What duty does the majority have to respect the feelings of the minority? Google recently posted that less than one percent of their population was non binary.
If there was a concern that impacted every non binary Googler and they all spoke out passionately, it might not register as a major voice, but it still seems important to listen.
Should we only concern ourselves with what the majority thinks? Isn't that the groupthink I see everyone talking about? Or should we take time to listen to these minority viewpoints and ensure we are building an environment where they feel welcome?
sure and what if 20 percent feel strongly the opposite way but cant say anything or else they will be bullied by the 1 pct and called bigots and fired like damore?
I'm sure 1 pct of people are white supremacists but we don't listen to them just because they whinge
Well, why don't you listen to white supremacists? There are a number of them in America, and they certainly feel aggrieved. Shouldn't they have a seat at the table, to support diversity of viewpoint? What if they've got some points?
Perhaps you know already that the white supremacists are wrong, no matter how many of them there are?
This is the fundamental meta-question of appointing an ethics committee: you have to have some idea, already, of what is ethical. That idea could be—but probably isn't—to follow the world around you in proportion to their beliefs. That idea almost certainly is to follow your own existing sense of right and wrong. You want to find people who seem better at you than reasoning but the same as you in ultimate values. You want people who are going in the same direction you are, just better at getting there.
If the 20% can't speak out without creating a hostile work environment, then no, they probably should not speak out. The devil doesn't need nearly as many advocates as it gets.
... And your implied comparison of Google's trans employees to white supremacists suggests you may not understand this difference yet. Some aspects of morality are considered (legally and morally) no longer up for debate.
Sure, Google has and always has had the option of deciding that engineers should shut up about their opinions and just work and not ask questions. I suspect Google management realizes that isn't going to work. They've been able to hire and retain good people with the "bring your whole self to work," "don't be evil," etc. policies. If they want to try "We're no different from Oracle, but with brighter colors and maybe better pay," they shouldn't expect to continue being more successful than Oracle. They can fire their best people and hire some mediocre replacements.
Well, why didn't they get rid of the SJWs during the Damore kerfuffle instead of firing Damore? Some scenarios:
- Google leadership is, themselves, SJWs. They're just SJWs who are bad at things but once something problematic is brought to their attention they take actions of their own volition.
- Google leadership is a bunch of pushovers who listen to the most vocal faction even if it's a tiny minority and chase PR over getting things done. This means Google absolutely should not have AIs taking actions in an ethical framework decided upon by Google leadership, and certainly shouldn't have an outside council to legitimize their actions, because it isn't always the SJWs who will be loudest. (And in particular, there was a legitimate risk of the Heritage Foundation injecting its worldview into Google through James, because there's also a loud strain in American conservatism.) Google should be broken up and someone else should try.
- Actually, the SJWs are disproportionately responsible for Google's engineering success, despite being a minority, and if you're tired of them speaking for you, you need to prove that Google can survive without them. (Or they're not a minority, and there's a silent majority of people who stay quiet but are actually aligned with the SJWs, or something else equivalent.)
