Google Fired Him now he's a hero

[vooke]

Robina,

First amendment protects your free speech from infringement by the government.  It doesn't protect you from socioeconomic consequences of the same.

He can't be arrested and prosecuted for what says.  But he sure as hell can be booed and even booted out a job for it.  Google, a private institution, is not obligated to provide him a platform for his views by the first amendment.

Really? -so companies are free to suppress freedom of speech because they are "private"? - we shall see. I hope James Damore is suing for a $100M in damages - he may end up with a good fraction.

In America, the latitude for a boss to fire you is almost limitless.  This guy stands no chance in court.

That is debatable especially where politics is involved. On competence/performance yes. Damore has been fired for his views on a political issue that has made its way to Supreme Court - affirmative action. Here's some news that fly in our faces.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/walmart-subsidiary-discriminated-against-transgender-worker-eeoc-finds-n790696

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/10/cargill-meatpacking-teamsters-local-union-455-muslim-workers-civil-rights-prayer/


Here Google is accused by DoJ of totalitarian policies -
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/19/google-confidentiality-wage-gap-us-investigation

I think he was fired for disseminating these views, not necessarily harboring them. So all Google need to prove is that whatever he penned and spread was contrary to their policies.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Robina,

They don't suppress freedom of speech.  They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to.  They don't owe him a job.  They can fire him for being rude to other employees. 

On a separate note, are you okay with living in a society where people have no qualms about calling you nigger, faggot, porch monkey?  I sure as hell am glad it's a hostile environment for such people.  First amendment does not protect you from hostility.

[Nefertiti]

That is debatable especially where politics is involved. On competence/performance yes. Damore has been fired for his views on a political issue that has made its way to Supreme Court - affirmative action. Here's some news that fly in our faces.

I think he was fired for disseminating these views, not necessarily harboring them. So all Google need to prove is that whatever he penned and spread was contrary to their policies.

Ohh vooke - views can only be expressed not harbored. It is freedom of speech, not freedom of harboring.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

In America, the latitude for a boss to fire you is almost limitless.  This guy stands no chance in court.

That is debatable especially where politics is involved. On competence/performance yes. Damore has been fired for his views on a political issue that has made its way to Supreme Court - affirmative action. Here's some news that fly in our faces.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/walmart-subsidiary-discriminated-against-transgender-worker-eeoc-finds-n790696

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/10/cargill-meatpacking-teamsters-local-union-455-muslim-workers-civil-rights-prayer/


Here Google is accused by DoJ of totalitarian policies -
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/19/google-confidentiality-wage-gap-us-investigation

Discrimination law has a clearly defined set of protected classes.  None of them includes being a jerk.

I think in this one, Google is in good standing.

[vooke]

That is debatable especially where politics is involved. On competence/performance yes. Damore has been fired for his views on a political issue that has made its way to Supreme Court - affirmative action. Here's some news that fly in our faces.

I think he was fired for disseminating these views, not necessarily harboring them. So all Google need to prove is that whatever he penned and spread was contrary to their policies.

Ohh vooke - views can only be expressed not harbored. It is not freedom of speech, not freedom of harboring.

i mean the point is it's  not the validity of his views in question but widely disseminating them inside a private company, and the consequences.

[Nefertiti]

Robina,

They don't suppress freedom of speech.  They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to.  They don't owe him a job.  They can fire him for being rude to other employees. 

Hm. Define "private entity". Google is a publicly traded multinational by the way. I wonder: can they have a policy on not hiring albinos, or whites, or such? - since they are a "private entity"? You seem to suggest private entities are not subject to laws and the constitution.

On a separate note, are you okay with living in a society where people have no qualms about calling you nigger, faggot, porch monkey?  I sure as hell am glad it's a hostile environment for such people.  First amendment does not protect you from hostility.

Good question - thank you for this "separate" note

Seriously you should know me by now. It is not white men's fault that we blacks or women may be worse off in some way and better off in others - it is nature's fault - this is my view. Pragmatic, I believe. Years of affirmative action for minorities and women have not resulted in any meaningful advancement - surely there must be a better way to address the lagging behind. Every time you survey say Silicon Valley - you will find only white men own 99% of companies - and are the newly minted billionaires. Affirmative action cannot help us bro.

Here is a question to you: why can't blacks or minorities or women start their own companies - and practice "inclusion" there? Uh? -include whites in the black company It is not that I oppose diversity & inclusion - it is that I recognize rights don't drop from the sky - they are created by the white men people to seem to hate so dubiously. There would be no resources to "diversify" without their creators - white men.

Now - on a separate note - you seem to agree with me that Kenya (and Sub Sahara) should outsource governance to Caucasians - I wonder why?

[Kichwa]

Oh and the USA does not.  It is so hypocritical to go on a tirade against fellow Kenyan tribes and then complain about a white dudes racism as if it is ok to be a tribalist as opposed to being a racist. What is the difference.  Some white people think they are superior just like you go on and on about Kalenjin or kipsigis superiority.

Tribalism is an issue and we have diversity programs for minority tribes.

[Kichwa]

Robina,

They don't suppress freedom of speech.  They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to.  They don't owe him a job.  They can fire him for being rude to other employees. 

Hm. Define "private entity". Google is a publicly traded multinational by the way. I wonder: can they have a policy on not hiring albinos, or whites, or such? - since they are a "private entity"? You seem to suggest private entities are not subject to laws and the constitution.

On a separate note, are you okay with living in a society where people have no qualms about calling you nigger, faggot, porch monkey?  I sure as hell am glad it's a hostile environment for such people.  First amendment does not protect you from hostility.

Good question - thank you for this "separate" note

Seriously you should know me by now. It is not white men's fault that we blacks or women may be worse off in some way and better off in others - it is nature's fault - this is my view. Pragmatic, I believe. Years of affirmative action for minorities and women have not resulted in any meaningful advancement - surely there must be a better way to address the lagging behind. Every time you survey say Silicon Valley - you will find only white men own 99% of companies - and are the newly minted billionaires. Affirmative action cannot help us bro.

Here is a question to you: why can't blacks or minorities or women start their own companies - and practice "inclusion" there? Uh? -include whites in the black company It is not that I oppose diversity & inclusion - it is that I recognize rights don't drop from the sky - they are created by the white men people to seem to hate so dubiously. There would be no resources to "diversify" without their creators - white men.

Now - on a separate note - you seem to agree with me that Kenya (and Sub Sahara) should outsource governance to Caucasians - I wonder why?

[Nefertiti]

Kichwa you sound like the election observers.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Kichwa you sound like the election observers.

But he is right. 

[Kichwa]

Robina. I Know but  I wish there was a clear cut answer.

Kichwa you sound like the election observers.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Robina,

They don't suppress freedom of speech.  They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to.  They don't owe him a job.  They can fire him for being rude to other employees. 

Hm. Define "private entity". Google is a publicly traded multinational by the way. I wonder: can they have a policy on not hiring albinos, or whites, or such? - since they are a "private entity"? You seem to suggest private entities are not subject to laws and the constitution.

Kichwa has answered this I think.

On a separate note, are you okay with living in a society where people have no qualms about calling you nigger, faggot, porch monkey?  I sure as hell am glad it's a hostile environment for such people.  First amendment does not protect you from hostility.

Good question - thank you for this "separate" note

And you completely avoided addressing it.

Seriously you should know me by now. It is not white men's fault that we blacks or women may be worse off in some way and better off in others - it is nature's fault - this is my view. Pragmatic, I believe. Years of affirmative action for minorities and women have not resulted in any meaningful advancement - surely there must be a better way to address the lagging behind. Every time you survey say Silicon Valley - you will find only white men own 99% of companies - and are the newly minted billionaires. Affirmative action cannot help us bro.

Here is a question to you: why can't blacks or minorities or women start their own companies - and practice "inclusion" there? Uh? -include whites in the black company It is not that I oppose diversity & inclusion - it is that I recognize rights don't drop from the sky - they are created by the white men people to seem to hate so dubiously. There would be no resources to "diversify" without their creators - white men.

Affirmative action is an entirely different question.  In my opinion, it has "failed" to help those that it should help, but for completely the opposite reason that you may suggest.  I don't know if I have ever worked with an affirmative action hire.  But over years of experience in IT, every single black person I ever worked with has generally been head and shoulders above the other guys, especially whites.  It simply reflects the fact that white people are given more opportunities to try, fail and try again.  Companies are not taking chances on mediocre blacks.  For some of these exceptional blacks to be employed, it still takes affirmative action.   The dumbest people I have worked with have always been white.  It's not biology.  It's institutional racism.

A convicted white felon, still has better job prospects than a similarly skilled black person.  Digest that for a moment.  Racism is real and impacts negatively even those chances you talk of setting up their own companies and practicing inclusion when they can barely keep their head above water.  I think you seriously underplay the legacy of disenfranchisement the African American has endured, and continues to endure even in 2017.

Of course white people were the first to institutionalize so-called Western values.  That does not mean it is a white concept.  Anybody can adopt them.  Same thing with science.  Yes, the Euros have trailblazed.  But they do not own science.

Now - on a separate note - you seem to agree with me that Kenya (and Sub Sahara) should outsource governance to Caucasians - I wonder why?

But not because Caucasians are superior.  If I wanted it purely based on race, I would suggest we outsource the governance to Russia, which in my opinion would be even worse, even though Russia is a very white country.

[Nefertiti]

Windy - I did not evade the point - I answered it in many words: I prefer to be insulted than mollycoddled.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Windy - I did not evade the point - I answered it in many words: I prefer to be insulted than mollycoddled.

Ok dok bitch.

Robina, you are far from being a bitch.  You are the opposite in fact.  Still I can't believe this is the kind of environment you would prefer to live in.

[Nefertiti]

Windy - I did not evade the point - I answered it in many words: I prefer to be insulted than mollycoddled.

Ok dok bitch.

Robina, you are far from being a bitch.  You are the opposite in fact.  Still I can't believe this is the kind of environment you would prefer to live in.

Point taken See I do want you to respect me - I just don't want some law to coerce you. Paternalism is an oxymoron.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Windy - I did not evade the point - I answered it in many words: I prefer to be insulted than mollycoddled.

Ok dok bitch.

Robina, you are far from being a bitch.  You are the opposite in fact.  Still I can't believe this is the kind of environment you would prefer to live in.

Point taken See I do want you to respect me - I just don't want some law to coerce you. Paternalism is an oxymoron.

For me, I am good with ceding some of my "freedoms to be an asshole".  I think I can live with it.

[MOON Ki]

Robina,

They don't suppress freedom of speech.  They are a private entity with their rules which he most likely agreed to.  They don't owe him a job.  They can fire him for being rude to other employees. 

Yep.   Freedom of Speech does not mean that one is free to say whatever one wishes, however one wishes, whenever one wishes ... For example, even the strongest advocates of the right will not do this: walk into the office of the head of the employing organization and engage in an hour-long abusive rant.  Why? Firing is likely to be swift and without much of a legal leg to stand on.  The guy is free to say whatever he likes in the privacy and comfort of his own home, or in a pub with friends, but care should always be taken in the workplace.   

It seems most likely that the guy does not belong to a union, which typically would have an agreement with the employer to the effect that firing must be based on "just cause".  If so, then his employment was "at will", which means that Google is free to fire him at any time, without warning, and with no obligation to give a reason.    The only exception would be if his civil rights were violated, and I don't think even the guy is claiming that.

Most important: Regardless of how he views his rights and what sorts of claims he might bring forth on that basis, large companies like Google will have a Code or Ethics/Conduct that employees sign up to, and, in so doing might well waive certain legal rights.   Some employers will even go beyond the workplace in such matters.  Looking at Google's Code of Conduct, it appears that the guy violated certain parts, and that pretty much finishes his case (if he even had one to start with).   

In my opinion, Google was absolutely right to kick out the fellow.    Perhaps those who consider him a hero will offer him suitable and equivalent alternative employment, although my guess is that major employers will treat him with caution.

[Nefertiti]

I think our differences here are more political/ideological than legal. Modern liberalism is the antipathy of freedom - so I loathe it. But I have been accused of confusing my wishes for reality right here... what do I know? You find those unhappy with Kaparo's hate speech policies in Kenya support them here in the US   {Sorry couldn't resist that under-the-belt}

[MOON Ki]

I think our differences here are more political/ideological than legal. Modern liberalism is the antipathy of freedom - so I loathe it. But I have been accused of confusing my wishes for reality right here... what do I know? You find those unhappy with Kaparo's hate speech policies in Kenya support them here in the US   {Sorry couldn't resist that under-the-belt}

I don't see it as a "political/ideological vs legal issue".   As far as I can tell, the fellow did not break any law.   He did, however, behave badly, while working for an employer that---quite rightly---takes a dim view of certain types of bad behaviour.  (And, since people may run to the courts, such an employer generally ensures that its legal bases are covered.)

I don't quite get the bit about Kaparo.    RE Kenya: I have heard a great deal of what I consider "hate speech", but I do not recall anyone being penalized for it.   Same with "integrity": Kenya is a real den of iniquity, but how many have been barred from elections on the basis of "integrity"?  These things are largely meaningless in Kenya, even when the law says otherwise.   

Regardless of where one is, there is nothing like "freedom without limitations", nor should there be any such thing.   Nothing to do with liberalism or whatever.   

[MOON Ki]

Point taken See I do want you to respect me - I just don't want some law to coerce you. Paternalism is an oxymoron.

The relevant laws are never about forcing (or even encouraging) people to respect others, or like others, or whatever.   Rather the idea is that while people may disrespect or dislike or even hate others, they should be constrained when it comes to acting on such feelings victimizing those others.  Most affected people are not seeking love or respect or whatever; they simply do not care to be victimized on the basis or race, gender, religion, etc.