Michael Davey
Aug 9, 2017 · 4 min read

It’s not a figure of speech, it’s being used as part of the reason to fire the guy. If it’s hyperbole, then why is it the only sentence in the entire essay that is hyperbole, which he doesn’t tend to use in his writing, and why is it being used as justification to fire the guy? Yes, it’s a ridiculous exaggeration, but that doesn’t mean it was on purpose. What’s frightening is that Yonatan seems to believe what he wrote, that “a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face”. Yonatan used the word “may”, but he is using this as at least part of the reason to fire him. He believes it. It’s not just a figure of speech.

Zunger’s punch in the face sentence is used as part of the argument to fire the guy, saying nobody can work with him. In what other instance is this an acceptable reason to fire someone? Because other employees can’t control themselves? It turns responsibility for personal behaviour on it’s head and makes anyone subject to termination because someone else is offended. Violence because you don’t like someones opinion is unacceptable. Nobody can prevent someone else from being offended. They have no right to use violence. This is the standard of behaviour we expect from people in all walks of life. Nobody gets to beat someone because they disagree with them, and employers don’t get to preemptively fire someone because other employees might beat them for their personal opinions. That requires mind reading, and if you can read minds (which nobody can) you would fire the violent people who can’t control themselves. It is amazing and frightening to me the number of people who don’t see what a problem this attitude is, and what it leads to.

Imagine others in the same position:

Pam the feminist can’t work here because a large number of employees might punch her in the face, because they don’t like her feminist opinions.

Jerry the Christian can’t work here because a large number of employees might punch him in the face because they don’t like his his fundamentalist Christian opinions.

Irving the Muslim can’t work here because a large number of employees might punch him in the face because they don’t like his religious ideology.

Cathy the meat eater can’t work here because a large number of employees are vegan and members of PETA and they might punch her in the face.

And exactly what is this threat of being punched in the face based on? How many people at Google, how many software engineers have punched other employees? How can Yonatan possibly know this is a viable threat? If he does know because of specific knowlege of specific employees, then action should be taken against them. According to at least one Google employee, it’s never happened. I’m not surprised, there are sure to be divorced couples, adulterers, child custody disputes, money disputes and much more going on. Do they get fired because someone might snap? Of course not, that would be absurd, unethical and likely the subject of a lawsuit, and so would this.
Are you or Yonatan suggesting nobody else at Google has odious opinions they have written or shared that others don’t agree with? That too is absurd. The only thing more absurd is firing someone because the other staff may attack him for his opinions. Then ANYONE is subject to termination because anyone can be offended by anything at anytime for any reason.

The fact that Zunger uses the possibility of violent uncontrollable staff as a reason to fire the guy means that Zunger believes it to be a very real possibility, for which there is zero evidence. While Yontan says “may”, his wanting to fire the guy for the reason negates the word “may”.

Zunger also published a post on Google plus that espoused the punching of Nazis. He clearly believes punching people is acceptable if they espouse odious ideas, he said so himself. The sentence of employees punching the worker is a window into Yonatans thinking.
Enforcing ideology with violence is fascism.

I note you went from saying it’s an attempt to stop violence to saying it’s “just a figure of speech”. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. Either it needs to be taken seriously, or it’s hyperbole. The problem is it doesn’t read as hyperbole in context, and as I pointed out, if so it’s the only hyperbolic sentence in the post and it’s part of his argument for firing him. It’s far more likely Yonatan wrote it because he believed it, because he thinks violence is acceptable response to speech, as is demonstrated by his Google plus post on punching nazis. It’s also clear that many people take the sentence of punching at face value, not as a figure of speech or hyperbole.

    Michael Davey

    Written by