341–350 of 397 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you have an hard fact like: In one year the administration when from 20% female to 80% female. You can come up with all the legal mumbo jumbo you want and with your handsomely paid lawyers you can even win the lawsuit, but it's obvious they where guilty of sexual discrimination, you don't need a court ruling to understand that.
So weren't they guilty when it was 80% male, too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty silly distinction. Why should one's job title determine whether or not they can be discriminated against?
It has to do with how the lawsuits work. It would still be wrong regardless of whether it was actually illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So tell me, what exact dollar amount do you need to make where discrimination against you is ok?
It would not be OK just because it is not illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more of a question of how much leverage do you have. If everyone is discriminating against you, like Jim Crow South, it doesn't really matter how much you make, because you can't go and find a different job easily. But if discrimination is limited, and the job market for this particular job and in this particular area favors employees, then it's a self-correcting problem - people will just walk. And if a…
There is also the problems of how to prove discrimination, which is why I suggested this particular compromise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So tell me, what exact dollar amount do you need to make where discrimination against you is ok?
I think it's more of a question of how much leverage do you have. If everyone is discriminating against you, like Jim Crow South, it doesn't really matter how much you make, because you can't go and find a different job easily. But if discrimination is limited, and the job market for this particular job and in this particular area favors employees, then it's a self-correcting problem - people will just walk. And if a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience was that they refused to even talk money before doing team matching. This was less than a year ago; maybe things have changed?
That's such a strange approach. The've marked you as a "hire" but not even discussed a range? Given how long this process sometimes takes, and that good people will have multiple offers (and typically an already comfortable income), how is one supposed to make a career decision?
By finishing the process? I had other offers, and they waited the When would that take a long time? It was a quick chat with a few managers and then I picked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The decision to oust Eich is the reason why I would never knowingly hire people who practiced social justice activism. There is evidence all over Silicon Valley, including this thread, that they just cannot keep their politics and work separated. Indeed they believe it is their job to mix the two. It would be like hiring a KKK member in HR. Toxic results would be a foregone conclusion. It is the paradox of tolerance…
Speaking of Ycombinator, are you aware of it's CEO's position? http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/20/technology/sam-altman-trump/...
As you probably know Peter Thiel is a partner of Ycombinator.
https://blog.ycombinator.com/welcome-peter
In the article link you provided:
> Trump does have the support of one of Silicon Valley's biggest names: Peter Thiel, cofounder of PayPal and Palantir.
And sama says:
> On a personal note, Peter is one of the two people (along with PG) who has taught me the most about how to invest in startups.
So it is possible for people with different politics to work together. In fact I thought that was the whole point of diversity, that it was represented intellectually instead of having just a phenotype of diversity.
Personally I do not believe intellectual diversity is spread equally across all people. Many people look different to each other but exhibit evidence they are the same person because they hold so many views in common with each other. If you meet people who watch television all day you know it is true. Their minds are in sync with that of the hive. They ask the same questions and seek the same answers. That is the essence of tribalism, which is fine in competition or conflict but disadvantageous if you're searching for flaws in something, trying to found a new business model or find an untapped market segment, because that is where it makes more sense to think like a cross-pollinator.
I don't think it is a coincidence that Silicon Valley personalities are drawn to contrarianism. This is probably the biggest reason I don't like social justice people. I don't believe they are capable of being innovators. Their personality mitigates against it. I think they are masquerading as something they are not. I can think of many software projects and I'm sure you can too, in which there is a vocal minority with political opinions that sank the enterprise. The number of lines of code contributed by such people is typically either zero, low or of no real importance.
I think if you look at this upsidedown what I'm saying is obvious. Imagine you had programmers giving each other 'brofist' all the time and breaking into impromptu song 'Onward Christian Soldiers', handing each other leaflets bemoaning the local abortion clinic, maybe trying to get former army buddies onto the board...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has to do with how the lawsuits work. It would still be wrong regardless of whether it was actually illegal.
Yet, you've stated you don't want to allow certain people to file these lawsuits, which are usually the only way of trying to correct the problem. So tell me, why is it ok to deprive some people of this remedy simply because of their job title?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also the problems of how to prove discrimination, which is why I suggested this particular compromise.
Those problems exist no matter who the victim is. So your "solution" doesn't help anyone except for big businesses.