Google memo fella gone :-(

[Monty92]

In other news from the world of bat-shít mental progressives, a professor at the University of Georgia has declared that he'll let his students pick their own grades in an effort to reduce their stress levels. :clap:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9551

[Burney]

In other news from the world of bat-shít mental progressives, a professor at the University of Georgia has declared that he'll let his students pick their own grades in an effort to reduce their stress levels. :clap:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9551

I saw some arsehole on Twitter supporting the sacking, saying that the guy had committed violence by circulating the memo stating scientific facts and that people had been too scared to go to work because of it. It's genuinely terrifying what's happening to the world. It's ceasing even to be funny.

In other news, the latest Sam Harris podcast is very interesting.

[Monty92]

I saw some arsehole on Twitter supporting the sacking, saying that the guy had committed violence by circulating the memo stating scientific facts and that people had been too scared to go to work because of it. It's genuinely terrifying what's happening to the world. It's ceasing even to be funny.

In other news, the latest Sam Harris podcast is very interesting.

The one about violence?

[Burney]

The one about violence?

Yeah. Interesting bloke. Lots of stuff about how we ought to trust our instincts and ignore our social conditioning on things like politeness and PC in order to keep ourselves safe.

[Peter]

In other news from the world of bat-shít mental progressives, a professor at the University of Georgia has declared that he'll let his students pick their own grades in an effort to reduce their stress levels. :clap:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9551

It really does depend on the status of the grade. Formative grades ultimately have no purpose and are designed to govern student behaviour. A summative grade determines outcome and must be derived from performance alone. Any deviation from this is technically fraud and in any recognised profession would implicate all those involved.

Sounds like the bloke is trying to get sacked.

[IUFG]

In other news from the world of bat-shít mental progressives, a professor at the University of Georgia has declared that he'll let his students pick their own grades in an effort to reduce their stress levels. :clap:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9551

The World has gone absolutely, ****ing radio.

[Burney]

The World has gone absolutely, ****ing radio.

Try reading this lunatic's rantings without despairing.

https://twitter.com/SometimesAlex/status/894762459298357251

[IUFG]

Try reading this lunatic's rantings without despairing.

https://twitter.com/SometimesAlex/status/894762459298357251

Sinaed is not too far behind.

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/sinead-o-connor-sparks-concern-after-posting-tearful-video-saying-she-s-fighting-to-stay-alive-a3606316.html

she's needs sectioning asap imo [edit] as does ****ing Alex Hidalgo

[Monty92]

Try reading this lunatic's rantings without despairing.

https://twitter.com/SometimesAlex/status/894762459298357251

There's a woman somewhere in that thread who seems to be suggesting that everyone who expressed support for the memo should also be fired. :-O

On the plus side, another says "This is how Trump wins another 4 years."

[Burney]

There's a woman somewhere in that thread who seems to be suggesting that everyone who expressed support for the memo should also be fired. :-O

It really is getting to the stage where I'm starting to wonder if the worst thing we ever did with these idiots was to simply laugh at them. It's really getting very depressing.

[Monty92]

It really is getting to the stage where I'm starting to wonder if the worst thing we ever did with these idiots was to simply laugh at them. It's really getting very depressing.

On the plus side, someone else has pointed out that this is how Trump wins another 4 years.

[Monty92]

On the plus side, someone else has pointed out that this is how Trump wins another 4 years.

On a related note, did you listen to the fairly recent Sam podcast with Charles Murray, the author of The Bell Curve? if not, I'd strongly recommend that you seek it out.

[Burney]

On a related note, did you listen to the fairly recent Sam podcast with Charles Murray, the author of The Bell Curve? if not, I'd strongly recommend that you seek it out.

I didn't. I'm a fairly recent convert. I shall look it up.

[Burney]

On the plus side, someone else has pointed out that this is how Trump wins another 4 years.

But it's becoming clear that that doesn't really help. The cycle of action and reaction is just ending up reinforcing everyone's positions. Thus, otherwise sane 'progressives' are now going along with the lunatic fringe for fear of being seen to be on the same side as Trump.

It's getting me down, m.

[Peter]

But it's becoming clear that that doesn't really help. The cycle of action and reaction is just ending up reinforcing everyone's positions. Thus, otherwise sane 'progressives' are now going along with the lunatic fringe for fear of being seen to be on the same side as Trump.

It's getting me down, m.

There is one very obvious reason for this. You are getting old.

This is how your parents felt about bum bandits. The world hasn't gone mad- you have just reached an age where the generation beneath you are starting to shape the cultural/political/moral debate and it seems like *******s to you.

THis is why people get more right wing (socially conservative) when they get older.

I blame my parents for inventing youth culture

[Monty92]

But it's becoming clear that that doesn't really help. The cycle of action and reaction is just ending up reinforcing everyone's positions. Thus, otherwise sane 'progressives' are now going along with the lunatic fringe for fear of being seen to be on the same side as Trump.

It's getting me down, m.

But if the situation is intractable, we may as well have some fun along the way. And who better for that than Trump?

[Monty92]

There is one very obvious reason for this. You are getting old.

This is how your parents felt about bum bandits. The world hasn't gone mad- you have just reached an age where the generation beneath you are starting to shape the cultural/political/moral debate and it seems like *******s to you.

THis is why people get more right wing (socially conservative) when they get older.

I blame my parents for inventing youth culture

The objection to bum-bandits was never about individuals. It was about the promotion of homosexuality and how this may erode values that are important to the preservation of our civilisation - specifically those relating to the family unit.

Ultimately, this sentiment proved incompatible with our over-arching commitment to personal freedom, but the comparison with the kind of shít going on in the modern world simply doesn't stack up.

[redgunamo]

There is one very obvious reason for this. You are getting old.

This is how your parents felt about bum bandits. The world hasn't gone mad- you have just reached an age where the generation beneath you are starting to shape the cultural/political/moral debate and it seems like *******s to you.

THis is why people get more right wing (socially conservative) when they get older.

I blame my parents for inventing youth culture

Are you saying B's parents thought he was a bum bandit :-(

[Burney]

There is one very obvious reason for this. You are getting old.

This is how your parents felt about bum bandits. The world hasn't gone mad- you have just reached an age where the generation beneath you are starting to shape the cultural/political/moral debate and it seems like *******s to you.

THis is why people get more right wing (socially conservative) when they get older.

I blame my parents for inventing youth culture

No, this is more fundamental, I think. We've moved from questions of rights and freedoms to a point where telling the truth has become a fundamentally risky proposition. Society is now organised in such a way as to protect and promulgate outright anti-scientific lies, stifling freedom of expression along the way. That's bloody worrying.

[redgunamo]

The objection to bum-bandits was never about individuals. It was about the promotion of homosexuality and how this may erode values that are important to the preservation of our civilisation - specifically those relating to the family unit.

Ultimately, this sentiment proved incompatible with our over-arching commitment to personal freedom, but the comparison with the kind of shít going on in the modern world simply doesn't stack up.

That means then that the people responsible for upholding those "values" dropped the ball, so to speak. In fact, they are to blame, not us or our kids.

[redgunamo]

No, this is more fundamental, I think. We've moved from questions of rights and freedoms to a point where telling the truth has become a fundamentally risky proposition. Society is now organised in such a way as to protect and promulgate outright anti-scientific lies, stifling freedom of expression along the way. That's bloody worrying.

Yes, because everyone knows by now that "science" is merely another ̶r̶a̶c̶k̶e̶t̶ money-making scheme.

[Burney]

The objection to bum-bandits was never about individuals. It was about the promotion of homosexuality and how this may erode values that are important to the preservation of our civilisation - specifically those relating to the family unit.

Ultimately, this sentiment proved incompatible with our over-arching commitment to personal freedom, but the comparison with the kind of shít going on in the modern world simply doesn't stack up.

Well I think there is an argument that the promotion of homosexuality and similar causes has done precisely that. That isn't to say I wish we could go back to a less permissive time, but a number of babies have gone out with the bathwater - literally so in the case of the abortion debate. The fear is that, in moving away from a fairly restrictive and conservative society, we are simply moving to an equally restrictive 'progressive' model.

[Monty92]

That means then that the people responsible for upholding those "values" dropped the ball, so to speak. In fact, they are to blame, not us or our kids.

I know what you're getting at.

But I just think that the decline of religion took place without anyone making any contingencies for what would replace it for the majority of humans who are psychologically weak and need something simplistic and comforting to give their lives meaning.

And so it ended up being replaced by the fundamentalist religion of progressivism.

[Peter]

The objection to bum-bandits was never about individuals. It was about the promotion of homosexuality and how this may erode values that are important to the preservation of our civilisation - specifically those relating to the family unit.

Ultimately, this sentiment proved incompatible with our over-arching commitment to personal freedom, but the comparison with the kind of shít going on in the modern world simply doesn't stack up.
That is because you are taking it as a literal comparison, which it isn’t.

The point is merely to illustrate that the new generation will always promote/embrace things that older generations are not entirely comfortable with, or used to dealing with. Such as gender fluidity and all this touchy feely bull**** about stress.

Similarly, each generation will claim that the changes they embraced had some bold rationale and was a ruthless weighing of two great principles with a reasoned outcome. Such as you championing personal freedom over the preservation of civilisation when the older generation were just uncomfortable (pardon the pun) with the idea of bumming and believed that shirtlifting in general was the preserve of a few deviants who should be neither seen nor heard. This is just classic social conservatism in its own particular time and space- some call it bigotry, of course.

The point is that each generation senses the need to effect their own change, their own form of mini-enlightenment. Unfortunately the last decade or so has gone so far down the road of sensitivity that it allows people to make all kinds of excuses for their own behaviour under the guise of personal safety/freedom/rights/wellbeing- such as being too stressed to come to work because of some stupid memo.

The culture of complaint has been in place for decades. The current behaviours are beginning to constitute a culture of indulgence where any form of complaint, any reported malady or ill-effect from any kind of action is seen as a legitimate individual response to even the mildest form of perceived offence. The irony is that what is dressed up as a climate of inclusivity which brings us together is actually becoming a climate where we are summarily protected from the views of everyone who doesn’t agree with us- thus driving us further apart.

I could champion that as personal freedom, safety, wellbeing. I’m not going to because I am old so I can see that it is *******s and needs to stop.

[Burney]

That is because you are taking it as a literal comparison, which it isn’t.

The point is merely to illustrate that the new generation will always promote/embrace things that older generations are not entirely comfortable with, or used to dealing with. Such as gender fluidity and all this touchy feely bull**** about stress.

Similarly, each generation will claim that the changes they embraced had some bold rationale and was a ruthless weighing of two great principles with a reasoned outcome. Such as you championing personal freedom over the preservation of civilisation when the older generation were just uncomfortable (pardon the pun) with the idea of bumming and believed that shirtlifting in general was the preserve of a few deviants who should be neither seen nor heard. This is just classic social conservatism in its own particular time and space- some call it bigotry, of course.

The point is that each generation senses the need to effect their own change, their own form of mini-enlightenment. Unfortunately the last decade or so has gone so far down the road of sensitivity that it allows people to make all kinds of excuses for their own behaviour under the guise of personal safety/freedom/rights/wellbeing- such as being too stressed to come to work because of some stupid memo.

The culture of complaint has been in place for decades. The current behaviours are beginning to constitute a culture of indulgence where any form of complaint, any reported malady or ill-effect from any kind of action is seen as a legitimate individual response to even the mildest form of perceived offence. The irony is that what is dressed up as a climate of inclusivity which brings us together is actually becoming a climate where we are summarily protected from the views of everyone who doesn’t agree with us- thus driving us further apart.

I could champion that as personal freedom, safety, wellbeing. I’m not going to because I am old so I can see that it is *******s and needs to stop.

The problem is that any orthodoxy requires repression to sustain it. That, it is becoming clear, is just as true for a 'progressive' orthodoxy as for the old, socially conservative one.

[Peter]

No, this is more fundamental, I think. We've moved from questions of rights and freedoms to a point where telling the truth has become a fundamentally risky proposition. Society is now organised in such a way as to protect and promulgate outright anti-scientific lies, stifling freedom of expression along the way. That's bloody worrying.

Society has always done that. Admittedly, it previously did it partly through ignorance or religious doctrine but it has always embraced ideas that made little or no sense in literal forms. Science is not a guide to social issues or morality and is as much as product of its environment as an explanation of it. Should science stifle freedom of expression?

[Monty92]

Well I think there is an argument that the promotion of homosexuality and similar causes has done precisely that. That isn't to say I wish we could go back to a less permissive time, but a number of babies have gone out with the bathwater - literally so in the case of the abortion debate. The fear is that, in moving away from a fairly restrictive and conservative society, we are simply moving to an equally restrictive 'progressive' model.

Perhaps our best hope is the Allans. What happens when the inevitable culture clash takes place between gay/women hating Muzzies and progressives? Until now, as we know, the two sides have formed an unholy alliance, but that is purely a marriage of convenience to further each other's causes by shutting down opposing voices.

But what happens when 30, 40, 50 per cent of the country think that Gay Pride is an abomination? Could it be then that it all comes crashing down?

[Monty92]

Society has always done that. Admittedly, it previously did it partly through ignorance or religious doctrine but it has always embraced ideas that made little or no sense in literal forms. Science is not a guide to social issues or morality and is as much as product of its environment as an explanation of it. Should science stifle freedom of expression?

Science can very much be an extremely healthy guide to morality, you dumbo.

[Peter]

The problem is that any orthodoxy requires repression to sustain it. That, it is becoming clear, is just as true for a 'progressive' orthodoxy as for the old, socially conservative one.

Its a social evolutionary principle, b. The progressive orthodoxy of one generation becomes the social conservative barrier that the next has to break down.

Nothing is eternally progressive, it is only labelled as such by its speed of success.

[Burney]

Society has always done that. Admittedly, it previously did it partly through ignorance or religious doctrine but it has always embraced ideas that made little or no sense in literal forms. Science is not a guide to social issues or morality and is as much as product of its environment as an explanation of it. Should science stifle freedom of expression?

No. Of course not. However, our laws ought to be evidence-based where possible. Pandering to a social agenda that is simply not believed in by the vast majority of people for fear of being called illiberal is simply bizarre, though.

[redgunamo]

I know what you're getting at.

But I just think that the decline of religion took place without anyone making any contingencies for what would replace it for the majority of humans who are psychologically weak and need something simplistic and comforting to give their lives meaning.

And so it ended up being replaced by the fundamentalist religion of progressivism.

"Religion" is doing better than ever, I thought? #Islam

Anyway, it has merely been replaced by money, and latterly "work", which is far more dangerous, imo. But that's what the psychologically weak who need something simplistic and comforting to give their lives meaning have chosen instead. "Science" gave us the pill and the rest will be history.

[Peter]

Science can very much be an extremely healthy guide to morality, you dumbo.

It can also be a useful tool. Its fundamental weakness in terms of social guidance is that the process rests on answering a question- somebody has to ask the question.

It also presents at least as many moral quandaries than it solves.

And why the insults, M? Seems rather harsh....

[Burney]

Perhaps our best hope is the Allans. What happens when the inevitable culture clash takes place between gay/women hating Muzzies and progressives? Until now, as we know, the two sides have formed an unholy alliance, but that is purely a marriage of convenience to further each other's causes by shutting down opposing voices.

But what happens when 30, 40, 50 per cent of the country think that Gay Pride is an abomination? Could it be then that it all comes crashing down?

This is the problem. This is the sort of shít that gives these people ammunition. It's easy for a Salafist preacher to point at the absurdities of the gender wars and say how corrupt, weak, stupid and decadent we are - because in that case it's largely true. We have made ourselves absurd and ridiculous and we have no apparent will to stop doing so.

[redgunamo]

No. Of course not. However, our laws ought to be evidence-based where possible. Pandering to a social agenda that is simply not believed in by the vast majority of people for fear of being called illiberal is simply bizarre, though.

Yes, but who wants to risk their job, or even their career, over it. Which is why I always say, take the money and run; do not hang around for a single moment longer than you have to.

[Peter]

No. Of course not. However, our laws ought to be evidence-based where possible. Pandering to a social agenda that is simply not believed in by the vast majority of people for fear of being called illiberal is simply bizarre, though.

which is where you run into the difference between science and humanity. Science runs on laws, society runs (or should run) on perceptions of justice. Science gives you results but it does not distinguish between right and wrong in anything other than a factual outcome. It provides no moral context, indeed it is deliberately removed from it. (rather, it claims to be. In practice it isn't).

[Monty92]

This is the problem. This is the sort of shít that gives these people ammunition. It's easy for a Salafist preacher to point at the absurdities of the gender wars and say how corrupt, weak, stupid and decadent we are - because in that case it's largely true. We have made ourselves absurd and ridiculous and we have no apparent will to stop doing so.

But what happens when their strength in numbers is such that they can, say, force a Gay Pride event to be cancelled because it is culturally insensitive to those of the Muslim faith? What do the progressives do then?

[Monty92]

It can also be a useful tool. Its fundamental weakness in terms of social guidance is that the process rests on answering a question- somebody has to ask the question.

It also presents at least as many moral quandaries than it solves.

And why the insults, M? Seems rather harsh....

I'm not apologising :vsign:

[Peter]

I'm not apologising :vsign:

Nor should you, and it wouldn't do any good. The safe space has been compromised. Its too late.

I am not going to have to take the rest of the day off work because of YOU.

[redgunamo]

This is the problem. This is the sort of shít that gives these people ammunition. It's easy for a Salafist preacher to point at the absurdities of the gender wars and say how corrupt, weak, stupid and decadent we are - because in that case it's largely true. We have made ourselves absurd and ridiculous and we have no apparent will to stop doing so.

Apropos some other matter entirely, you mentioned communism the other week and it occurs to me that actually, our capitalism has exactly the same end in mind. Namely, the suppression of the "traditional" family, that thing that gives a man the will to stop a man doing stupid things. People with no attachments are far more maleable and available for work, aren't they.

Progressive Europeans argue that while having children is one thing, their upbringing is a different matter entirely and rightly ought to be the sole responsibility of the corporate state. So, why, and how, should individuals care about right and wrong when responsibility for the future, for the consequences, has been willingly, and wilfully, removed from them?

[Burney]

which is where you run into the difference between science and humanity. Science runs on laws, society runs (or should run) on perceptions of justice. Science gives you results but it does not distinguish between right and wrong in anything other than a factual outcome. It provides no moral context, indeed it is deliberately removed from it. (rather, it claims to be. In practice it isn't).

Yes, but the whole idea of the enlightenment was to move towards a more just and rational model of government. We appear to be abandoning that as an ideal, which worries me greatly, since the movement towards that end has been a central pillar of western democracy.

[redgunamo]

which is where you run into the difference between science and humanity. Science runs on laws, society runs (or should run) on perceptions of justice. Science gives you results but it does not distinguish between right and wrong in anything other than a factual outcome. It provides no moral context, indeed it is deliberately removed from it. (rather, it claims to be. In practice it isn't).

Like the difference between a penalty shootout and an actual football match :-)

[Burney]

But what happens when their strength in numbers is such that they can, say, force a Gay Pride event to be cancelled because it is culturally insensitive to those of the Muslim faith? What do the progressives do then?

The progressives do nothing. They have already shown that when it comes to a choice between the risk of being called Islamophobic and compromising women's rights or gay rights, they'll do the latter every single time. Anything - ANYTHING - rather than be called racist.

[redgunamo]

The progressives do nothing. They have already shown that when it comes to a choice between the risk of being called Islamophobic and compromising women's rights or gay rights, they'll do the latter every single time. Anything - ANYTHING - rather than be called racist.

Which is how Europe actually opens a back door (not your mum's, this time) for Progressiveness in the UK; they don't mind being called racist there because .. concentration camps.

[redgunamo]

It can also be a useful tool. Its fundamental weakness in terms of social guidance is that the process rests on answering a question- somebody has to ask the question.

It also presents at least as many moral quandaries than it solves.

And why the insults, M? Seems rather harsh....

Also, somebody has to pay for it and it's easier to twist a corporation's arm that it is to persuade millions of free individuals exercising personal, private choices based on their own homespun common sense; word-of-mouth from their friends and family and neighbours perhaps.

For instance, a veterinary physician's surgery will be festooned with ads for Pedigree Chum or whatever and I will be solemnly advised that it is the very best nutrition for my dogs. Not because the vet actually believes it, or even because it's true, but because Mars Incorporated pay him to say it. They contribute billions to their education, training and facilities and R & D in their field. They have been comprehensively bought by the Man.

But then, so has everybody else; we're all culpable :-\

[Burney]

Also, somebody has to pay for it and it's easier to twist a corporation's arm that it is to persuade millions of free individuals exercising personal, private choices based on their own homespun common sense; word-of-mouth from their friends and family and neighbours perhaps.

For instance, a veterinary physician's surgery will be festooned with ads for Pedigree Chum or whatever and I will be solemnly advised that it is the very best nutrition for my dogs. Not because the vet actually believes it, or even because it's true, but because Mars Incorporated pay him to say it. They contribute billions to their education, training and facilities and R & D in their field. They have been comprehensively bought by the Man.

But then, so has everybody else; we're all culpable :-\

What's wrong with Pedigree Chum then?

[redgunamo]

What's wrong with Pedigree Chum then?

Nothing. Just like there's nothing wrong with McDonald's.

[Monty92]

Nothing. Just like there's nothing wrong with McDonald's.

Is it like baby formula whereby the better known (and therefore more expensive) brands that claim to be the best are 100% the same as the cheaper ones?

[Burney]

Nothing. Just like there's nothing wrong with McDonald's.

Right. What do you feed your hounds, then? Apart from unwary intruders, I mean.

[redgunamo]

Right. What do you feed your hounds, then? Apart from unwary intruders, I mean.

BARF, an acronym for Bones And Raw Flesh. Plus, as you suggest, whatever else they fancy.

[Ash]

Right. What do you feed your hounds, then? Apart from unwary intruders, I mean.

And his breakfast, when he's not looking.

[redgunamo]

Is it like baby formula whereby the better known (and therefore more expensive) brands that claim to be the best are 100% the same as the cheaper ones?

I guess so. The wife breastfed all ours, lucky devils :-|

[Burney]

BARF, an acronym for Bones And Raw Flesh. Plus, as you suggest, whatever else they fancy.

Mind you, you're in France, so you'd want to be careful letting them feed on the locals. Poor things might catch something.

[redgunamo]

And his breakfast, when he's not looking.

:nod: Cheeky brutes.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

In other news from the world of bat-shít mental progressives, a professor at the University of Georgia has declared that he'll let his students pick their own grades in an effort to reduce their stress levels. :clap:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9551



He was always going to get the sack once the memo was leaked outside.

Regarding this link....I am reminded of an employee that wanted me to recommend him for promotion because, and I quote "all my friends (outside) have got promoted and I feel that I am being left behind" :dickhead:

[Burney]

He was always going to get the sack once the memo was leaked outside.

Regarding this link....I am reminded of an employee that wanted me to recommend him for promotion because, and I quote "all my friends (outside) have got promoted and I feel that I am being left behind" :dickhead:

Yes. The interesting question is whether he was sacked because Google actually think he did something wrong or because, as a corporate entity, it's the path of least resistance to sack him?

[Ash]

For instance, a veterinary physician's surgery will be festooned with ads for Pedigree Chum or whatever and I will be solemnly advised that it is the very best nutrition for my dogs. Not because the vet actually believes it, or even because it's true, but because Mars Incorporated pay him to say it. They contribute billions to their education, training and facilities and R & D in their field. They have been comprehensively bought by the Man.

But then, so has everybody else; we're all culpable :-\

Reminds me of The Swamp. And The Fools on the Hill.

[IUFG]

Yes. The interesting question is whether he was sacked because Google actually think he did something wrong or because, as a corporate entity, it's the path of least resistance to sack him?

Of course he was sacked because it was leaked; and to retain his services would be perceived to be condoning the said perpetuating of gender stereotypes.

The virtue-signalling twitterati would then give Google also sorts of **** on the internets (is this violence?) and the Google brand would be tarnished.

Oh what times, etc...

[redgunamo]

Yes. The interesting question is whether he was sacked because Google actually think he did something wrong or because, as a corporate entity, it's the path of least resistance to sack him?

For a corporate entity, it's the same thing, isn't it? They're not taking him out and shooting him, after all. He'll get another job somewhere else if he wants, and he's maybe got plenty of cash already.

[redgunamo]

Of course he was sacked because it was leaked; and to retain his services would be perceived to be condoning the said perpetuating of gender stereotypes.

The virtue-signalling twitterati would then give Google also sorts of **** on the internets (is this violence?) and the Google brand would be tarnished.

Oh what times, etc...

:nod: Hence, “We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves .."

[redgunamo]

Reminds me of The Swamp. And The Fools on the Hill.

Books, A? Television? :-|

[Peter]

Yes. The interesting question is whether he was sacked because Google actually think he did something wrong or because, as a corporate entity, it's the path of least resistance to sack him?

Once it becomes public it becomes a matter of public relations and gets a public relations solution. The corporation must come first and if the actions of an individual harms the corporation they have done something wrong.

Just as scientific research always seems to publish results that suit their funders and attract more funding.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course. The fella is just doing his job.

[IUFG]

The fella is just doing his job.

Someone within Google must have asked for that memo to be produced imo

[Ash]

Books, A? Television? :-|

No silly, Washington DC. ;-)

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Yes. The interesting question is whether he was sacked because Google actually think he did something wrong or because, as a corporate entity, it's the path of least resistance to sack him?

Well, I guess the question is whether he was sacked or paid off. Legal would have gone through each line of that memo and been consulted on the possibility of being sued. If he was sacked, they must believe that there is enough evidence to back their case. Paying off is always the easy option with little or no comeback but this bloke leaving effectively brings the whole topic to a close.

[redgunamo]

No silly, Washington DC. ;-)

Ha! I should've remembered; fiction has to make sense, unlike the truth.

[IUFG]

Well, I guess the question is whether he was sacked or paid off. Legal would have gone through each line of that memo and been consulted on the possibility of being sued. If he was sacked, they must believe that there is enough evidence to back their case. Paying off is always the easy option with little or no comeback but this bloke leaving effectively brings the whole topic to a close.

sacked? paid off? same thing, he's out of the job.

[redgunamo]

sacked? paid off? same thing, he's out of the job.

He's not been banned from working. He will find another job, if he wants.

[Rich]

sacked? paid off? same thing, he's out of the job.

It does rather soften the blow if he's walking off with a cheque for $200k in his back pocket, though.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

sacked? paid off? same thing, he's out of the job.

Definitely not the same thing

[IUFG]

Definitely not the same thing


of course it is. You are removing someone from their role.

Whether it is dismissal with or without notice or via a settlement agreement, the end result is the same. Paying someone off is a commercial decision made to reduce financial and/or reputational risk to the organisation.

Many football managers are referred to as 'sacked', when in fact, they have been paid the value of the remainder of their contract.

[redgunamo]

Many football managers are referred to as 'sacked', when in fact, they have been paid the value of the remainder of their contract.

Right. Saying they've been "sacked" just affords them a greater level of sympathy. It's not about money or losing their livelihood; they'll have plenty of the former and plenty of opportunity to continue with the latter, if they want to.

[IUFG]

Right. Saying they've been "sacked" just affords them a greater level of sympathy. It's not about money or losing their livelihood; they'll have plenty of the former and plenty of opportunity to continue with the latter, if they want to.

agreed.

The definition of 'sack' is to dismiss from employment. There are many, many ways to do this.