The post I was responding to said that it did not create a hostile working environment. I explained how it did do that. Are you trying to claim that causing offense to a large group is not creating a hostile working environment?

It's too fickle a criterion for fairly firing someone. Especially if you consider he likely didn't mean to offend anyone.

If you think he did mean to offend people, the firing makes more sense.

I don't think "he should have known better" is very fair when neck deep in a discussion about diversity. Sometimes diversity looks like someone not knowing cultural rules.

Hostile work environments are created because of impact, not intent. It doesn't really matter what you meant to do if your actions made thousands of women feel diminished in the workplace.

I also don't think Damore's totally naive when it comes to diversity issues. He did a lot of research and evidently even discussed his concerns with HR. I think it's pretty clear he knew what he was getting into.

> It doesn't really matter what you meant to do if your actions made thousands of women feel diminished in the workplace.

So it's objective and fair? Or it is too fickle but it doesn't matter?

> I think it's pretty clear he knew what he was getting into.

I think he would have hired a publicist and lawyer before publishing the memo if he knew what was coming.

(let me just disclaim right away that I'm pretty liberal)

> So it's objective and fair? Or it is too fickle but it doesn't matter?

Whatever the ideological or scientific opposite of Damore's memo is, I would never publish it to anyone -- not even a single person -- at work. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that discussing race or gender issues at work is out of bounds, regardless of your position.

> I think he would have hired a publicist and lawyer before publishing the memo if he knew what was coming.

Aha that's probably true but I'm not talking about the backlash. I'm saying he knew he wasn't just asking to be proven wrong about migratory patterns of ducks. He's aware diversity is a sensitive topic.

> I don't think I'm alone in thinking that discussing race or gender issues at work is out of bounds, regardless of your position.

But most tech employers already broach the subject in many ways. It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions, including during work hours, but employees do not.

Things like this need to be addressed if we want corporate power to be moderated.

> But most tech employers already broach the subject in many ways. It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions, including during work hours, but employees do not.

What controversial opinions are you talking about?

Well, apparently all this is still controversial. There are rumors that Zuckerberg might be running for office. CEOs and other leaders giving speeches about politics and participating in political demonstrations. Lobbying the government about political issues unrelated to the core business of the company.

To be clear, I don't think all those things are necessarily bad. But I think letting corporations and corporate leadership have free reign and a big microphone while expecting employees to censor themselves is inconsistent to say the least.

No I mean what position does Google have that is controversial?

> It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions

Well diversity programs is the obvious one. The fact that Damore wrote the memo and so many agreed shows that they are controversial.

Controversy and hostility are not the same thing.

'hostile work environment' is a technical term, isn't it?

x% of the population are Trump voters.

They tend to be offended if you criticize Trump.

Therefore, you are not allowed to criticize Trump.

What does this have to do with a hostile working environment?

To quote you:

> Are you trying to claim that causing offense to a large group is not creating a hostile working environment?

One person taking offense is not demonstration of anything. Sixteen out of sixteen taking offense comes a lot closer to demonstrating that it was offensive, though.

I mean, 90% is bigger than 90% of the other numbers. Like 40% for instance.

What is truth when you have a gun to your head.

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? We're trying for a higher level of discussion here. (Trying and failing, but we can always fail a bit better.)

My apologies. Comment was low effort and not clear enough on the point it was making.

To substantiate that comment:

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/

What powers should define truth? Sensory / populist / ability to take life.