Guy who wrote women are 'soft, weak, cosseted, naive' lasted about a month at Apple until internal revolt Antonio García Martínez, hired by Apple last month as a product engineer on its ad platform team, no longer works for the iGiant following an employee petition objecting to his writings disparaging women and people of color. The petition, obtained by The Verge, is addressed to Eddy Cue, Apple senior veep of internet software …
Apple is showing that like other corporates, it gives in to public blackmail by firing someone just because somebody objected to something the person wrote five years before he got hired, and inclusivity in Apple's book means everyone who's opinion matches the general jive of social media influencers.
There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept everyone, regardless of their opinions, because they were people like the rest of us, and had personal opinions about stuff, not just the socially accepted opinion that they were expected to have.
I have already left a perfectly good communist country, just because the hiring principles depended on you having the same political opinion as the expected dogma.
Yet here we are, the rest of the world is turning into the same Orvellian communist mess.
Our work and personal lives should be separate because there’s a too larger pool of opinions one could object to. Besides, some of the most heinous beliefs possible are actually protected by law in certain contexts. For example, you can’t fire someone for holding an age old orthodox Islamic opinion on age of consent but I’m pretty sure a certain free software zealot got the boot for holding similar opinions despite those very same opinions being protected in a religious context.
Likewise, we have a tech sector powered by modern slavery banning age old colloquial uses of the term ‘slave’ in technical documentation, simply because it might upset readers who have (in all likelihood) never been subjected to any real slavery themselves.
It’s good that an advertising professional got fired because advertising sucks. But it’s not great to fire people for personal opinions published (in their own time) many years prior to their current employment. Apple can screw right off for that!
I'll admit to not knowing him or Apple internals, but I think one possible scenario is that are concerned he wouldn't keep his personal opinions (about bay area women being full of shit) separate from work. Suppose he is working in a group project with some woman, and he regularly posts in his private time on public space in a way that is meant to be as insulting as possible while remaining exactly on the line not to be crossed. I.e., passive aggressive. That could cost Apple with frustration and wasted time from unnecessary conflict.
Again it is just a hypothetical and I do not have enough information, but Apple would have more information. It is plausible that Apple has no interest in his truly private beliefs, and is only concerned about potential anti social behavior at work. Certainly I have no issue with Apple balking at hiring if that were the case - because I share the corollary of your opinion
> "Our work and personal lives should be separate because there’s a too larger pool of opinions one could object to"
which is that not keeping work and personal lives separate can sometimes burden an employer excessively. What is "excessively"? It's is for the company to decide, and the legal system to further judge if a case is brought. So there are checks and balances.
One more thing - you state
> It’s good that an advertising professional got fired because advertising sucks.
Yeah but No. I don't like particularly like advertising either but the level at which to change that is the legislative level. Not the personal employee level, as long as nothing currently illegal is being done. In a way his complete honesty about his views on advertising IS refreshing in that it is transparent, rather than hidden from view.
The first thing I wondered was that. knowing of his opinions, how would I feel working with this person if I were a person of colour or a woman? Certainly this would create a less than pleasant work environment and probably would expect that anything I had to offer would be less valued by him and anyone influenced by him.
There are lost of people I work with who I don't particularly like (and, I am sure, don't particularly like me) - if that is the yardstick we are using to decide on firing people then we will all be on the dole soon enough.
In cases like these, behaviour prior to employment should not be a factor but behaviour following employment should.
In cases like these, behaviour prior to employment should not be a factor but behaviour following employment should.
Nope. Because the very fact that you allowed this person through the door and pollute the atmosphere despite clearly advertised recent opinions at odds with the rest of the company IS going to have an effect, possibly lasting, later sacking notwithstanding. You will face questions as to how you could take that decision despite prior knowledge.
Now, I've seen people state that it's not right to eject someone on the basis of something written years ago, but that view assumes change. If that adverse track record has some length despite pushback I think you can safely assume that the offending attitude in question has not met enlightenment.
There is also the question of level - some people can be a bit annoying, but there are lines you shouldn't cross without consequences, especially if they are crossed as expression of personal beliefs (not à la Jimmy Carr, for instance).
In short, it's OK to deal with a degree of idiocy but there are limits and quite a few you can spot if you do your screening right, and the probation time ought to help catch the ones that initially got away.
"There are lost of people I work with who I don't particularly like (and, I am sure, don't particularly like me) - if that is the yardstick we are using to decide on firing people then we will all be on the dole soon enough."
But that's not the yardstick, and it's disingenuous of you to frame it that way. This was someone who flat out denied the worth of his co-workers if they happened to be women. Presumably this includes anything from technical matters to management. So how can you trust his judgement if he's evaluating a colleague's (or worse, a subordinate's) work?
That was a rhetorical question by the way, the answer is that you can't.
If we are talking about being disingenuous then your statemnet "This was someone who flat out denied the worth of his co-workers if they happened to be women" is a good example. He did not say this as you must be aware. What he appraently wroite was:
"Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit." . If you have a rather cynical pessimistic world view you mught well say that most people are weak cossetted and naive. He said nothing at all about his co-workers.
In terms of double standards and hypocrisy I have read many many ill-judged intemperate rants on social mediua which are far worse than this without the qualifier 'most' against men should those be held against the authors years later to preclude ban them from employment? In an age where every ill-judged ascolescent remark is held for eternity it is a very bad idea to enforce ideological purity tests precluding anyone who wrote anything controlversial in the past.
"Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit."
My Wife, reading over my shoulder, points out that this guy's knowledge of "Bay Ara Women" probably doesn't extend much past the wives of Silly Con Valley senior management and other upper executives, and their hangers-on. She points out that we know many of these women ... and the guy is right for the subset of Bay Area Women he knows.
Before you poo-poo this, think Footballer's Wives.
if that is the yardstick we are using to decide on firing people then we will all be on the dole soon enough.
It is: Organisations have always hired people based on their professional merits and fired people on personality problems! It is very rare that someone is incompetent enough to be fired specifically for that.
"We all" are just not fucked up enough to meet the criteria for getting fired, and, speaking for myself, that is kind of scary. The barriers are very high. It takes a concerted effort to rouse the beasts of HR!
I have seen how my former boss burned through four assistants with harassment and bullying, numerous "how we shall all behave in the workplace" seminars were held, for a year we had a separate HR-person dealing with just "my" department, and in the end they kinda created a separate department just for containment of that idiot rather than suffering the modest embarassment over sacking its rat bastard ass!
Based on my experiences, I think we are talking about a really persistent dickhead and he absolutely had it coming to him from a long way, so screwed be him and his buillshit "rights" and "freedumbs".
A concern that he won't separate private views from his work is very different to the reality of whether he did.
I can understand choosing not to hire someone that introduces a risk of internal friction. If you've already hired them though they absolutely should not be fired unless they actually do cause friction.
Others getting upset at things said outside of work (let alone a long time ago outside of work) is not a valid excuse.
That depends on the position and the role. Leadership positions are role-model positions.
Part of a senior role is being seen positively as a leader. If we was contrite there is an argument there.
But you simply cannot be in a leadership position and have a view that is detrimental to people and team relationships.
He has already started failing at his job.
He didn't use his free speech rights to make change, to debate a topic, to argue a position. He wasn't tried to enrich anyone but himself. He just used it to denigrate, and sell trash. Let's face it, his ego took over.
He can have his free speech, he can have a job. He cannot expect to have any job.
"a perfectly good communist country,".
Interesting, what country is that, and why did you arrive and why did you leave.
The "perfectly good" in front of something not good is interesting.
But perhaps it's not that catastrophic after all as it's only "the rest of the world is turning into the same Orvellian communist mess".
You might not get it but rubbish claims do not work outside of the USA and not so well in the USA either today.
Hungary was the country, I was born there, and escaped because I hated communism. 1984 was very big on Big Brother telling others how to think, and everywhere I look these days I see a vocal few enforcing their views on others, just like in the old country.
Funnily though, Hungary is again kind of a dictatorship these days, but on the far right end of the scale...
Hungary under communism was far nicer to visit than East Germany. Very different atmospheres, with the Hungarians just naturally friendlier and feeling more relaxed.
No criticism for abandoning communism though, and I haven't been back recently to see what it's like now.
>Funnily though, Hungary is again kind of a dictatorship these days, but on the far right end of the scale...
Hungary was arguably fascist before WW2 and was one of the countries that invaded Russia in 1941. This had two consequences. One was that their left-wing intellectuals were suppressed and many fled to countries like Russia. The other was what when the Red Army pushed the invaders out they were left with the problem of finding and installing a friendly government. Hungary became communist and quite likely not a vary practical communist society. The fundamental nature of the people and their culture didn't change, though, regardless of what political system they're using.
The Cold War wasn't a heap o' fun for people living in the UK, either. It was literally an "unsinkable aircraft carrier'. Complaining would get you into trouble -- you won't get locked up or anything silly like that (unless absolutely necessary**) but you'd find things like your job prospects surprisingly constrained.
(**The name "Julian Assange" ring a bell?)
Or, heaven forbid, we do get it but don't think somebody should be fired for expressing an honestly held opinion five years before they were employed.
Of course it isn't surprising that somebody from the "fire them for their opinions" crowd wouldn't consider the option that maybe somebody has different opinions to them.
>> There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept everyone, regardless of their opinions
There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept racists, regardless of their opinions
There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept slavers, regardless of their opinions
There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept misogynists, regardless of their opinions
Your statement is a paradox, because I think you're arguing that inclusivity means accepting someone who isn't inclusive.
As much as you got upvotes, I really don't think that is true.
Inclusivity is about accepting others regardless of
* things that are not their choice or decision (skin colour, gender, race, handicap etc)
* choices or decisions made but does not affect others who do not have a choice (i.e. not accepting a "privileged" gender making choices that affect an "unprivileged" gender, a "privileged" race affecting an "unprivileged" race, and so on)
The latter is where consequence-free free speech ends. The "privilege" I mean can be a cultivated construct (race for eg) or from nature (for eg male physical strength being used to disadvantage a female)
You're arguing that including a boneheaded chauvinist is "necessary", a person whose best justification is that they aren't the worst. This isn't what inclusivity is about.
Particularly so when he is and was consciously aware of what he was doing (so it isn't even a question of awareness or education, just arrogance and the privilege enjoyed of knowing they can get away with it). He recognizes it enough to use it to conscious effect to sell his book.
The privilege of protection he had has run out now, and there are consequences without such privilege.
The privilege in this case that comes as a rich male. Possibly being white and American helped, I cannot say if that's needed to get the book published. But being rich and male most certainly did.
Now is the time, when inclusivity means that we do not accept racists, regardless of their other merits
Now is the time, when inclusivity means that we do not accept slavers, regardless of their other merits
Now is the time, when inclusivity means that we do not accept misogynists, regardless of their other merits
They can think and do whatever they want that affect only themselves. But there is a consequence that it is a career limiter.
Not ever getting a job or prison no, but senior exec of a billion dollar corporation? He can be the asshole non-line employee slumming it .
There are better out there. And we should strive to get better.
For all the "nostalgia", I'm for one am perfectly happy that "inclusivity" no longer includes the racist, the slaver, the misogynist, and so on. Them "good old days when I could slap a woman's bottom" can stay right there in history.
One person's social protection is another person's inadvertent tyranny.
Personally, I'd rather bastards were openly bastards rather than secretly bastards to blend in. That way we know who the bastards are and can easily avoid them.
The irony is that you assume that everyone can (should??) just walk away and "avoid them"
That is the crux of the problem and argument here, and the ignorance of people who think the solution is just to walk away from a slimy boss in the workplace.
Not everyone can actually "walk away" when the person is in a senior position in a workplace.
A bit surprised, personally, at how ignorant people are of the problem of such people in the workplace in leadership positions.
And someone else should put themselves through that slime and suffering potentially, for what?
A guy who is happy for the world to know he is slimy, but then a private company has to trial that out?
Why?
You are most certainly assessed for a job on your potential - good and bad.
"know who the bastards* are and can easily avoid them"
Isn't that what Apple are doing?
*Leaving aside any judgement on whether the guy is a bastard, has only acted like a bastard, or just said a things for the lolz in circumstances where for the lolz isn't appropriate.
Rosie
To recap: You decry racism and sexism, express happiness that it's no longer tolerated in the office, and then attack someone for their race and gender.
Allow me please to perhaps make a suggestion: Do not be sexist. Do not be racist.
There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept racists, regardless of their opinionsThere was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept slavers, regardless of their opinions
But the time is now. And it's a bit of a confused time. So we have people being forced to take a knee, even though that got a white guy charged with murder. Strange symbolism. We have people doing the 'Wakanda' salute, even though that was fictional, from a corporation with a fair bit of racism in the past. We still have modern slavery, but a post-modern view of victims, oppressors, and who should be expected to pay reparations. The historical slave trade was rather abhorent, but goes back a very long time, from slavers supplying Rome, or shipping product out of Crimea, or out of Africa. For the latter, Colonial powers may have created the market, but Africans supplied the product. One of those sordid bits of history that gets hard to discuss the nuances, without accusations of racism.
The "privilege" I mean can be a cultivated construct (race for eg) or from nature (for eg male physical strength being used to disadvantage a female)
That's another of those curious social phenomena. Male physical strength is being used to disadvantage female athletes because discrimination based on old-fashioned biological gender is politically incorrect. It's one of those things sports seems to be struggling with, but a simple solution might be to skip male/female competitions and just have an open class.
For all the "nostalgia", I'm for one am perfectly happy that "inclusivity" no longer includes the racist, the slaver, the misogynist, and so on.
Sadly, it does. You mention 'white privilege' and excluding racists, but assuming a white person is privileged isn't racsist? Especially when positive discrimination policies may obviously discriminate against those people, which is inherenently racist or misogynist.
But such is politics. Apple should have known who they were hiring, and were presumably ok with the hire. If they later found out the person was behaving in a racist or sexist manner in the workplace, then they should have fired them. Like the article says though, Apple were fine to throw $3bn at someone who performed openly misogynist works.
Your argument has a weakness due to the "what you know is all there is" psychological heuristic. You are assuming that Apple fired the guy "just because [...]", but there might have been other reasons for the firing (if, indeed, he was fired; apparently both he and Apple have declined to comment on the reason for him leaving Apple). For example, perhaps several employees reported him to HR for sexist/racist behaviour on the job.
Also, your assertion about inclusivity ignores the paradox of tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance).
Proper disciplinary measures should be in place, but only for actual transgressions. Certainly not for the potential that he might be offensive.
Of course he might have been a complete dick and deserved the boot.
But this has nothing to do with his actions, it's all Apple's PR machine attempting to firefight claims that the company hires sexist men, and by association is itself promoting sexist attitudes. I imagine they paid him off to go quickly and quuetly.
Damage done though. Apart from the obvious question of why this didn't come out before he was hired, there's also the accusation that when they interviewed him they decided he'd fit in well with the team...
There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept everyone, regardless of their opinions, because they were people like the rest of us, and had personal opinions about stuff, not just the socially accepted opinion that they were expected to have.
Do you want Nazis? Because that's how you get Nazis!
-------
Joke aside, five minutes in a library would uncover evidence it's false, even when it comes to more innocuous things like food preparation or choice of shoe. Tolerance of political leanings, religion, or ancestral origins has been more of a bug than feature for most of human history.
Your invocation of communism is ironic too, given the whole McCarthy thing in the 40s and 50s here in the US, where people were literally blacklisted because they may have had an association to another person who might have passed by a building that once hosted a meeting between two people who knew what the Communist Party USA was.
And of course, there is the Paradox of Tolerance, where if intolerance is allowed without any kind of societal check, eventually the intolerant will destroy the tolerant society.
And the prerequisite "everything I disagree with is communism/marxism/cancel culture" comment has been made. Now we just need someone to be compared to Hitler and we can call it a day.
To me it's an amusing, if unexpected, reversal of the idiotic citizen's united case here in the States which deemed corporations people. The idea was that it would allow them to donate more money to conservative politicians, but now customers and employees are exerting pressure of their own to threaten to cut off that money spigot and conservatives are going ape shit. Like Ted "I'll throw my own daughters under the bus" Cruz saying he won't accept donations from certain companies any longer, meaning they probably cut him off and he's trying to spin it like it was his choice.
In any event, it's clear you didn't even read the article before just assuming you know what it said and came here to comment, there are certain opinions that simply should not be accepted no matter what. Should we accept that someone wants to violently murder everyone of the muslim faith? Should we accept someone who calls for the extermination of an entire ethnicity? What about someone who says all Asians are inferior in every way to all other races, should we accept that? What if I said that anyone who agrees with your opinion should be executed immediately, would you accept that?
While I could definitely write off the quote about women in Silicon Valley as just being an opinion based on his experiences, when he started stalking some woman on social media that's a worrying sign to say the least. At the end of the day, this guy would need to work with a number of women and people of various minorities to do his job. That requires a certain level of trust, which he does not have with those people. So, from Apple's POV, it could fire one person or dozens. Which do you suppose any rational person would do?
"Outsiders who know nothing about Silicon Valley think I'm terrible. Insiders who know the game well think I'm actually honest, self-deprecating, and funny, and actually tame by Valley standards."
I spent a large part of my career in SV, including 3 startups that had successful exits. The most accurate book every written on the subject is Chaos Monkeys.
I was born, educated and did almost all of my 9-5 career, and virtually all of my consulting career, in Silicon Valley. This over a timespan that is pushing 70 years now.
There have been no accurate books written about the place, and what happened here, Not one. All the books written to date have either been complete fiction, or one particular person's personal short-sighted window into it (and those are often seen through an alcohol, cocaine and/or pot induced haze, whether admitted in the pages or not).
Get real! If someone is posting sexist and bigoted shite in their personal time, then they'll be bringing that mindset to the workplace.
Inclusivity does not extend to people who espouse exclusivity.
I have no doubt, that I have worked alongside bigots in my life, but most are sensible enough to keep their obnoxious views to themselves, and thus have not upset the workplace, or left people believing they would be unfairly treated by them. Someone who makes their diabolical views known - gone to the effort to shout out their ravings for all to hear, has crossed the Rubicon, and made themselves impossible to hire by a forward looking, responsible organisation.
perfectly good ? And you left it ? Yet to hear of communist country that has people flocking to it. Most go the other way. The few going in are mostly idealists and academics who believe the most preposterous things readily. (from George Orwell) I digress. It is no co-incidence that PC intolerance is bred mostly in new-marxist atheological institutions such as Arts degrees courses. That said, IMHO, individual under discussion does sound like a typical self-important jerk with crippled social skills. No wonder Apple Human Remains let him in. He knew all the buzzwords and manglement phrases de jure.
As I understand it, "inclusive" in the commercial sense means including people of any race, gender, disability, age or religion. It does not mean including people of any opinion. Opinion is not a protected characteristic except in the context of religion. I'm not saying that's how it should be but that's how it is
I wouldn't assume he was fired because someone complained, but because his behaviour just wasn't acceptable. Of course unacceptable behaviour would leave to complaints, but it's the behaviour, not the complaints, that get you fired.
Much as I hate ads I have to disagree with you. Some level of advertising is needed so that we know when new things are out there, or simply to remind us they exist. What level that is, apart from a lot less, I do not know.
So let's get back to printed ads, in newspapers/magazines, in SPECIAL sections, so could easily avoid them.
Oh, wait, we're in the digital age now, everything must be on the internet. Create special sites where nothing but ads get published so people can look up ads if they want to.
Stop throwing ads in my face!!!!
The world of advertising created brands, which in turn went on to dominate the shelves, which then saw the average basket cost go through the roof.
At the end of the day, the consumer is the one who loses out, as they are now paying 500% more for goods, and given less of a choice when browsing the supermarket shelves.
The capitalist model of free choice is broken beyond repair, as the market is dominated by so few players, that they can control what is on offer. Advertising did that - the ability to throw millions at a campaign and buy any and all competitors shelf space from under them.
And if choice has been taken away, then the idea that the market self regulates to encourage lower prices is broken as well.
This post has been deleted by its author
Bill Hicks> Oh by the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising, kill yourself. No joke there, I’m just planting the seed, see if it grows, who knows … But seriously, kill yourself. No seriously, there’s no rationalisation for what you do, you’re Satan’s little helpers, kill yourself. OK, now back to the show.
These days, it's what you say that counts, not what you do.
Women are soft ? Thank God they are. I love rubbing up against my wife's soft skin.
Women are weak ? Let's see how weak you are while giving birth. Oh right, you can't, mutherfucker.
Disparaging women and pursuing them is a sign not only of assholery, but of inherent lack of manitude.
A real man can respect women, because he's not afraid of them.
The point that I was making is that when one makes a sweeping statement about a good sized percentage of humanity, and makes a point about leaving a specific portion or portions out, that other portion or portions might feel targeted ... and rightfully object.
What "brigade" is that? If I truly believe that all lives matter, will I get into trouble for not paying the brigade dues? Only a simpleton believes that black lives aren't included in the set of all lives ... and only a muck-stirrer trying to inflame the simpletons would even attempt to suggest that I mean it in any other way.
My opinion on votes here at ElReg is well recorded elsewhere ... but if I were "craving upvotes", do you really think I'd voice my actual opinion? Hell, no. I'd go all politician and pander to the lowest common denominator. That's how you get votes. Personally, I'd rather talk to intelligent people, even if they have a different take on the subject than I do.
“They” are making a point, and “they” are sick of all the shit “they” have had to put up with for 400 years. So I think “they” can leave it just how it is and you can exercise some synapses and spend the few milliseconds it takes to work out what “they” are trying to tell you.
Except that the English language users of the world adore TLAs. Which constantly causes miscommunication problems.
Yes, an FLA would perhaps have been better - not mention cooler- if for example “Black Lives Also Matter” had been chosen. BLAM is kinda nice for a T-shirt slogan. None of which would have stopped assholes from being assholes.
And anybody that thinks women are weak really needs to be plugged into brain stim sim to experience childbirth.
BLM is a Marxist organization using this for political purposes. If they really cared about black lives they would care about the 95% of black lives ended by criminals in their own neighborhoods. But those Black lives do not further their Marxist narratives!
"Black lives matter" was intended to mean "Black lives matter". As a white man, I'm not complaining. I feel just lucky that I don't have to say "White lives matter" all the time because they usually do matter to police officers etc. But then I was told about a much better reason: All people should be equal, and treated equally, and they are not. If you say "All lives matter" which is factually correct, many many people will automatically turn that into "All white lives matter, and others don't".
"Then, by definition, they aren't men. Come on; It really isn't difficult."
Where did you learn that? Biology 101? In that case you should have taken a more advanced course.
What counts to make someone "man" or "woman" is what goes on in their mind. Their body parts are not of any importance for that.
Come on, it really isn't difficult. And anyway, what's your problem? Why would it offend you personally if a man has a child? I just don't care. It's their life, not mine.
Gender is not a classification for being able to give birth.
One's sex is what determines whether or not a member of the species can bare offspring.
Surgeons need to know your sex not your gender when performing surgery... You really wouldn't want your surgeon to make a mistake in that area. Words really are very important and changing them to suit your needs can have severe consequences..
The problem with this is he said "most" women not all women. Perhaps he also thinks most men are soft and naive. Respect has to be earned and it can no more be given to all women automatically than all men.
There is a rather unpleasant double standard and sexism on display but its is not Antonio García Martínez who is displaying it.
Comments denigrating aspects of men, without the qualifier 'most' are ubiquitous condeming men as violent, abusive, stupid etc yet no one in theoir right minds would suggets that those who make such remarks shoudl be banned from employment. If we accept this sort of treatment as the right thing to do then we have no protection when what we wrote years ago as adolescents are not acceptable to the modern morality police.
Maybe his production company for his book should have explained the concept of a pen name? If you work for apple, what the hell were you thinking - you wanted to be fired disgracefully for someone googling your name? Maybe just troll under other pseudonyms, call it a life. Andy Rubin is still around I think doing just that.
The point near the end of the article, that this is a guy who doesn't actually need a job to live because he got a big burst of wealth earlier in his career, seems very salient. Very different calculus than if it was an equally dickish but not wealthy low-level engineer, which is often the conflation these executives try to foster.
It doesn't seem like he made that much from the sale. He was one beneficiary amongst a bunch of them, while the company itself was one of many with similar tech that could have been acquired so I'd suspect the value wasn't vast.
Plus, he's based in a part of the US where living costs are stupendous, and given the guys undoubted ego I'm sure he spent the money on the trappings he feels he deserves. So he probably needs a regular job, and may not have the wherewithal to found a successful startup.
... will concentrate on the things and people that they like. And just stay silent on those that they don't.
I find my self in a position to hire people from time to time. And it's fair to say that I may come across some job candidates that just rub me the wrong way. And it would probably be better off for both of us to not associate professionally. But (I hope) I haven't left a huge trail of comments that could come back to bite me in the *ss in the form of a discrimination suit. Everybody gets the best opportunity as an individual that I can muster. That's my official position.
A machist best-selling journo and entrepreneur writing a gonzo book about the Silicon Valley culture is stalked, harassed, pitchforked and fired by a group of watchful Silicon Valley citizens for the greater good. That's a culture clash!
P.S. Intrigued enough to read the book.
On the grounds of Fair Use:
"At the exact vertex of Building 16 was the “Aquarium,” Facebook’s glass-walled throne room, where Zuck held court all day. It jutted into the main courtyard, allowing passing Facebookers to snatch a glance of their famed leader while strolling to lunch. Its windows were reputedly bulletproof. ... An adjoining minikitchen, like so many that littered the campus, stocked plenty of lemon-lime Gatorade, Zuck’s official beverage.
Inside Facebook’s campus, geography was destiny, and your physical proximity to Zuck was a clear indicator of your importance. Zuck’s desk neighbors at that point were Sheryl Sandberg, the star chief operating officer (COO) of Facebook ... My mission today was a meeting with Zuck, scheduled in Sheryl’s conference room, which was named, for reasons I never discovered, “Only Good News.”
From the readings he seems like a very talented chap. Maybe it is just an ad campaign for the new book?
This post has been deleted by its author
I did read his book a few years ago. A few interesting titbits but otherwise looked like an ego trip. And he didn't come across as particularly nice or having much integrity either.
I also don't think he really made a lot of money from the sale of AdGrok. Not life changing amounts anyway. Hence he needs to work.
There it is, the usual BS: "There was a time, when inclusivity used to mean that we accept everyone, regardless of their opinions". Why should we accept people who are *literally* saying that we don't belong here? Your argument is that they don't have to accept us, but we have to accept that...
Ohhh yes. And there are also those that scream "bbbbut FREE SPEECH?!"... (from what I can glimpse from internet arguments and the covidiots and Nazis running around over here those groups overlap quite a bit - but there are idiots on all sides of the political alignment hypercube).
Guess what: there is no absolute right to free speech. Every right has its limits. What about libel, inciting riots etc.? There are limits, sinsible limits, that are enforced. So obviously there should be (and in fact are) limits to the things you can say. On person's right ends where that of another person begins. Excluding a person, devaluing a person is never appropriate, as it in fact intrudes upon the freedom of said person.
But there are many who don't understand the limits of their freedom, and in many cases "free speech" is the only redeeming thing about their statements or the person itself.
I agree that there should be limits to free speech. Incitement to violence is a great example. However puerile misogyny should be allowed and should not be used to end employment. Next you'll label it "hate speech" and then we won't even be able to have this discussion.
Nobody has lost their freedom here.
However puerile misogyny should be allowed and should not be used to end employment.
I'd much rather keep the respect of my few, but very effective, female engineers than keeping the "puerile misogynist" around, "because some rando theory about freedumb", so, this is absolutely "not allowed".
People like that are an open display of poor judgment. Keeping them around shows that the organisation also has poor professional judgement. This upsets the clients, which then upsets the bottom line, which upsets the people I report to.
The choice becomes really Easy: That dumbass living on social securtiy or me?
This post has been deleted by its author
Too deep for me I'm afraid. I don't think I'm going for infinite tolerance - just more than that is being shown here. Where it appears that a mob has kicked the nob out of a job because they decided to be offended. Call him out by all means - I think that would be more appropriate.
An analogy I saw once:
If you have an "Inclusive" petting zoo with wolves and lambs, soon you will have a petting zoo of only wolves.
Or to quote Heinlein: "We lived like that 'Happy Family' you sometimes see in traveling zoos: a lion caged with a lamb. It is a startling exhibit but the lamb has to be replaced frequently."
Speak for yourself, I am definately not what you would call progressive.
I was taught to respect others from since I was young, that was 50 years before Wokeism began..
"Progressive" is a fad, like so many other things in life you will see it rise and fall whilst causing a lot of damage along the way.. Its an ideology from which very few will actually benefit...
How many have actually seen a true and long lasting improvement in their lifes since all this crap started... For sure, a tiny minority have become rich but they certainly don't share their new found wealth....
Were currently living the most hypocritical period that I have known in the last 50 years or so...
The hypocrisy is so thick it's palpable. And it's getting thicker, to the point where wading through it is becoming difficult. How much longer before it brings us all to a complete standstill? Because it's blindingly obvious that that is where we are heading ...
Retirement's sweet call is sounding more and more lovely ...
>> honest, self-deprecating, and funny, and actually tame by Valley standards...
and monster?
From what little I've read, Martinez sounds like a smart/talented person who also happens to be a narcissistic ass?
I'm kind of torn on this one.
I remember the motto at one company... I don't like someone but we still need to work together.
And I've worked with more than a few people who (I thought) were both brilliant and disgusting.
Enterprises will always need to acquire the talent... I'm just not sure how effectively they'll ever be at managing the baggage?
Three aphorisms:
o The punishment should fit the crime.
o Context is important.
o Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone.
An observation:
Stereotyping, part of the cognitive process of inference/generalization, is part of the cognitive toolset used by humans to make sense of and communicate about the world.
Exercise for the reader:
Construct an argument for/against taking Action1 against PersonA based on PersonA’s vocalized ConceptAlpha. Use all three aphorisms and the observation in your argument.
Bonus Points:
Construct the reverse argument. Compare and contrast.
The following is quoted from Matt Taibbi
"I’m a fan of Dr. Dre’s music and have been since the N.W.A. days. It’s not any of my business if he wants to make $3 billion selling Beats by Dre to Apple, earning himself a place on the board in the process. But if 2,000 Apple employees are going to insist that they feel literally unsafe working alongside a man who wrote a love letter to a woman who towers over him in heels, I’d like to hear their take on serving under, and massively profiting from, partnership with the author of such classics as “Bitches Ain’t Shit” and “Lyrical Gangbang,” who is also the subject of such articles as “Here’s What’s Missing from Straight Outta Compton: Me and the Other Women Dr. Dre Beat Up.”"
So Dr. Dre is OK, but Antonio García Martínez is not. Good to know that Apple is never, ever hypocrtical.
His book Chaos Monkeys is still available on Apple books.
Apples cut from those sales goes towards paying the wages of the employees who got him fired.
Why no outrage from Apple employees about the allegations of how Dr Dre treated women?
I dont think people should be sacked on what they say or do outside of work until they have been found guilty in a court of law, but if that is to be the case then it should be enforced consistently.
Apple should be ashamed. It shouldn’t matter what an employee says or does prior to them being recruited/hired/associated with a company. Furthermore, a person’s professional life and their private life have NOTHING to do with each other. If this guy truly does feel as if women (oh and by the way he didn’t throw a blanket statement/opinion over all women he said specifically “most women in Silicon Valley”) are weak, pampered, blah blah blah etc.. that’s certainly his right as are any thoughts about race. He wasn’t employed by Apple at the time and even if he was he didn’t paint himself a representative of Apple nor did he at any time lead anyone (other than cry baby ignorant PC egotistical me me me types) to believe he was speaking on Apple’s behalf. Maybe people should reacquaint themselves with the statement … separation of church and state … and then apply it/reword it … separation of personal life and professional life … if people and companies don’t start growing backbones and refusing to be swayed by PC millennial hypocrites and their delusions of importance and victim mentalities towards EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE … well let’s just say everyone may as well just quit their job and stay home because sooner or later the “townsfolk” will be lighting torches grabbing pitchforks and calling each of us a witch as they begin yet another hunt
If you hire an employee and subsequently discover their past could damage your reputation, you behead them immediately and move on. The ifs and buts are in pretty short supply. No one has a fundamental right to a job with the fruity company. No one has the right to a life free of consequences.
Apple is doing what it always used to. When someone used to write a good add on program for version x.1 of the Macintosh OS, Apple would bundle their own version of it into x.2. Now it is doing the same for ad tracking. Out go other folks' versions. In comes their own. Classic Apple.
The Dr. Dre note is amusing. Well done for adding that.
It will be hard on Apple HR if they have to dox all potential hires back to kindergarten. The K-pop industry has the same problem over singers having bullied someone in high school, or just walked past bullying without intervening etc.
I guess they didn't read all of his books. I've chalked up four novels totalling over 2000pp, so scouting me would mean some late nights. In a drama, I had a racist character and worked hard to make his utterances wildly offensive. How would HR cope?
They'll need to employ someone with a degree in literature or they may trip up, misreading some post-modern irony, or failing to understand just what is going on when an author plumps for magic realism and the furniture starts talking.
Even then, it's hard to find people whose politics are exactly aligned with the degree of woke of your incumbent staff or the precise political position of your company. How do you avoid employing a potential thought criminal? Truth drugs?
What happens if all the best coders are right wingers? The Great Repatriation with all the border blocks and variants means that you can no longer import tech workers so easily. The only way to stay pure would be to hand the future of tech to China.
Let's hope, should anyone discover a cure for cancer, they aren't a homophobic racist, or we'll all just have to go on getting ill.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit."
I can say that pretty much sums up my experience over 30 years in Corporate culture.
But he also left out lying, deceitful and generally back stabbing ...es
The problem we have today is everyone wants to be treated as an equal but not evaluated equally.
I have worked with some brilliant women in my time but most who have risen into management are the poster children for the "Peter Principal"!
It doesn't really matter what the truth is once someone is convicted by the court of offended public opinion... even if you clear your name in the courts, there will continue to be those who claim you "got off" and are actually guilty anyhow. I don't think I've ever seen a case where the court of public opinion changed its mind after a conviction had been reached.
You see it at all scopes and scales of human society, too. For some reason, many people will assume the worst about someone based on the smallest of facts.
I know my sense of humor offends many people. I think humor is offensive by definition unless you're telling knock-knock jokes. If I were in a position of power and had attained such levels of weath and connections and caught the attention of "the inspectors" in society, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd find something I said or did in the past to justify a torrent of vitriole and angst over my "evil nature."
For starters, I'm a single white male... in this day and age, that is apparently a strike against you from large segments of society right from the get go. *sigh*
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
