A few weeks ago today, now ex Google employee, James Damore was fired after writing this memo about Google’s far left ideology. In summary, the memo outlined why the gender ratio in tech may be out of balance, why the wage gap exists and that Google is unwilling to reason with the truth. The last point was further demonstrated by Damore’s firing.
Google has diversity managers. Specific people whose job it is to ensure Google is diverse. On the face of it, it doesn’t seem like such a bad thing to have someone in the company to go to if you feel you are being unfairly treated due to a particular difference, or just to maintain a balance of ideas to increase the amount of creative friction and therefore creativity. But wait. I did just say “balance of ideas”, right? Damore had different ideas, so it would seem Google ought to respect him for the individual he is, however, he was fired for having different ideas. Though, according to Google, he was fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”.
I wrote about the male/female stereotype concept a little in my previous post and it all applies here just the same. In the memo, Damore is very sure to point out that the studies he references about gender differences are not stating that you, given the choice between a male or female in tech, you should choose the male. He specifically and consistently asserts it’s about distribution of traits and (hence) choices. Every person should be evaluated on the merits of them as a person. When it comes down to it, this is really Damore’s broader point. If everyone were treated as the individual they are, rather than “equal” there would be much fewer problems in all of the controversial “rights” protests.
The primary reason that gay marriage (in Australia) is gaining more support, I think, is because it focusses on the individual’s right to love someone and for that love to be formally recognised. It does not point out group perpetrators of oppression, but rather individuals. This is not to say that any controversial idea automatically gains legitimacy because they don’t subscribe to the concept of a tribal oppressor, however, it does make it easier to swallow, especially for someone who may be a fence sitter. Conversely, the Black Lives Matter movement heaps the blame of their “oppression” on white people as a whole. Whether their oppression exists or not does not change the fact they make a very serious accusation that every single white person actively engages in oppression. It’s not just unhelpful to participate in identity politics, it is counter-productive. If someone robbed your house because your neighbour robbed theirs, you wouldn’t be very happy would you? You may even turn against the person who robbed you. Though a simple example, the sentiment remains.
What is puzzling about Google’s firing of Damore is the fact that he identifies as left of centre. Maybe it isn’t that puzzling though. From the left-most point, even if you’re left of centre, you are still on the right, maybe even long way to the right. He was fired for having a different ideology and now everyone is screaming “Goolag!”. In Google’s defence, what if he had been a neo-Nazi? What if Damore is actually spreading hate speech? How is anyone to know?
Firstly, to use the term “hate speech” without restricting it’s definition is an easy way to get tripped up in semantics because the term has become so broad in the name of “equality” that almost anything (read: everything) can be considered hate speech, even facts! Here’s the wikipedia definition: “Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.” Applying this definition certainly means the Nazi’s were engaging in hate speech. However, is Damore’s memo an exemplar of hate speech? Who cares is the correct answer. It is visibly much too easy to trip up semantically. Just try genuinely answering the question I put forward. Any critique of one of the topics above can be considered hate speech.
What ought we to do then? If it doesn’t matter that Damore is spreading hate speech or not (in my opinion), does that make me a bad person? Perhaps. Let me persuade you otherwise. Viewing disagreements from the perspective of hate speech or not hate speech is not conducive to conclusive argumentation because it inevitably posits the Marxist oppressed-oppressor view of society. Every argument should occur for the sole purpose of discovering the truth; not for the sake of punishing others. There ought not to be an agenda to label anyone as evil or virtuous. To quote Socrates: “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” Thus, Damore, whose goal was to seek truth, not to undermine or to fuel hatred is an embodiment of “good”. Note that does not matter from which direction this truth seeking comes from. Should Damore have been a radical feminist and asked the opposite questions to those he poses in his memo, he is still an embodiment of “good” by Socrate’s definition just for his pursuit of knowledge. Google, on the other hand are now the perpetuators of evil.
It does not matter whether anyone’s feelings were hurt. Truth is truth. To disagree makes you evil. Granted, truth is hard to know. That, however, is all the more reason someone should not be fired for searching for it. That doesn’t mean you should deliberately going around and telling everyone they’re fat if it’s the truth. Just be reasonable and be a decent person.
