Put yourself in the author's shoes. If you'd seen these kinds of wrongs and you wanted to right them, and discovered you couldn't do it from within the organization, how would you do it from the outside?
Because from where I'm sitting, your narrative is universal against all politicians, and in fact democracy itself, since all political communications are just marketing to get elected.
> Because from where I'm sitting, your narrative is universal against all politicians, and in fact democracy itself, since all political communications are just marketing to get elected.
Fair point. I personally welcomed the contribution. To me it just points to the fact the author may have an angle/objective not explicitly stated. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't see it as being against all politicians or even democracy itself. It is just about pointing out that there may be other factors influencing the author's decision. I'd be curious (if not suspicious) about anybody running for public office who does not have some kind of personal interest in addition to the desire to serve.
I think ordinary journalistic skepticism should apply here? He's telling a story from his perspective, but you can't judge a political situation by listening to only one of the people involved.
The biggest point of skepticism in my mind is the combination of two totally unrelated qualms in one article. "Google ignored human rights in China in pursuit of profit. (and therefore Google is evil)" AND "Google isn't nice to women, minorities, and other groups. (and is therefore evil)"
These two issues are not related at all. It's easy to imagine a company which didn't kowtow to China, but was still not treating minorities properly. And of course, it's easy to imagine the reverse. (and, I'll bet that latter scenario happens quite often.) The only real point relating them together is the author's personal grievance.
It's also the case that the James Damore memo suggests the opposite problem the author complains about -- diversity policies which are too progressive. I'm not suggesting Damore is correct, and the author is incorrect, but instead that this line of argument is not a given.
Further, although I completely agree with the complaints with regard to China, the author has said very little which was not already publicly known. That's a fine thing to do, but he muddies the water by mixing these large geopolitical problems with his own personal grievances.
Lastly, I find it surprising that he does not know how HR works. As I mentioned above, HR prevents lawsuits. They only help you if helping you will prevent a lawsuit.
>It's also the case that the James Damore memo suggests the opposite problem the author complains about -- diversity policies which are too progressive. I'm not suggesting Damore is correct, and the author is incorrect, but instead that this line of argument is not a given.
Just because Google hires women and minorities doesn't mean they are treated well. In fact, you need women and minorities in close proximity to mistreat them. There is no conflict between the author and James Damore.
I think this is a valid point. I suppose if I'd elaborated better, I might have explained why I thought the author's point was weak.
- Do we know it's only young girls getting screamed at, or is everyone getting screamed at?
- I vehemently dislike the diversity exercises, but it's clear that splitting people into groups and identifying stereotypes was meant to be a helpful, progressive exercise. (I don't believe these are actually helpful or progressive, but it's clear that this is their intent.) Because of this, I don't feel that calling out how asinine these diversity classes are is proof of bigotry in google. I'm not suggesting there is not bigotry (I really wouldn't know) -- just that the author did not make a strong case.
Because from where I'm sitting, your narrative is universal against all politicians, and in fact democracy itself, since all political communications are just marketing to get elected.