Hacker News Reader

He didn't pass around a memo like a highschool student, he posted it on an internal message board that was created as a place for employees to write about controversial topics.

Do you have a source for that?

Because I've sourced my stuffs and showed how I base my discussion and form my thoughts on my subject with those sources. If I am wrong I would like to learn from it. Otherwise just posting this means I have to take your word for it without any evidence and I don't do that.

You read one article about it, and now you're demanding that he feed you links? You're on the Internet. Google is the topic of discussion. If you cared about the truth as much as you claim, you would do your own homework and seek out your own sources. I guess you really are a digital zombie.

>If he wanted an honest discussion he shouldn't be passing notes around like it's highschool. The memo apparently ended up being pass by more and more people. That's not how you approach this or many topics that are sensitive.

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good here. Your idea of "honest discussion" and claim that how not to approach topics that are sensitive is completely subjective. You are trying to silence his voice (just like google is silencing many chinese voices). You dont make the rules about how someone gets to speak.

I dont think he was productive in his desires but I do believe that he was candid , genuine and I would never tell someone they dont get to epxress their honest thoughts.

Think of the past decades with gay rights , trans rights and you want to tell someone they cant express their thoughts and need to keep their ideas in the closet. Is bigotry from the LGBTQ crowd allowed but we cant be bigoted against them? This double standard keeps us all back from making a truly free society. It seems google and and from your argument that this freedom is subjected and carefully tailored from elite that designate what voices should be heard and silenced.

> You dont make the rules about how someone gets to speak.

I don't have to make any rules. I'm saying how he did it got him fired. If you think how he did it is correct go ahead and do it in all of those tech companies. You think you won't be risking getting fire doing the way he did it?

Whether you like it or not. Just like his memo trying to be slapping hard truth down. I'll give this unpopular opinion down. There is always rules on how to sell your idea and say things especially sensitive matter. If you're going to go blunt about it, don't get mad if you're going to get fire. Actions have consequences. He could have gone about it many ways and if you think his ways is the best go ahead and do it at your company with his memo. I wouldn't be surprise you get fire.

Rules? Ha. I just have to point to what happened to him. He got fire cause his way got him fire. Rules? You think this idealist thought of yours work with people? Try managing people with many different ideas and being blunt all the time.

You're the same as the people that didn't like his memo. You can't handle the blunt truth and got angry.

Also here's a thought experiment. Why don't you use your real name instead of a username handler and post the same thoughts online.

I'd like to see if you act the same way with your real name as a username.

"Also here's a thought experiment. Why don't you use your real name instead of a username handler and post the same thoughts online." --digitalzombie, Hacker News, 2018

This is some top-tier trolling, right here. Thanks for the laugh.

How else is he supposed to discuss it? Every single time that topic gets brought up in any medium, it gets immediately shut down and disregarded. It's always "This isn't the place to discuss this" or "This isn't the time to discuss this". The exact same thing that happened to the CERN scientist a few weeks ago. He brings up some valid points on gender but since he dared to speak his mind, he was ousted because some people were offended by it. I don't blame him one bit for doing it how he did, it certainly had a drastic effect once people got their hands on it.

> How else is he supposed to discuss it?

Most Google employee that didn't like the China or Pentagon collab protest by leaving.

His memo from the get go divided people into groups. Is that really how to sell an idea? So the people reading this either going to like it or not. It made it so easy for the reader to fall into a group because it did it for them. Is being blunt a good thing at all? The things he said about women, whether or not I agree with it, being blunt about it is such a bad way of presenting his idea. Bringing up negative stuff over and over instead of positive is not a good way about trying to convince people to your side. You can just focus on whatever strength/positive your solution on your side and address little to none of the other side negative. There are books out there for persuasion; it's not some evil technique, it teaches you how not to come across as a social lunatic when talking about sensitive subject.

If you don't agree with it's fine because for me, it's not a mole hill worth dying for.