- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Google: A Hive Of Hateful Progressivism

The Federalist has some takeaways from James Damore’s civil suit against Google [1], which he accuses of discriminating against white male conservatives. You gotta see this stuff to believe the corporate culture there. Excerpts:

In a section claiming Google tries to “stifle” conservative parenting styles, the suit reads: “Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with alternative lifestyles, including furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality, for the purpose of discussing sexual topics. The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on Google’s internal forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy.”

A footnote next to the word “plurality” adds: “For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as ‘a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin’ and ‘an expansive ornate building’ presented a talk entitled ‘Living as a Plural Being’ at an internal company event.”

The suit also includes a screenshot of the presentation on “living as a plural being” when the presenter is discussing how to address coworkers with multiple identities. Examples of “not okay” etiquette listed include “addressing any one headmate in particular; we’re all listening!”

You can see the screenshot. Living as a plural being. They actually had a company event to discuss the proper forms of address for people who believe they are both dragons and buildings.

This is the corporate culture of one of the most powerful companies in the world. But it’s not all silly. In fact, it’s scary as hell. More:


‘Discourage them all throughout the industry’

“If we really care about diversity in tech, we don’t just need to chase serial offenders out of Google, we need to discourage them all throughout the industry,” a lengthy internal post on Damore read. “We should be willing to give a wink and a nod to other Silicon Valley employers over terminable offenses, not send the worst parts of tech packing with a smile …”

‘I will hurt you’
Damore’s memo prompted another employee to post this quote: “I’m a queer-ass nonbinary trans person that is fucking sick and tired of being told to open a dialogue with people who want me dead. We are at a point where the dialogue we need to be having with these people is ‘if you keep talking about this shit, i will hurt you.”

change_me

And:

‘You’re being blacklisted…at companies outside Google’

Google manager Adam Fletcher wrote in 2015 he would never hire conservatives he deemed hold hostile views. “I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team,” he wrote. “Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.”

“You’re being blacklisted by people at companies outside of Google,” he added. “You might not have been aware of this, but people know, people talk. There are always social consequences.”

Read the whole thing. [1]

If that’s not a hostile work environment, what on earth is?

Consider the power that Google has, and is acquiring more and more of as it strengthens its position as the primary gateway to knowledge and information. And this is the corporate culture at Google, this hive of hateful progressivism. I look forward to this trial, and hope that Damore doesn’t settle with Google out of court. The world needs to know what kind of people are positioning themselves as gatekeepers.

109 Comments (Open | Close)

109 Comments To "Google: A Hive Of Hateful Progressivism"

#1 Comment By JonF On January 16, 2018 @ 9:27 pm

Re: I have argued for years that Google’s “legalize gay love” campaign in Singapore is nothing more than 21st century colonialism.

Really? So if some regime is persecuting Christians (and some are!) we have no business telling them to stop because that would be 21st colonialism? You realize the argument you are making is one of utter cultural relativism and no universal moral standards can be allowed under it.

#2 Comment By Christopher Travers On January 17, 2018 @ 3:08 am

JonF wrote “Really? So if some regime is persecuting Christians (and some are!) we have no business telling them to stop because that would be 21st colonialism? You realize the argument you are making is one of utter cultural relativism and no universal moral standards can be allowed under it.”

If the choice is between a moral absolutism defined by powerful cultures and forced on everyone vs relativism, the latter is by far the lesser evil. We need only look back to slavery or colonialism to draw that conclusion.

But that’s a false choice. I agree with Martin Luther King Jr when he said, “The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.” (Beyond Vietnam)

Morality is a messy subject, deeply tied to the power relationships we all find ourselves in, and there is a reason why one can summarize Plato’s entire career as: “What is morality? Can it be taught? On this I have no idea.” But in Plato one finds an understanding of the problems and hence an understanding of the subject even if it evades formulation.

As for the concept of condemning persecution of Christians, I think one has to accept a couple of things in this argument. First that there’s a huge difference between Daesh kidnapping nuns and the government of Malaysia saying that Christians can use the word Tuhan but not Allah. The first is a real reason to support the Syrian regime against the rebels, while the second is one where respectful dialog is necessary. Because I think the state should be a pluralistic entity where different procreative communities work out their problems and seek common ground, the threat to religious minorities is the threat of the fall of the state.

But regarding family structures and by extension sexual constraints (Indonesia’s ban on porn and criminalization of adultery for example) are deeply connected to economic orders. In Indonesia for example most people are self-employed. Most families are family businesses. Most people retire with their children and this makes remarriage after divorce problematic, as well as systematically marginalizing sexual minorities through lack of a safety net.

But if you remove the procreative family from the center of social support and economic production then there are only two entities that can move in, namely the state and the corporation. So these things are the bullwark against
a deeply exploitative globalist capitalism. Singapore, too, holds to filial piety as an extremely important social value. Singapore stands further on the edge, a city state with few mid-sized businesses and a large number of tiny family businesses handed down parent to child, and an economy where big corporations want to run everything.

The way to be the smartest person in the room is to genuinely try to learn from everyone else. The way to be the stupidest person in the room is to believe one knows what is best for everyone else. Google’s campaign here is in the latter. And it is worse for being a foreign corporation meddling in national politics (funny how the big opponents to corporate spending on politics are supportive of it when it is for causes they like and countries abroad).

So I echo MLK Jr with saying we need a revolution of values and we need to stop being arrogant.

#3 Comment By Christopher Travers On January 17, 2018 @ 3:12 am

Also, communities can usually come together to solve their own problems. When big corporations push things on the theory that “nothing else has to change” but are really pushing self-serving ideas of human rights, that’s a very dangerous thing and it disrupts that process.

I hear Malays and Singaporians sometimes complain about the Gay Rights Movement and blame gays and lesbians for pushing to change their culture. I spend a *lot* of time redirecting that to point out how companies like Google are really trying to undermine traditional economies by pushing such agendas (if you don’t understand why, read Rosa Luxemburg’s “The Accumulation of Capital”).

#4 Comment By JonF On January 17, 2018 @ 12:57 pm

Re: If the choice is between a moral absolutism defined by powerful cultures and forced on everyone vs relativism, the latter is by far the lesser evil.

I’d rather have some powerful nation telling a s***hole tyrant “No, we will not allow you to commit genocide!” than a regime of utter relativism marinated in post-colonial guilt sighing “Oh well, different strokes or different folks”. Yes, the West invented the ideal human rights. But we also invented antibiotics and the flush toilet. Maybe we are cultural imperialists for introducing those things to the rest of the world too?

#5 Comment By Christopher Travers On January 17, 2018 @ 3:45 pm

JonF “Maybe we are cultural imperialists for introducing those things to the rest of the world too?”

As I have pointed out above, the way we define human rights are in fact a key support for economic imperialism and contemporary colonialism in the same way white man’s burden was for old-school colonialism. Erode family economic structures and corporations can move in move in like sharks.

#6 Comment By Christopher Travers On January 17, 2018 @ 4:12 pm

JonF: Also it seems strange to me you don’t articulate any limit for where a power should not get involved. In your view it seems that powerful cultures have a right and indeed a responsibility to force everyone else to agree with them.

I find it really disorienting that supporting Sukarno or Gandhi, or MLK’s view that this Western arrogance is unjust now is right-wing.

#7 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On January 17, 2018 @ 10:54 pm

the way we define human rights are in fact a key support for economic imperialism and contemporary colonialism

When the British finally got around to imposing administrative rule on African territory, one of their rationales was the fact that the ruling elites of empires like the Asante kept and traded in slaves. Oh, the horror! (It really was horrible… but still…)

#8 Comment By Jonf On January 18, 2018 @ 1:24 pm

Re: As I have pointed out above, the way we define human rights are in fact a key support for economic imperialism and contemporary colonialism in the same way white man’s burden was for old-school colonialism.

Well, your world then is one moral relativism taken to the extreme, and I just cannot follow there.

#9 Comment By Christopher Travers On January 19, 2018 @ 6:09 am

JonF: “Well, your world then is one moral relativism taken to the extreme, and I just cannot follow there.”

How do you address the problem that Aesop portrays so well in The Wolf and the Lamb? Or we just don’t worry about it because we believe that tyrants don’t justify their tyranny anymore?