argue my points to hostile media (I don’t have experience talking to the press).” But Damore also made a puzzling claim about his decision to align himself with one of the most controversial alt-right figures: Mike Cernovich, a right-wing conspiracy theorist and blogger famous for promoting the Pizzagate scandal. Damore told his followers on Reddit that “we decided to have Mike Cernovich tweet my image because he has 300K followers,” without mentioning Cernovich’s alt-right allegiances or the identity of the “we” to in his statement. Damore has not responded to multiple emails and other requests for a response.
The dude worked for Google, and he's claiming he had no idea about the nature of the people he was working with.
Schrodinger on
+2
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
edited January 2018
I didn't claim Damore wasn't alt-right, I pointed out that suggesting there is an "unknown, significant number of Nazis"/"majority of Google's employees or the ones high up are Nazis"/"still fostering an environment where Nazis are empowered"/"white dudes, many of whom buy into MRA and genetic superiority claptrap" is largely well poisoning. Damore is a single person, and the thread isn't talking about a single person, but a group or in some of the above suggestions a large number of "Nazis".
(edit: this post was written to an earlier version of Schrodinger's)
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
This I don't understand how multiple people in this thread have tried to paint "alt-right" as "anyone with a not-progressive view." Maybe that's the way it works in other places online or whatever, but that's very unfair to say that people in this forum do that.
Was the tax cut bill alt-right? The many attempts to appeal Obamacare? American gun culture? Anti-abortion rights? Wanting to ban people from getting various LGBT treatments?
No. They are negative and cruel, they are super not progressive, but not outside the norm for what we expect from Republicans in the last x years. "Screw the poors" is not alt-right. Honestly, "screw minorities" and "screw women" aren't either.
So no, this is not a case of "alt-right" being "applied liberally to large groups of people, generally under the age of 40, not agreeing with left-leaning social views."
But some things are alt-right, which is essentially neo-Nazism, even if they try to be more polite about it, and should be treated that way in discussions.
To build on what Kime has said, off the cuff I'd say that a lot of the latter also adhere to the former, but the reverse is not equally applicable. However, it does add a layer of potential obfuscation, because calling out the racism and bigotry often leads to "they're Big C Conservatives, You Hate Conservatives/Conservative Ideals" arguments, further confounded because I dare say that to some degree, a lot of forumers here DO oppose conservatism. But it's not a direct connection, nobody (who isn't usually yelled down or infracted) is calling ALL Republicans/Conservatives 'alt-right'. HOWEVER, unfortunately there IS some consternation to be found in that the GOP/Republican Politicians are often found quietly ignoring those uglier elements, because the Alt-Right are full of politically engaged men and women, and their current legislative advantage is a slim one.
Sorry if I've rambled a bit there, but that's how I'm seeing it. Having ideas/opinions so conservative that you think less of women, LGBT individuals, other races, or religions, is not in itself actionable, but expressing them and making for a hostile work environment is. Thinking that women have no place in tech and that *insert minority here* are lesser than whites are things that HR absolutely needs to handle. The freedom to express ones self does not supersede other's rights to have a workplace where they feel safe and welcome.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
In the spirit of good faith, I will simply say "poorly defined."
Yes, the earlier strict self-definition is Spencer's, who are white supremacists. The term right now is applied liberally to large groups of people, generally under the age of 40, not agreeing with left-leaning social views. It seems to operate under a one-strike rule of sorts, in which you need only disagree with one aspect of the left's ideals to be considered under the umbrella of alt-right.
Case-in-point, the current thread centres on, again, discussions about women in tech and general social justice topics (see the original article; there is mention of a single unidentified employee doing 'race realism' on an outside blog, but Altheide was posting on 'general social justice' topics), as with the previous one. But by then describing the Google people arguing about women in tech as alt-right, you then daisy chain them to Richard Spencer and get to call them Nazis, so anyone arguing against you is defending Nazis (and the second half of your post is exactly that! "Do you realise you're defending Nazis?")
This is why they're being called alt-right:
Since August, screenshots from Google’s internal discussion forums, including personal information, have been displayed on sites including Breitbart and Vox Popoli, a blog run by alt-right author Theodore Beale, who goes by the name Vox Day. Other screenshots were included in a 161-page lawsuit that Damore filed in January, alleging that Google discriminates against whites, males, and conservatives.
What followed, the employees say, was a wave of harassment. On forums like 4chan, members linked advocates’ names with their social-media accounts. At least three employees had their phone numbers, addresses, and deadnames (a transgender person’s name prior to transitioning) exposed. Google site reliability engineer Liz Fong-Jones, a trans woman, says she was the target of harassment, including violent threats and degrading slurs based on gender identity, race, and sexual orientation. More than a dozen pages of personal information about another employee were posted to Kiwi Farms, which New York has called “the web’s biggest community of stalkers.”
Some employees see similarities between some of the behavior inside Google and alt-right manuals for fighting advocates for social justice, such as one written by Beale that instructs readers to “Document their every word and action,” “Undermine them, sabotage them, and discredit them,” and “Make the rubble bounce” on your way out the door.
Beale says they’re right. “I know that there are a number of people there who have read [the guide], I know that they’re using it,” Beale told WIRED. He claims to have had contacts inside the company for years and dozens of followers.
These individuals are pushing information to known alt-right groups with the intent to harm, and are using the alt-right playbook. This is not a daisy chain - these individuals are willingly associating with and using the tactics of the alt-right.
In the spirit of good faith, I will simply say "poorly defined."
Yes, the earlier strict self-definition is Spencer's, who are white supremacists. The term right now is applied liberally to large groups of people, generally under the age of 40, not agreeing with left-leaning social views. It seems to operate under a one-strike rule of sorts, in which you need only disagree with one aspect of the left's ideals to be considered under the umbrella of alt-right.
Case-in-point, the current thread centres on, again, discussions about women in tech and general social justice topics (see the original article; there is mention of a single unidentified employee doing 'race realism' on an outside blog, but Altheide was posting on 'general social justice' topics), as with the previous one. But by then describing the Google people arguing about women in tech as alt-right, you then daisy chain them to Richard Spencer and get to call them Nazis, so anyone arguing against you is defending Nazis (and the second half of your post is exactly that! "Do you realise you're defending Nazis?")
This is why they're being called alt-right:
Since August, screenshots from Google’s internal discussion forums, including personal information, have been displayed on sites including Breitbart and Vox Popoli, a blog run by alt-right author Theodore Beale, who goes by the name Vox Day. Other screenshots were included in a 161-page lawsuit that Damore filed in January, alleging that Google discriminates against whites, males, and conservatives.
What followed, the employees say, was a wave of harassment. On forums like 4chan, members linked advocates’ names with their social-media accounts. At least three employees had their phone numbers, addresses, and deadnames (a transgender person’s name prior to transitioning) exposed. Google site reliability engineer Liz Fong-Jones, a trans woman, says she was the target of harassment, including violent threats and degrading slurs based on gender identity, race, and sexual orientation. More than a dozen pages of personal information about another employee were posted to Kiwi Farms, which New York has called “the web’s biggest community of stalkers.”
Some employees see similarities between some of the behavior inside Google and alt-right manuals for fighting advocates for social justice, such as one written by Beale that instructs readers to “Document their every word and action,” “Undermine them, sabotage them, and discredit them,” and “Make the rubble bounce” on your way out the door.
Beale says they’re right. “I know that there are a number of people there who have read [the guide], I know that they’re using it,” Beale told WIRED. He claims to have had contacts inside the company for years and dozens of followers.
These individuals are pushing information to known alt-right groups with the intent to harm, and are using the alt-right playbook. This is not a daisy chain - these individuals are willingly associating with and using the tactics of the alt-right.
Because, drumroll, that's who they are. There is no distinction between the two groups. They are just 4chan trolls and Breitbart readers and Goobergummers and the like who work at Google. It's not like they screen those people out during the hiring process. It's not like the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't using the tactics of the alt-right, they are the alt-right.
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
No one is calling every one in this thread or elsewhere a Nazi, though the topic did come up directly from a manager + coupled with the Alt Right being a thing these days made nazis involved in the subject regarding Google.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It sounds like Google fired two geese over increasingly heated diversity debates on its own internal forums.
Someone is also leaking information so as to dox people, perhaps Domore himself (we'd need to ascertain when the screenshots were taken to rule that out), and Google has a continuing case against them about parity of pay.
So... Google needs to mod its forums better I guess, so people don't get fired? Or just keep firing geese I guess, even if they're not alt-right.
And needs to figure out who is doxxing people.
And figure out whether their payscale is appropriate or not, like all tech companies.
It sounds like Google fired two geese over increasingly heated diversity debates on its own internal forums.
Someone is also leaking information so as to dox people, perhaps Domore himself (we'd need to ascertain when the screenshots were taken to rule that out), and Google has a continuing case against them about parity of pay.
So... Google needs to mod its forums better I guess, so people don't get fired? Or just keep firing geese I guess, even if they're not alt-right.
And needs to figure out who is doxxing people.
And figure out whether their payscale is appropriate or not, like all tech companies.
One was fired, the other quit. Chances are we won't hear about it if they fire the doxxers, and given the people doing it are pretty tech savvy they may not actually get found
An easy solution would be to allow google internal forums to be semi-anonymous.
Anonymous to fellow co-workers, but not anonymous to HR if you say something that crossed a line.
At my work, we used to have an anonymous forum on our Intranet. It was moderated (though with a soft touch); if a comment was inappropriate or insulting to coworkers it was deleted.
The grand concept was that it would be a space where people could ask questions about the company that they didn't feel comfortable bringing to a manager.
We eventually shut it down anyway because too many comments were simply unproductive. People weren't trolling, exactly, but they'd get a little bit Internet-Fuckwady. Often people would post about their personal pet peeves; or they'd go on rants about minor problems that only affected one or two people; or they'd ask vague questions about medical benefits that were completely unanswerable without additional details; or they'd submit 'suggestions' that would involve enormous projects to overhaul entire departments.
It became a running joke between IT and HR. We'd joke with each other and make up more and more outlandish posts. "Dear Intranet, when I came to work this morning there was dog poop on the intersection near the office and I stepped in it and now my shoe stinks. What is Company going to do about it?" "Dear Intranet, I think capitalism is intrinsically exploitative and we should fire our entire accounts payable department." "Dear Intranet, I hate that our free office coffee is verona blend. Why don't we get italian roast instead?"
So maybe my experience is unusual, but I feel like having an open web forum for your work is just inviting the lowest denominator of your coworkers to shitpost.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
No one is calling every one in this thread or elsewhere a Nazi, though the topic did come up directly from a manager + coupled with the Alt Right being a thing these days made nazis involved in the subject regarding Google.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It's still a gooseshit thing for a manager to say, and as we can see now, it's pretty much blown up in their faces with the doxxing now occuring. Had management actually taken the issue seriously in 2015, there wouldn't be the issue of Google having to cancel a company town hall for fear that they couldn't ensure the safety of their employees, which should give you an idea of how bad this has gotten.
It's interesting that the language adopted when referencing racist homophobic misogynistic pieces of shit. Remember when they started marketing this nonsense as alt-right and everyone was well aware it was a rebranding?
I remember people saying whatever we called it couldn't possibly normalize the behavior. Whatever they choose to call it, they're still the same small minded phobics who wield exclusionary wrongness to convince and recruit.
Alt-Right rant done.
The mid level manager at Google said a stupid thing in a failed analogy that lost him an argument because of context. He's still a manager and if he says stop throwing gasoline on the fire using company resources then stop. If this was a kitchen and he was picking fights with the bartender instead of working the line, he'd have been told to get the fuck out and don't come back.
Where you work is not your home, they are not your resources and it's not your job to troll your coworkers no matter how sexist, racist or ignorant they may be. This is some snowflake passive aggressive nonsense in an industry that needs to remember it's an industry. There's nothing special or enlightened about the opinions of tech workers.
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
No one is calling every one in this thread or elsewhere a Nazi, though the topic did come up directly from a manager + coupled with the Alt Right being a thing these days made nazis involved in the subject regarding Google.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It's still a gooseshit thing for a manager to say, and as we can see now, it's pretty much blown up in their faces with the doxxing now occuring. Had management actually taken the issue seriously in 2015, there wouldn't be the issue of Google having to cancel a company town hall for fear that they couldn't ensure the safety of their employees, which should give you an idea of how bad this has gotten.
How do you suggest they should have "taken the issue seriously" other than by being oracles? There was no reason to think that employees would start doxxing other employees and nobody really broke any rules
Alt-right i'd argue is the part of the right wing that defines itself in opposition to "political correctness" while the mainstream right has, at least in theory, accepted concepts like racial equality and feminism. The alt-right is the part of the right wing which is opposed to those ideals and refuses the dog whistles that the mainstream right has embraced in order to adhere to them.
It's really a difference of message rather than ideals.
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
No one is calling every one in this thread or elsewhere a Nazi, though the topic did come up directly from a manager + coupled with the Alt Right being a thing these days made nazis involved in the subject regarding Google.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It's still a gooseshit thing for a manager to say, and as we can see now, it's pretty much blown up in their faces with the doxxing now occuring. Had management actually taken the issue seriously in 2015, there wouldn't be the issue of Google having to cancel a company town hall for fear that they couldn't ensure the safety of their employees, which should give you an idea of how bad this has gotten.
Why are we assuming that disgruntled employee relayed disciplining manager's comment correctly?
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
No one is calling every one in this thread or elsewhere a Nazi, though the topic did come up directly from a manager + coupled with the Alt Right being a thing these days made nazis involved in the subject regarding Google.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It's still a gooseshit thing for a manager to say, and as we can see now, it's pretty much blown up in their faces with the doxxing now occuring. Had management actually taken the issue seriously in 2015, there wouldn't be the issue of Google having to cancel a company town hall for fear that they couldn't ensure the safety of their employees, which should give you an idea of how bad this has gotten.
How do you suggest they should have "taken the issue seriously" other than by being oracles? There was no reason to think that employees would start doxxing other employees and nobody really broke any rules
It doesn't take being an oracle, just a bit of understanding and sympathy (which is why this is yet further evidence for why programmers need the liberal arts in their education.) They could have taken it seriously by pointing out that Google is committed to improving diversity when they shut the thread down, as well as making the point clear that any employees not on board with improving diversity might want to think about if Google is the workplace for them. By treating both sides as equal, they legitimized those who were arguing against diversity, and gave them a feeling of safety. As I said before, the screed didn't happen in a vacuum - if the goose didn't think he had at least some support for his position, he wouldn't have released it.
By the way - 2015 is when Giggledygoop happened. Again, all it would have taken was a bit of understanding and foresight to see where things were going.
It doesn't take being an oracle, just a bit of understanding and sympathy (which is why this is yet further evidence for why programmers need the liberal arts in their education.) They could have taken it seriously by pointing out that Google is committed to improving diversity when they shut the thread down, as well as making the point clear that any employees not on board with improving diversity might want to think about if Google is the workplace for them. By treating both sides as equal, they legitimized those who were arguing against diversity, and gave them a feeling of safety. As I said before, the screed didn't happen in a vacuum - if the goose didn't think he had at least some support for his position, he wouldn't have released it.
By the way - 2015 is when Giggledygoop happened. Again, all it would have taken was a bit of understanding and foresight to see where things were going.
Which was a huge warning sign of how things can get when minorities and women aren't welcomed in a field by racist and sexist assholes. This was foreshadowing, as that was a training ground for Alt Right, as well.
Google was hit by a growing right wing reactionary movement, which has affected numerous fields from comic books (CBR shutdown) to novels ( Sad Puppies/Rapid Puppies) regarding a changing world where said field is growing more inclusive.
That manager wasn't doing a good job at being up to date with popular culture.
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
No one is calling every one in this thread or elsewhere a Nazi, though the topic did come up directly from a manager + coupled with the Alt Right being a thing these days made nazis involved in the subject regarding Google.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It's still a gooseshit thing for a manager to say, and as we can see now, it's pretty much blown up in their faces with the doxxing now occuring. Had management actually taken the issue seriously in 2015, there wouldn't be the issue of Google having to cancel a company town hall for fear that they couldn't ensure the safety of their employees, which should give you an idea of how bad this has gotten.
Why are we assuming that disgruntled employee relayed disciplining manager's comment correctly?
Personally, because I trust workers more than I do management.
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
No one is calling every one in this thread or elsewhere a Nazi, though the topic did come up directly from a manager + coupled with the Alt Right being a thing these days made nazis involved in the subject regarding Google.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It's still a gooseshit thing for a manager to say, and as we can see now, it's pretty much blown up in their faces with the doxxing now occuring. Had management actually taken the issue seriously in 2015, there wouldn't be the issue of Google having to cancel a company town hall for fear that they couldn't ensure the safety of their employees, which should give you an idea of how bad this has gotten.
Why are we assuming that disgruntled employee relayed disciplining manager's comment correctly?
Personally, because I trust workers more than I do management.
Sure, but why extend that trust to this employee in particular, who appears to have exhibited behaviour unbecoming of this forum, let alone an employer-moderated one?
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
No one is calling every one in this thread or elsewhere a Nazi, though the topic did come up directly from a manager + coupled with the Alt Right being a thing these days made nazis involved in the subject regarding Google.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It's still a gooseshit thing for a manager to say, and as we can see now, it's pretty much blown up in their faces with the doxxing now occuring. Had management actually taken the issue seriously in 2015, there wouldn't be the issue of Google having to cancel a company town hall for fear that they couldn't ensure the safety of their employees, which should give you an idea of how bad this has gotten.
Why are we assuming that disgruntled employee relayed disciplining manager's comment correctly?
Personally, because I trust workers more than I do management.
Sure, but why extend that trust to this employee in particular, who appears to have exhibited behaviour unbecoming of this forum, let alone an employer-moderated one?
Because people do not find it surprising/unexpected?
As we've seen wih twitter and youtube, being an out of touch douche, is not really that surprising in the tech industry.
How does one have a good faith argument with people who have decided to call their political/debate opponents either actual Nazis (and literally declare themselves uninterested in 'splitting hairs' between the fucking Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust and World War II, and the alt-right, who while certainly monumental cockholsters, are still many orders of magnitude below), and else, at best, Sea Lions i.e. Nazis who are disguising themselves by "just asking questions?"
It's such obvious well poisoning that there's no way to engage that can be taken as convincing. The 'discussion' might as well be framed as "either tut-tut Google together with me, or be painted as defending Nazis by asking any sort of question whatsoever."
No one is calling every one in this thread or elsewhere a Nazi, though the topic did come up directly from a manager + coupled with the Alt Right being a thing these days made nazis involved in the subject regarding Google.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It's still a gooseshit thing for a manager to say, and as we can see now, it's pretty much blown up in their faces with the doxxing now occuring. Had management actually taken the issue seriously in 2015, there wouldn't be the issue of Google having to cancel a company town hall for fear that they couldn't ensure the safety of their employees, which should give you an idea of how bad this has gotten.
Why are we assuming that disgruntled employee relayed disciplining manager's comment correctly?
Personally, because I trust workers more than I do management.
Sure, but why extend that trust to this employee in particular, who appears to have exhibited behaviour unbecoming of this forum, let alone an employer-moderated one?
Because people do not find it surprising/unexpected?
As we've seen wih twitter and youtube, being an out of touch douche, is not really that surprising in the tech industry.
Goobergaters were a prime recruiting ground for the alt-right and one of the big reasons many parts of the neo-nazi/white-supremacist/alt-right/etc sphere (like Breitbart) turned their sights on young white men into tech culture. The whole youtube video/blog/etc ecosystem of recruitment for these movements targets these kind of people. That some of them end up working the tech sector is not at all surprising. Both the alt-right and tech sector are pulling from the same pool of people here and they are, again, not mutually exclusive.
Whilst Cory appears to me to have continued to deliberately inflame conversations on the internal Google board despite a formal warning from their manager, there appears to be a greater rift on those boards involving more people than just Cory and Damore.
I wouldn't necessarily call it an alt-right takeover, but it seems to at least be a toxic working environment where there is an ongoing war of mindsets.
So perhaps a war of attrition which the alt-right may win through doxxing.
And whilst it may not excuse Cory's behaviour, being constantly barraged would certainly explain why they might feel the need to constantly retaliate.
Breitbart acquired an internal memo sent out by Hölzle, who wrote:
"Sometimes, like yesterday, I am…saddened? taken aback? disgusted? by the thought that there are Googlers coming to work filled with gate towards their colleagues. I’m not even sure what adjective to use….but it’s sad. No matter the topic, there’s just no room for hate at Google. But then again, I remind myself that 99.99% of our colleagues do not fall into that group, and that we can’t let a small fraction of employees dominate our thoughts, feelings, and culture. That makes me hopeful that we can overcome the attempts to create a culture of hate and fear. But that is little comfort to the Googlers who are being doxxed or harassed. I hope we will identify those behind this reprehensible conduct. All Googlers are responsible for upholding a workplace and culture that is free of harassment, discrimination, misconduct, bullying, and retaliation."
Oh if only he was talking about the Nazis as being that .01% instead of the people who are saying "hey look at all these bigots".
???
That is what he's saying though?
He's calling out the doxxers/Nazis?
Which is why Breitbart is decrying it.
Hm I guess you're right. It's weird having to translate back and forth between who who is talking about when they refer to whistleblowers depending who they are. It doesn't help that it's a very poorly written article.
Oh if only he was talking about the Nazis as being that .01% instead of the people who are saying "hey look at all these bigots".
???
That is what he's saying though?
He's calling out the doxxers/Nazis?
Which is why Breitbart is decrying it.
Hm I guess you're right. It's weird having to translate back and forth between who who is talking about when they refer to whistleblowers depending who they are. It doesn't help that it's a very poorly written article.
We'll see what comes of it.
I think this has been an incredibly insightful commentary on both sides sounding exactly the same....
Oh if only he was talking about the Nazis as being that .01% instead of the people who are saying "hey look at all these bigots".
???
That is what he's saying though?
He's calling out the doxxers/Nazis?
Which is why Breitbart is decrying it.
Hm I guess you're right. It's weird having to translate back and forth between who who is talking about when they refer to whistleblowers depending who they are. It doesn't help that it's a very poorly written article.
We'll see what comes of it.
I think this has been an incredibly insightful commentary on both sides sounding exactly the same....
Oh if only he was talking about the Nazis as being that .01% instead of the people who are saying "hey look at all these bigots".
???
That is what he's saying though?
He's calling out the doxxers/Nazis?
Which is why Breitbart is decrying it.
Hm I guess you're right. It's weird having to translate back and forth between who who is talking about when they refer to whistleblowers depending who they are. It doesn't help that it's a very poorly written article.
We'll see what comes of it.
I think this has been an incredibly insightful commentary on both sides sounding exactly the same....
Granted, the article is written deliberately so that it looks like the doxxers are getting doxxed.
'Help us, we're being persecuted. Our bosses are trying to fire us for persecuting other employees.'
It's camoflauge.
Oh if only he was talking about the Nazis as being that .01% instead of the people who are saying "hey look at all these bigots".
???
That is what he's saying though?
He's calling out the doxxers/Nazis?
Which is why Breitbart is decrying it.
Hm I guess you're right. It's weird having to translate back and forth between who who is talking about when they refer to whistleblowers depending who they are. It doesn't help that it's a very poorly written article.
We'll see what comes of it.
I think this has been an incredibly insightful commentary on both sides sounding exactly the same....
Granted, the article is written deliberately so that it looks like the doxxers are getting doxxed.
'Help us, we're being persecuted. Our bosses are trying to fire us for persecuting other employees.'
It's camoflauge.
It's been pointed out that they're stealing the language used by actual persecuted groups to play the victim.
Oh if only he was talking about the Nazis as being that .01% instead of the people who are saying "hey look at all these bigots".
???
That is what he's saying though?
He's calling out the doxxers/Nazis?
Which is why Breitbart is decrying it.
Hm I guess you're right. It's weird having to translate back and forth between who who is talking about when they refer to whistleblowers depending who they are. It doesn't help that it's a very poorly written article.
We'll see what comes of it.
I think this has been an incredibly insightful commentary on both sides sounding exactly the same....
Granted, the article is written deliberately so that it looks like the doxxers are getting doxxed.
'Help us, we're being persecuted. Our bosses are trying to fire us for persecuting other employees.'
It's camoflauge.
It's been pointed out that they're stealing the language used by actual persecuted groups to play the victim.
Which has been the gamer gate play from the beginning. They even flat out invented women to play the victim of fictitious assaults.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Oh if only he was talking about the Nazis as being that .01% instead of the people who are saying "hey look at all these bigots".
???
That is what he's saying though?
He's calling out the doxxers/Nazis?
Which is why Breitbart is decrying it.
Hm I guess you're right. It's weird having to translate back and forth between who who is talking about when they refer to whistleblowers depending who they are. It doesn't help that it's a very poorly written article.
We'll see what comes of it.
I think this has been an incredibly insightful commentary on both sides sounding exactly the same....
Granted, the article is written deliberately so that it looks like the doxxers are getting doxxed.
'Help us, we're being persecuted. Our bosses are trying to fire us for persecuting other employees.'
It's camoflauge.
It's been pointed out that they're stealing the language used by actual persecuted groups to play the victim.
Which has been the gamer gate play from the beginning. They even flat out invented women to play the victim of fictitious assaults.
And the i'm not your shield hashtag, using women and minorities as shields.
Oh if only he was talking about the Nazis as being that .01% instead of the people who are saying "hey look at all these bigots".
???
That is what he's saying though?
He's calling out the doxxers/Nazis?
Which is why Breitbart is decrying it.
Hm I guess you're right. It's weird having to translate back and forth between who who is talking about when they refer to whistleblowers depending who they are. It doesn't help that it's a very poorly written article.
We'll see what comes of it.
I think this has been an incredibly insightful commentary on both sides sounding exactly the same....
Granted, the article is written deliberately so that it looks like the doxxers are getting doxxed.
'Help us, we're being persecuted. Our bosses are trying to fire us for persecuting other employees.'
It's camoflauge.
It's been pointed out that they're stealing the language used by actual persecuted groups to play the victim.
Which has been the gamer gate play from the beginning. They even flat out invented women to play the victim of fictitious assaults.
They've been doing it since at least pre-WWII. Jean Paul Sartre wrote about the phenomena.
Google’s firing of an engineer over his controversial memo criticizing its diversity policies and “politically correct monoculture” didn’t violate U.S. labor law, a federal agency lawyer concluded.
Statements in James Damore’s 3,000-word memo “regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive” that they fell outside protections for collective action in the workplace, an associate general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board wrote in a six-page memo disclosed Thursday.
...
Because companies have a duty to comply with equal employment laws and an interest in promoting diversity, “employers must be permitted to ‘nip in the bud’ the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a ‘hostile workplace,’ rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action," Sophir wrote.
The company “carefully tailored" its messages in firing Damore and in addressing employees afterward "to affirm their right to engage in protected speech while prohibiting discrimination or harassment." Google also disciplined one of Damore’s co-workers for sending him a threatening email in response to the memo, Sophir said.
Because companies have a duty to comply with equal employment laws and an interest in promoting diversity, “employers must be permitted to ‘nip in the bud’ the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a ‘hostile workplace,’ rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action," Sophir wrote.
:?
Damore seems like he was lawsuit-baiting, but the general standard which extends "hostile workplace" regulations to... anything that might (reasonably?) foreseeably contribute to a future hostile workplace seems troubling. But maybe this is already the standard? idk, would be interesting to hear from someone who Is Law about how to think about how to read it.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Posts
https://qz.com/1055466/the-alt-right-has-an-all-new-formula-for-undermining-silicon-valley/
When you choose to partner up with alt-right community leaders, you shouldn't be surprised when people associate you with the alt-right.
Damore has also given shifting reasons for his apparent affinity for the alt-right. Initially, he pleaded “ignorance about many of people’s past and political positions…that’s a weakness of mine as I’ve been thrust into this,” despite having listed several media figures well-known among alt-right followers, as well as a desire to interview with Dave Rubin, a YouTube host known for featuring alt-right celebrities. Damore defended this choice saying he “wasn’t mentally prepared to argue my points to hostile media (I don’t have experience talking to the press).” But Damore also made a puzzling claim about his decision to align himself with one of the most controversial alt-right figures: Mike Cernovich, a right-wing conspiracy theorist and blogger famous for promoting the Pizzagate scandal. Damore told his followers on Reddit that “we decided to have Mike Cernovich tweet my image because he has 300K followers,” without mentioning Cernovich’s alt-right allegiances or the identity of the “we” to in his statement. Damore has not responded to multiple emails and other requests for a response.
The dude worked for Google, and he's claiming he had no idea about the nature of the people he was working with.
(edit: this post was written to an earlier version of Schrodinger's)
The mod posts telling people to end the meta discussion were not, in fact, an invitation to continue a meta discussion in the thread.
If you have questions for mods use PM. If you don't like the OP don't post in the thread.
Was the tax cut bill alt-right? The many attempts to appeal Obamacare? American gun culture? Anti-abortion rights? Wanting to ban people from getting various LGBT treatments?
No. They are negative and cruel, they are super not progressive, but not outside the norm for what we expect from Republicans in the last x years. "Screw the poors" is not alt-right. Honestly, "screw minorities" and "screw women" aren't either.
So no, this is not a case of "alt-right" being "applied liberally to large groups of people, generally under the age of 40, not agreeing with left-leaning social views."
But some things are alt-right, which is essentially neo-Nazism, even if they try to be more polite about it, and should be treated that way in discussions.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Sorry if I've rambled a bit there, but that's how I'm seeing it. Having ideas/opinions so conservative that you think less of women, LGBT individuals, other races, or religions, is not in itself actionable, but expressing them and making for a hostile work environment is. Thinking that women have no place in tech and that *insert minority here* are lesser than whites are things that HR absolutely needs to handle. The freedom to express ones self does not supersede other's rights to have a workplace where they feel safe and welcome.
This is why they're being called alt-right:
These individuals are pushing information to known alt-right groups with the intent to harm, and are using the alt-right playbook. This is not a daisy chain - these individuals are willingly associating with and using the tactics of the alt-right.
Because, drumroll, that's who they are. There is no distinction between the two groups. They are just 4chan trolls and Breitbart readers and Goobergummers and the like who work at Google. It's not like they screen those people out during the hiring process. It's not like the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't using the tactics of the alt-right, they are the alt-right.
So here's the thing about that quote. He wasn't saying the company was actually full of nazis, and since it was 2015 the alt right and calling people nazis wasn't a thing yet, and the guy himself called it a "tactless analogy" which isn't something he would say if he thought the company was actually full or nazis
It sounds like Google fired two geese over increasingly heated diversity debates on its own internal forums.
Someone is also leaking information so as to dox people, perhaps Domore himself (we'd need to ascertain when the screenshots were taken to rule that out), and Google has a continuing case against them about parity of pay.
So... Google needs to mod its forums better I guess, so people don't get fired? Or just keep firing geese I guess, even if they're not alt-right.
And needs to figure out who is doxxing people.
And figure out whether their payscale is appropriate or not, like all tech companies.
Anonymous to fellow co-workers, but not anonymous to HR if you say something that crossed a line.
One was fired, the other quit. Chances are we won't hear about it if they fire the doxxers, and given the people doing it are pretty tech savvy they may not actually get found
At my work, we used to have an anonymous forum on our Intranet. It was moderated (though with a soft touch); if a comment was inappropriate or insulting to coworkers it was deleted.
The grand concept was that it would be a space where people could ask questions about the company that they didn't feel comfortable bringing to a manager.
We eventually shut it down anyway because too many comments were simply unproductive. People weren't trolling, exactly, but they'd get a little bit Internet-Fuckwady. Often people would post about their personal pet peeves; or they'd go on rants about minor problems that only affected one or two people; or they'd ask vague questions about medical benefits that were completely unanswerable without additional details; or they'd submit 'suggestions' that would involve enormous projects to overhaul entire departments.
It became a running joke between IT and HR. We'd joke with each other and make up more and more outlandish posts. "Dear Intranet, when I came to work this morning there was dog poop on the intersection near the office and I stepped in it and now my shoe stinks. What is Company going to do about it?" "Dear Intranet, I think capitalism is intrinsically exploitative and we should fire our entire accounts payable department." "Dear Intranet, I hate that our free office coffee is verona blend. Why don't we get italian roast instead?"
So maybe my experience is unusual, but I feel like having an open web forum for your work is just inviting the lowest denominator of your coworkers to shitpost.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's still a gooseshit thing for a manager to say, and as we can see now, it's pretty much blown up in their faces with the doxxing now occuring. Had management actually taken the issue seriously in 2015, there wouldn't be the issue of Google having to cancel a company town hall for fear that they couldn't ensure the safety of their employees, which should give you an idea of how bad this has gotten.
I remember people saying whatever we called it couldn't possibly normalize the behavior. Whatever they choose to call it, they're still the same small minded phobics who wield exclusionary wrongness to convince and recruit.
Alt-Right rant done.
The mid level manager at Google said a stupid thing in a failed analogy that lost him an argument because of context. He's still a manager and if he says stop throwing gasoline on the fire using company resources then stop. If this was a kitchen and he was picking fights with the bartender instead of working the line, he'd have been told to get the fuck out and don't come back.
Where you work is not your home, they are not your resources and it's not your job to troll your coworkers no matter how sexist, racist or ignorant they may be. This is some snowflake passive aggressive nonsense in an industry that needs to remember it's an industry. There's nothing special or enlightened about the opinions of tech workers.
How do you suggest they should have "taken the issue seriously" other than by being oracles? There was no reason to think that employees would start doxxing other employees and nobody really broke any rules
It's really a difference of message rather than ideals.
Why are we assuming that disgruntled employee relayed disciplining manager's comment correctly?
It doesn't take being an oracle, just a bit of understanding and sympathy (which is why this is yet further evidence for why programmers need the liberal arts in their education.) They could have taken it seriously by pointing out that Google is committed to improving diversity when they shut the thread down, as well as making the point clear that any employees not on board with improving diversity might want to think about if Google is the workplace for them. By treating both sides as equal, they legitimized those who were arguing against diversity, and gave them a feeling of safety. As I said before, the screed didn't happen in a vacuum - if the goose didn't think he had at least some support for his position, he wouldn't have released it.
By the way - 2015 is when Giggledygoop happened. Again, all it would have taken was a bit of understanding and foresight to see where things were going.
Which was a huge warning sign of how things can get when minorities and women aren't welcomed in a field by racist and sexist assholes. This was foreshadowing, as that was a training ground for Alt Right, as well.
Google was hit by a growing right wing reactionary movement, which has affected numerous fields from comic books (CBR shutdown) to novels ( Sad Puppies/Rapid Puppies) regarding a changing world where said field is growing more inclusive.
That manager wasn't doing a good job at being up to date with popular culture.
Personally, because I trust workers more than I do management.
Sure, but why extend that trust to this employee in particular, who appears to have exhibited behaviour unbecoming of this forum, let alone an employer-moderated one?
As we've seen wih twitter and youtube, being an out of touch douche, is not really that surprising in the tech industry.
Goobergaters were a prime recruiting ground for the alt-right and one of the big reasons many parts of the neo-nazi/white-supremacist/alt-right/etc sphere (like Breitbart) turned their sights on young white men into tech culture. The whole youtube video/blog/etc ecosystem of recruitment for these movements targets these kind of people. That some of them end up working the tech sector is not at all surprising. Both the alt-right and tech sector are pulling from the same pool of people here and they are, again, not mutually exclusive.
Whilst Cory appears to me to have continued to deliberately inflame conversations on the internal Google board despite a formal warning from their manager, there appears to be a greater rift on those boards involving more people than just Cory and Damore.
I wouldn't necessarily call it an alt-right takeover, but it seems to at least be a toxic working environment where there is an ongoing war of mindsets.
So perhaps a war of attrition which the alt-right may win through doxxing.
And whilst it may not excuse Cory's behaviour, being constantly barraged would certainly explain why they might feel the need to constantly retaliate.
Cory's full statement is here by the way: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4347486/What-Happened-to-Cory-at-Google.pdf
The doxxing does appear to have started with Damore's posting of the creed though.
???
That is what he's saying though?
He's calling out the doxxers/Nazis?
Which is why Breitbart is decrying it.
Hm I guess you're right. It's weird having to translate back and forth between who who is talking about when they refer to whistleblowers depending who they are. It doesn't help that it's a very poorly written article.
We'll see what comes of it.
I think this has been an incredibly insightful commentary on both sides sounding exactly the same....
Or that he's a terrible communicator.
Granted, the article is written deliberately so that it looks like the doxxers are getting doxxed.
'Help us, we're being persecuted. Our bosses are trying to fire us for persecuting other employees.'
It's camoflauge.
It's been pointed out that they're stealing the language used by actual persecuted groups to play the victim.
Which has been the gamer gate play from the beginning. They even flat out invented women to play the victim of fictitious assaults.
pleasepaypreacher.net
They've been doing it since at least pre-WWII. Jean Paul Sartre wrote about the phenomena.
:?
Damore seems like he was lawsuit-baiting, but the general standard which extends "hostile workplace" regulations to... anything that might (reasonably?) foreseeably contribute to a future hostile workplace seems troubling. But maybe this is already the standard? idk, would be interesting to hear from someone who Is Law about how to think about how to read it.