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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 154 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):


    Chuck Enfield (View Comment)
    :

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    If the Zero hedge quotes are accurate, it’s about to get much more interesting. He’s claiming that Google was illegally discriminating to increase diversity.

    I doubt it.

    Why?

    I’m not a lawyer, but it seems really hard to satisfy the legal requirements for discrimination in the case of an individual. In the case of white males as a class, indications are they they aren’t underrepresented, underpaid, or otherwise mistreated at Google. Google’s behavior may satisfy a conservative’s common-sense definition of discrimination, but it isn’t going to satisfy the legal definition unless his lawyers can convince the courts to judge by unconventional standards.

    I think Damore has a better chance at a retaliation case since that seems to merely require that he acted in good faith and was punished for it. But even in that case I’m not sure that his memo is protected by the equal opportunity employment laws that prohibit employer retaliation. Based on the training I’ve received from my employer it doesn’t seem to, but I’m just a supervisor and not a specialist.

    Of course California state law could be all kinds of flaky. I have no idea.

    Note that he didn’t assert that he could prove that Gulag was illegally discriminating; he just stated that it was happening.

    • #151
  2. Chuck Enfield Inactive
    Chuck Enfield
    @ChuckEnfield

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):


    Chuck Enfield (View Comment)
    :

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    If the Zero hedge quotes are accurate, it’s about to get much more interesting. He’s claiming that Google was illegally discriminating to increase diversity.

    I doubt it.

    Why?

    I’m not a lawyer, but it seems really hard to satisfy the legal requirements for discrimination in the case of an individual. In the case of white males as a class, indications are they they aren’t underrepresented, underpaid, or otherwise mistreated at Google. Google’s behavior may satisfy a conservative’s common-sense definition of discrimination, but it isn’t going to satisfy the legal definition unless his lawyers can convince the courts to judge by unconventional standards.

    I think Damore has a better chance at a retaliation case since that seems to merely require that he acted in good faith and was punished for it. But even in that case I’m not sure that his memo is protected by the equal opportunity employment laws that prohibit employer retaliation. Based on the training I’ve received from my employer it doesn’t seem to, but I’m just a supervisor and not a specialist.

    Of course California state law could be all kinds of flaky. I have no idea.

    Note that he didn’t assert that he could prove that Gulag was illegally discriminating; he just stated that it was happening.

    The word I was focused on was illegally.  I’m not sure the nature of their discrimination violates any laws.

    • #152
  3. ToryWarWriter Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    Clearly the only thing to do is regulate all the search engines with net neutrality rules.

    • #153
  4. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Chuck Enfield (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):


    Chuck Enfield (View Comment)
    :

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    If the Zero hedge quotes are accurate, it’s about to get much more interesting. He’s claiming that Google was illegally discriminating to increase diversity.

    I doubt it.

    Why?

    I’m not a lawyer, but it seems really hard to satisfy the legal requirements for discrimination in the case of an individual. In the case of white males as a class, indications are they they aren’t underrepresented, underpaid, or otherwise mistreated at Google. Google’s behavior may satisfy a conservative’s common-sense definition of discrimination, but it isn’t going to satisfy the legal definition unless his lawyers can convince the courts to judge by unconventional standards.

    I think Damore has a better chance at a retaliation case since that seems to merely require that he acted in good faith and was punished for it. But even in that case I’m not sure that his memo is protected by the equal opportunity employment laws that prohibit employer retaliation. Based on the training I’ve received from my employer it doesn’t seem to, but I’m just a supervisor and not a specialist.

    Of course California state law could be all kinds of flaky. I have no idea.

    Note that he didn’t assert that he could prove that Gulag was illegally discriminating; he just stated that it was happening.

    The word I was focused on was illegally. I’m not sure the nature of their discrimination violates any laws.

    If he’s correct, Gulag was acting in an uncharacteristic way when they introduced the subject (not their customary openness).  The next few months could be interesting.

    • #154
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.