Reply to Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is there any difference between James Damore and Colin Kapernick expressing an opinion?  Just asking.[/quote]

yes.  James Damore was insubordinate to his employer in a way that made it impossible for him to do his job, and created a hostile work environment.  Colin Kapernick was not.  Any other questions?  [/quote]

Not true, Colin Kapernick was insubordinate to his employer in a way that made it impossible for him to do his job and created a hostile work environment.   That is why he isn't in the league anymore.[/quote]

Who did Colin Kapernick create a[b] hostile work environment[/b] for (based on their membership in a protected class)? Was there something in his contract requiring him to stand for the National Anthem?  And he didn't get fired; he opted out of his contract.  The fact he can't get on a team now is due to team owners' racism, not the other way around.  [/quote]

FWIW, google can be your friend...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2016/08/28/alex-boone-rips-colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-49ers/89514450/[/quote]

Try again, genius.  "Marines" are not a protected class under federal discrimination law.  [/quote]

He was still offended, just like some of the liberals and women at Google.  You can't qualify an "offended" person and clearly reaching on the protected class theory.[/quote]

I don't even know what you're trying to argue.  Kapernick was pretty clearly making statements based on his OWN membership in a protected class; the backlash against him was expressly racist.  Damore made statements AGAINST a protected class, which contributed to a hostile work environment, and justifies his termination.  He also exhibited insubordination against a key policy.  But Kapernick had a contract; Damore did not.  So to the extent that any insubordination from Kapernick could be separated from his protected conduct (unlikely) he still couldn't be fired.  [/quote]

Don't you just love the "move the goalpost" moment above.  You (or someone else) referenced federal law and marines, and I refuted it as someone being offended.  You expanded it to a contract issue which I never brought up, rather I always focus on someone being offended.  The same application at google applies - some were offended, could be one or thousands.  That is why Damore was fired and yet the lefties fail to see why that is an issue in their PC world.  Comical.[/quote]

I still don't  understand what you're saying.  The fact that someone was "offended," on its own, has never been relevant either to civil rights law or notions of fairness on the left.  Obviously, some people were very offended at women entering the workplace, black people using the same swimming pools, etc.  That has nothing to do with the law or policy of civil rights.  The fact that Kapernick offended some people and Damore offended some people, without more context, is meaningless.  So what, again, are you trying to say? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics