timgrahamtech

Ale mluvim cesky a to znam dobre. You're actually going to compare Google's hiring policies to the oppression of a eastern bloc state? Do prdel.

Would he have been fired if he had instead expressed these views to his manager in a room with closed door?

I'm not aware of any executives of large institutions that are perfectly happy with leaks. They just usually aren't dumb enough to pretend that a rant like this wouldn't get leaked.

Let's not pretend he didn't know what he was doing. There are textbook examples about people who blast off a rant to the entire company and then are somehow surprised when it becomes public (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...).

Then the goal is making him understand that he got fired for how he expressed those opinions. He didn't just talk to HR or his manager, he published a rant for all the world to see making it the CEO's problem.

Anyone who publishes an incoherent 10 page manifesto insulting their coworkers and trashing their company's policies can reasonably expect to get fired. It doesn't matter if any of the bosses agree or disagree with the opinions expressed; it's just an unprofessional thing to do.

To be honest, he was the bully in this situation. I have more concern for the women at Google who could fear losing their jobs and the means to support their families. If a coworker of mine started publicly saying that I'm not genetically qualified for the work I do, I would be worried for my job. However, I don't think those women would become radicalized over this. Why? Because intelligent professional people don't become radicalized when other people disagree with their opinions.

A note about Trump: I grew up in a red state and lived and worked in two others. I never spent more than a few months in a blue state so I don't know how it is there, but in Trump country people openly and aggressively express all sorts of opinions without fear of recrimination. There may be a few voices of dissent, but there are no "witch-hunting mobs" forcing them to keep their views a secret.

I think this scenario Giulio describes fits better to Brendan Eich who was essentially forced out of Mozilla over his views. But Brendan didn't become radicalized. He picked himself up and founded a new company, because that's what professionals do.

People generally move to another country in search of a better life... not planning where to die. In casual use I hear expatriate used for anything from someone temporarily living abroad to people who have renounced their citizenship - even if still residing in the US. I understand the legal definition for the US is simply someone working in a country that is not their country of origin (https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/expatriate/). In this legal sense, the US applies the term expatriate to Americans who are in other countries but not to people from other countries who are working in the US. Instead, people from outside the US are referred to as aliens until they obtain US citizenship (https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/alien/).

I would not call this an example of Western Exceptionalism. It is rather a phenomenon known as "othering" meaning to portray someone or something as different to emphasize that he/she/it is the other and not us/this. Note you won't find this term in Webster. They were apparently too busy adding "bling" and "ginormous".

Consider the question in a different context. Suppose I go to a poor village in India and I give each school age kid the equivalent of 10 USD in INR (rupees) but I give one kid the equivalent of 500 USD. Let's suppose the kid who gets more isn't chosen at random. Suppose that I have some criteria for who deserves to get more but that I don't consider who deserves it the most. Everyone got something but one person got significantly more. Is that a bad outcome? Will the kids who got 10 USD feel satisfied knowing that most of the others got the same amount? Will the kid who got 500 USD start to tell the others that they would have gotten 500 USD too if only they had done XYZ?

I think this question is really just asking if inequality is bad. It seems to me that inequality is an inherent part of nature in general and the human condition in particular. "Would you really want equality, or are you ok with inequality at some level?" Another way to say equal is homogeneous. To rephrase it, "Would you want everyone to be the same, or do you value diversity instead?"

I would propose a different question. If some cause (technology in this case) has the effect of helping everyone but helps some substantially more, is this situation sustainable? Then consider, will everyone's fortunes continue to improve forever? Will some equilibrium in the inequality be established? Will the inequality eventually reach an extreme such that the situation will be worse for certain people or society as a whole?

I don't propose answers to these questions. However, I think we can look through history to find examples of how similar scenarios played out in the past.