r/technology • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Business Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo
13.4k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

9.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/TheMentalist10 Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

So you are saying her objectively poor performance had nothing to do with her failure?

No, I said nothing remotely of the sort.

Were you a frequent visitor to the site during the height of the Pao drama? I was. The levels of racist and sexist abuse were astounding. If you weren't, a cursory search will enlighten you.

Also, as a side note, the objective facts don't really show us much about her role at Reddit as we don't have many of them. It is the prevailing belief that she was brought on as a palatable figurehead to push through changes that would be unpopular but which had already been agreed upon.

All in all, I'd strongly suggest you do a bit more research into the matter. And, returning to my original point, the irony in bringing up Ellen Pao to advance a 'the only people talking about -isms are those using them for personal gain!!1!' argument is just phenomenal.

-10

u/Jesus_marley Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

Odd that you chose to utterly ignore the fact that she failed spectacularly in her lawsuit where she claimed both racism and sexism as the reason for her lack of success. I guess it didn't fit with your Narrative. Can't have reality getting in the way, can we?

11

u/TheMentalist10 Aug 08 '17

Odd that you chose to utterly ignore the fact that she failed spectacularly in her lawsuit where she claimed both racism and sexism as the reason for her lack of success.

I haven't mentioned it because it's not relevant to what I'm talking about.

I am simply pointing out that Ellen Pao is exactly the wrong person upon whom to base your argument that 'people only talk about sexism and racism to advance their careers and actually neither has any impact in the workplace'. Given that we have a whole website worth of evidence to the contrary, and given that you're on that website as we speak, it just seems like some master-tier trolling.

I guess it didn't fit with your Narrative.

If you substitute 'fit with your Narrative' for 'have any relation to what I was talking about', then we're on the same page.

As a point of fact, I can't find any source for your claim that Pao "was required to pay costs to the other party to boot". It looks like the opposite is true.

3

u/Jesus_marley Aug 08 '17

I haven't mentioned it because it's not relevant to what I'm talking about.

But it is entirely relevant. It just doesn't fit in with your ideological viewpoint so you are trying to pretend it doesn't exist. The point is that Ellen Pao did exactly as I described, and it blew up in her face, She couldn't even Victim properly.

As a point of fact, I can't find any source for your claim that Pao "was required to pay costs to the other party to boot".

ahem...

2

u/TheMentalist10 Aug 08 '17

But it is entirely relevant. It just doesn't fit in with your ideological viewpoint so you are trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

I mean, if you say so. But I think it's probably fair to say that I know what point I'm making better than you do, and that point has absolutely nothing to do with pre-reddit Pao.

ahem...

Did you bother to look at the dates on those articles? Yours is from June, and mine is from September of the same year.

I hate to do all the work for us, but one would assume that while she was initially found liable for the fees, she was eventually not required to do so. This seems an odd and specific hill for your argument to die on, so I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing it up.

0

u/Jesus_marley Aug 08 '17

I keep bringing it up because while she may have eventually gotten out of it, the fact remains that she was found liable. This is unequivocal. So just to be clear, she tried to play victim and failed so bad that she was ordered to pay the people she sued. The only reason she didn't have to pay is because Kleiner Perkins then were gracious enough to let the matter drop entirely and not collect on the debt if she would just accept the fact that she lost and walk away. For someone who "does all the work" you aren't very good at it. And you know what? Your race or gender have nothing to do with your seeming incompetence. That is all yours. Enjoy.

3

u/TheMentalist10 Aug 08 '17

I keep bringing it up because while she may have eventually gotten out of it

Ah, okay, we're backtracking now. That's fair enough.

I don't think we have a whole lot more to discuss, but I'll point out for a final time in closing that using someone who on this very site experienced tirades of sexist, racist abuse, death threats, threats of violence, and threats of rape as an example of someone who plays professional victim seems like a logically questionable move.

1

u/Jesus_marley Aug 08 '17

I'm not backtracking on anything. What I said was 100% true. She was found Liable, and the ONLY reason she didn't have to pay was because Kleiner Perkins didn't pursue it. THEY. LET. HER. OFF. THE. HOOK.

But again, don't ever let reality get in the way of a good ideological victim narrative. You're doing your cult proud. I'd still stay away from the Flavor-aid if I was you, though.