Go Back   Fratching! > General > Social Woes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 08-12-2017, 10:50 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,178
Default

He's written an article in the Wall Street Journal...

but you apparently have to be a subscriber to the WSJ to read it.

And Google's CEO canceled an all-hands meeting to discuss it...

Last edited by mjr; 08-12-2017 at 11:03 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 08-14-2017, 10:42 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 882
Default

There's a great article on the topic in the Slate Star Codex.

Well worth the read.
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good

Last edited by MadMike; 08-14-2017 at 10:03 PM. Reason: Please don't cut and paste text from other sites!
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:03 PM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,548
Default

He wasn't fired for the memo.

No one has ever been fired for a racist tweet.

No one was fired for sexual harassment.


Can people be fired for these things certainly. Have they been fired quietly and without the public being involved absolutely.

The ones you hear about though? The ones that grab the national spotlight before they are fired? The company doesn't fire them for the thing they did the company fires them because they are suddenly and irrevocably casting a bad light on said company.

The company has one choice. Fire them.

Sure people will forget in a couple weeks and no longer care that they ruined the life of one person. People don't care so long as they perceive they are getting "justice"

If the company keeps them though if the company says "we stand with this person" the public will go after the company with pitchforks. Companies firing liabilities is more about protecting the company and the thousands of other people working there.

It's the small town mentality blown up to a national scale. We destroy the person we don't like. Sometimes they will recover other times they won't.

It's not right now, it's never been right, and it will never be right.

Our decision should be "do I befriend this person" "do I like this companies overall policies/actions"

Not "Do I dislike this person who said one thing I have disagreed with?"

Never that.
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 08-24-2017, 09:58 AM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,202
Default

It's actually related to one of the biggest criticisms I have of the current interpretation of the freedom of the press. Specifically, in many ways, it's ended up as "freedom from consequences of the press"- that is, there is insufficient recognition of the fact that "freedom of the press" was originally intended to protect genuine investigation reporters- that is, ones that are revealing things that are genuinely in the public interest to know- not "reporters" that are merely scandal-mongers.(which is why, incidentally, I disagree with the decision that Fox News can call itself Fair And Balanced because it's an "Entertainment Program"- Essentially, they're trying to have their cake and eat it- they claim to be a news program when claiming freedom of the press, but an entertainment program when they are required to be accurate. Pick one or the other. If they're an entertainment program, fine, but they lose the benefit of the freedom of the press. If they are a news program, they should act like it)
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 08-24-2017, 10:30 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 882
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackfaire View Post
He wasn't fired for the memo.

No one has ever been fired for a racist tweet.

No one was fired for sexual harassment.


Can people be fired for these things certainly. Have they been fired quietly and without the public being involved absolutely.

The ones you hear about though? The ones that grab the national spotlight before they are fired? The company doesn't fire them for the thing they did the company fires them because they are suddenly and irrevocably casting a bad light on said company.
You're right; once the memo went viral, it was pretty much a given conclusion. Even if Damore sues - and it looks like he will - then the settlement they have to pay is chump change for Google, and way better than the tons of negative press they would've gotten had they let him stay on.

Although I would've expected the CEO to have their lawyers vet the reasoning for firing Damore before making it public. Because that bullshit is likely to bite them in the ass.

Anyway, I'm not sure freedom of the press is actually going to be relevant here. Because most of the news sites that wrote articles about Damore and his memo got them so outragesously wrong, that was either gross incompetence or deliberate malice. Even worse: this is not a matter of interpretation, or a multiple viewpoint issue. Everybody has been able to read the memo, but there are still websites claiming he said women were biologically unsuited for IT...
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 08-24-2017, 10:42 AM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,202
Default

and they claim freedom of the press to get away with it.

My point is that freedom of the press shouldn't be 100% unrestricted- or, more accurately, what's important is freedom of the press from political interference. (it's a little more complicated, but basically, if they're deliberately creating a scandal out of nothing, they should get inot trouble for it.
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 08-24-2017, 10:51 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
if they're deliberately creating a scandal out of nothing, they should get inot trouble for it.
But...how would you know?

Unless there's an incident where a video is shown, then the raw video comes out that shows a completely different story (I've seen this happen), and people actually find out about it.

Or in the case of this Google Memo. Most people didn't take the time to read it, so they're going by what the news reporters tell them. Is it accurate? I guess that's a matter of opinion. If you (in the general sense) posit something that could be considered scandalous, and no one checks your work...you could get away with it. And even to that end, the media companies can claim, "It's not deliberate. The public is forming their own opinions."

And what about retractions?

I mean, I think the media is blowing the memo way out of proportion (because I read it and formed an opinion that is based on my background, etc).

How many who have an opinion on this story do you think have actually read the 10 page one that has the sources in it? Could the guy have worded things more eloquently? Probably. But he's a techie. We're not necessarily known for our wording, which is why programmers don't generally write technical manuals. ;-)
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 08-24-2017, 11:17 AM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,202
Default

in the case of the video, then it depends. If they make a reasonable effort to check the video is genuine, then it's not creating a scandal out of nothing, but they should make the raw video just as prominent when it comes out. (half the problem is the press tends to shut up when proved wrong, rather then reasonably prominently correcting themselves.)

in the case of the google memo, the issue is the news reporters aren't just making people aware of the memo, but are actively encouraging people to see it as offensive- since that really isn't supported by the report, THAT is what makes it unacceptable. They aren't actually allowing the public to form their own opinions.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 08-25-2017, 10:44 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
in the case of the video, then it depends. If they make a reasonable effort to check the video is genuine, then it's not creating a scandal out of nothing, but they should make the raw video just as prominent when it comes out. (half the problem is the press tends to shut up when proved wrong, rather then reasonably prominently correcting themselves.)
Well, if I recall correctly, the major news outlet released the original video, that their camera person captured. A person who had a cell phone released the raw footage of the same event, and of the same woman giving the same "speech". Then they tweeted out what "really happened". Then the major news outlet had to backpedal, and went, "Yeah, that's really what happened...we're sorry." (or something like that). But their original story was X, while what really happened was Y. And if the raw video hadn't come out, no one would have been the wiser. The ONLY reason that they had to retract in this case was because the raw cell video came out.

Quote:
in the case of the google memo, the issue is the news reporters aren't just making people aware of the memo, but are actively encouraging people to see it as offensive- since that really isn't supported by the report, THAT is what makes it unacceptable. They aren't actually allowing the public to form their own opinions.
That's my belief as well. No quibble there.

Last edited by mjr; 08-25-2017 at 10:46 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 10-11-2017, 10:09 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 882
Default

Interesting article on the Google Memo, and on The Economist's attempt at debunking it:

http://quillette.com/2017/08/31/goog...omist-nothing/
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 AM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.