It's funny that I read past this line without even thinking about how unusual it is that it needs a source. I've read so many blogposts and tweets about how it's justifiable to punch people in the face over specific disagreements that I'm completely desensitized to the hilarious image of grown, educated adults lashing out just because they're losing an argument.

It seems like every time I make a politically controversial post on Reddit and increasingly HN, I can just CTRL-F my comment inbox and assure myself that there's some reference to punching in there.

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

I'm not seeing the bit about where he says he'd understand about the people punching him in the face? In fact, he's saying that he wouldn't assign people to work with him for fear of that - which I would take to mean he disagrees with the action.

He's saying that he would keep those of his employees who, when presented with a viewpoint which they consider offensive, would punch their coworkers in the face from having to be in any kind of a working relationship with someone because of the viewpoints which they hold.

He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers.

> He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers.

That is wholly unsupported by any reading of his sentence.

He literally says he would avoid creating a situation where even the possibility of someone punching him in the face might happen. If he was siding with the face-punchers, why would he avoid that situation?

This whole episode has been so disgusting and shows how regressive and authoritarian the mainstream tech community is.

People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view?

If you can resort to violence against someone and get away with it, you're the oppressor in the society, not the oppressed.

Sundar, Yonatan and their likes are so privileged and delusional. These people have no issue with a war-criminal like Kissinger being invited to talk at Google but have such serious issues with a software engineer writing his views.

As a woman, I could not work with an outspoken misogynist. As a lesbian, I could not work with an outspoken homophobe. As a Jew, I could not work with an outspoken antisemite.

Forcing minorities and women to work with people who are bigoted against them is a recipe for a lawsuit.

This guy isn't a racist or a misogynist.

A better example is an atheist working with an evangelical. Both the atheist and the evangelical will have very strong opinions on each others' belief systems.

Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in his profession because their biology makes the inherently less interested in it?

I'm actually not surprised that he got fired, and I do think the firing is justifiable. Writing open manifestos against company policies on controversial and sensitive issues is going to get you in trouble. It just will, whether you're at Google or 'Dave's Grill-house'.

But that's not what I was responding to. OP implied this guy is a racist or a misogynist and stated she couldn't work with someone who held his kinds of beliefs.

I've read the manifesto and it's not as strong as you make it out to be. For example, I've argued that you can't expect perfect proportional demographic representation in a free society in any field. It will not happen, for a variety of reasons that may not be nefarious. If women are under-represented in programming it may not be because of sexism.

> it may not be

"May" is the important word here. We really don't know.

Which was exactly the point of the memo!

This is a false equivalency.

A better statement would be: "Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in church organizations because their beliefs makes the inherently less interested in it?"

The answer would be yes. But it's not a good example.

Is your argument that software engineering is a religion women don't believe in?

My argument is that one's religious beliefs dictate what sort of organizations one will be a part of, just the same a person's physiological makeup will dictate his profession of choice.

Does that imply women are not discriminated against in comp-sci?

The only thing it implies is that biology is an inherit bias within all of us.

I'd like you to more closely read the thrust of his memo. His main thrust is that Google should review their processes and see if they can't create a workplace that the average woman would like to work in (taking as inspiration the average personality tendencies of the average woman), without resorting to sledgehammer positive-discrimination policies that target women because they are women.

As a thought experiment, imagine a company reviewed their processes to create a workplace where the average black person would like to work.

It's kind of offensive to be judged by this hypothetical "average X person" stereotype. It more or less implies it's their fault, that they are underrepresented because they want to.

As an (actual, not hypothetical) Jew, I could absolutely work with someone who claims Jews are statistically better at banking; Especially if that statement is scientifically well-supported, but even if it isn't.

As long as that person isn't constantly soliciting investment advice from me or asking me to front them loans, I don't think it's unreasonable for an adult to be expected to tolerate opinions that do not affect their work.

Hell, I've worked with co-workers who consider Jews illegitimate occupiers of their country, yet we still got along just fine by avoiding talking about politics in the break room.

That is the point.

Avoid talking about something controversial is deemed self censoring by a lot of people here in HN.

You might be a forgiving person, but that is a gift not a necessity, and better not assuming people would return the favor. For more controversial stuff I choose to only talk with my inner circle which I assume I knew them well enough. The author makes the memo public to ALL employees, most of them he wouldn't even know their names. That is his freedom, however he should expect there will be reactions to his piece from them. And it is not really his business or within anybody's control to decide what reaction is appropriate or over the top at that point. This is internet, where things escalate proportional to the speed of light.

I tend to agree with your approach, but the point is that Google are apparently actively fostering the opposite atmosphere, supporting and encouraging open discussion of such topics in the workplace and in dedicated internal forums. If this is true you can hardly fault the guy for doing just that in a way that, at the very least, appears to be trying to be balanced and respectful.

My understanding is that is that the guy shared this memo among a small group of friends at work using an internal forum specifically designed for this kind of discussion. If that's true, I hardly think it's fair to hold him accountable for the reactions of Googlers he never shared the text with, let alone those of the world at large once someone else leaked the memo to the internet.

Forewarning, the following isn't an opinion that I hold:

To play devil's advocate, what makes it right for certain groups to be able to be preferred over others? How come perceived racists, homophobes, and anti-semites are pushed out and the subjects of their hate allowed to stay?

What if we flipped your statement around. "As a misogynist, I could not work with a woman. As a homophobe, I could not work with an out homosexual. As a an outspoken anti-semite, I could not work with a reverent jew."

Let's say for the sake of this example both parties are the same in efficiency. But, come due time one party starts to openly resent the other and demand they be fired from the company because they cannot work with [insert group here]. Now, I didn't say this was the anti-semite or the jew. It could be either, so let's not shut down here.

Group A says they cannot work with Group B, because Group B holds X idea. Group B can work with Group A, even though Group A holds Y idea.

Is management really right in, in this isolated fairy tale example, in firing Group B because Group A cannot work with them?

Let's reverse the roles in the Google fiasco. Let's say it was the detractors who were fired instead of Damore. Do you think this would have been unfair?

If so, why do you believe it's okay for the original situation to happen? I'm aware there are other variables, but this is what it boils down to.

That's a mischaracterization of his argument. Essentially the author argues that right or wrong the manifesto is especially polarizing and the engineer has essentially made it very difficult for him to work with anyone else at Google moving forward. Zunger in no way states that he condones, or suggests the action of punching the manifesto guy in the face, he just outlines it as a possible reaction, of releasing a company wide manifesto, which could uncharitably be interpreted to call into question the merits of female and other minority engineers.

Yes, we wouldn't want to mischaracterize what the main thrust of someone's message is by putting up a straw man argument and then criticizing them for it. /s

Zunger's response makes it clear that the promulgation of ideas in the memo are unacceptable, but is strangely silent on judging the actions of the hypothetical face-puncher.

And as we now know from Google, taking no action is tantamount to endorsing the opinions of those under you.