Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Silicon Valley Snowflakes
By now you’ve heard about the memo that circulated at Google excoriating criticizing the company for its politically correct corporate culture, mindless “Diversity uber alles” policies, and intolerance for people with different opinions. To demonstrate their commitment to diversity, Google hunted down and fired him. In Silicon Valley, it would seem opinions critical of political correctness and diversity are ‘violence’ because ‘ they make people feel afraid.
How glad I am not to be a mewling snowflake. But if one of the points alleged by the memo is that some women (and weak, effeminate millennial beta males) are so emotionally fragile that they are a detriment to the workplace, doesn’t skipping work because a memo hurt their feelings kind of prove the point?
Published in Science & Technology
The market for software engineers is tight, and not every employer is a hotbed of this madness. He’ll land on his feet.
He may have to take a pay cut though. Google pays big salaries.
These Google snowflakes should not be permitted to reproduce. If only there was a ray that could be sot from a satellite that would sterilize them all to prevent having offspring.
And rather ironic given the subject the memo was about. I’d say they proved the guy’s point very well. More and more I’m amazed by how prophetic Orwell’s Animal Farm was.
That’s roughly what I’ve done.
So because they overreact and fear words as if they are violence we should respond with . . . violence?
My guess is that most of the people who claimed they were afraid never read the memo itself. They were basing their feelings on what they heard the memo said. Those can be two vastly different things.
Since 1995 I’ve been afraid that Hillary would put me in one of her internment camps, and have been expressing that fear publicly. Doesn’t that mean our country is committing violence against me by letting her remain at large?
Right, [our] words are violence, [their] violence is speech.
We heard your fear and responded by removing her from public office. Problem solved.
As always, there’s a Yes Minister quote (or two) for this:
Let’s hope so because he is now unemployable in the tech industry. No one will touch him.
She still has her foundation and her connections. .
That was also my reaction reading the memo. It was definitely not a screed. He thought he was being constructive and engaging in a conversation; having dialogue, if you will. He forgot the progressive definition of a conversation or dialogue is when you sit and listen to someone instruct you about what you can think and say.
This action is the capstone on the larger progressive project. How many people who think they may want to someday get a job with a large company are going to venture any opinion in any media, or even just express themselves verbally, in a way that contradicts progressive orthodoxy? The risk to their future is just too great.
I thought they shut that down right after the election. After all no one’s going to donate to a slush fund for a final and totally failed politician
So I’ve been lied to all these years – words will actually hurt me not just sticks and stones………..Good to know ’cause I am currently safe but an dangerous email could land in my inbox anytime…………
New Google Technology Autocorrects Users’ Thoughts
See also: Google Unveils New Slogan.
‘How is this not violence?’
Come over here I will first call you a mean name. And then I will punch you in the stomach. Then you will learn the difference between words and violence.
This is why I have moved from Chrome to Brave as my browser.
I cant see that. Once this guys name goes public few companies will hire him. HR departments will filter him out and background checks will definitely get him. He might have some success in the contractor market since they are a warm body type of hire but if the client figures out who he is then he will be gone.
No manager will hire him if they know his background. There is too much chance he might do it again and the manager will be called in question for being stupid enough to put the company at risk. There is no profit in taking the risk in giving this guy a break. He has a rough time ahead.
Counter point: While the employer may have some justification in limiting political speech in the workplace, I may vehemently oppose the manner in which such a policy is enforced. As a paying customer using several Google products, I am justified in a) expressing dissatisfaction with their corporate values or b) voting with my wallet and giving my money to a competitor. To elaborate on a): I’m not going to buy a Che Guevara brand smartphone and it’s not unreasonable for me to try convincing others not to do so as well.
No, but I wouldn’t suggest clicking on “Report inappropriate predictions.” You wouldn’t want to end up in room 101.
Cool. I will have to give it a shot. Looks nice. Whether Eich means it that way or not, I definitely view it as a raised middle finger at both Firefox and Google.
This incident is also why I don’t like the term “snowflake” to describe what is happening. Snowflake implies delicate sensibilities dissolving in fear and anxiety. What happened here is being done by hardened ruthless ideologues determined to stamp out resistance, shut down dissent, and willing to deprive people of their livelihoods in order to do so. They are not actually snowflakes, though part of their strategy is to induce snowflake reactions in their easily manipulated followers.
“Ice Hammer,” then?
This seems very likely. In fact, while the memo mentioned a few sacred cows, it was far from anti-diversity. I noticed that it even paid lip service to one of today’s more pernicious rationalizations for diversity hiring (i.e., discrimination), that of unconscious bias.
Don’t reduce free speech to be coterminous with the First Amendment. Free speech is a broad principle of a free society that precedes, and by definition is not bound by, the law. It is possible to violate someone’s freedom of speech without breaking the law.
And the way of enforcing these extra-legal notions of free speech is through social pressure. Complain about Google! Convince others not to patronize them! Leverage the power of mass disapproval!
… Of course, Google is so big and their user base so apathetic it’s unlikely to cause a dent, but I imagine most of us are by this point are used to “standing athwart history, yelling stop!”
I still can’t get past someone writing a memo with this opening sentence being denounced, and then fired:
See, it’s not about controlling what you say. That’s just the mechanism by which they aim to control what you think.
Not so fast. Before we do away with the term snowflake, I plan to out-snowflake them.