Live data from Hacker News

The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

gizmodo.com

31–40 of 660 posts

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#31
post #7

It’s interesting that the author considers the conceptual framework of microaggressions spurious, while describing his negative experiences as a conservative Googler in terms of what a feminist might describe as microaggressions. To further undermine his own point, he asserts that several harms against conservatives have been caused by these microaggressions. The difference between effective negative feedback and har…

I don't see what's micro about losing your job for wrongthink.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#32

Ah, yes, the true believer in meritocracy, who assumes that the present-day distribution of careers and job titles is a perfect reflection of inherent skills, talents and interests hard-wired in by biology. Because there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone's ever tried to rig large-scale societal systems to discriminate on the basis of factors like race or sex, and even if there ever had been such a thing, it is co…

I took it as more of an argument against intentional, institutional discrimination (e.g. affirmative action) than an endorsement of the current system or an argument that we should leave things as they are.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of sexism and the existence of sex-specific biases in interests are not mutually exclusive. Also note that biological biases does not mean behavior is hard-wired , nurture (societal influence) and nature can both play a role at different weights. If such a natural bias exists and all and sexism is eliminated then there will still be a gender gap among the employees. And forms of affirmative action that…

Well you see, brand-new account created to hide from those scary terrible lefties who'd obviously ruin you otherwise, the probability that the distribution we observe today matches the "natural" distribution is, how shall I put this, very low . Now you might ask how I know this, and the answer is simple: open society-wide legally-endorsed discrimination is a thing within living memory here in the US, and a thing that…

Well you see, brand-new account created to hide from those scary terrible lefties who'd obviously ruin you otherwise

Is this supposed to be funny? Google employees (not to mention lots of other folks) are publicly calling for the author's firing. This is not a topic you're allowed to disagree about in good faith.

I am nervous even saying this much, for fear that you'll attack me as a defender of what you imagine to be the worst ideas of your opponents.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#35
post #19

The intellectual contortion required to get from the premise to the conclusion is actually quite impressive. > On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: > They’re universal across human cultures Except the gender ratio in science/engineering is anything but universal across cultures. 70% of science/engineering students in Iran are women: ht…

What do you know about women in CS in Iran? How many of them end up working in CS? I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers (like people not being given a choice what to study, people being forced to study something useful because they can't afford to study literature or gender studies for fun, women studying just to meet men to marry, men having mostly died in a recent war, and so on...).

Edit: I am not allowed to comment anymore, so this Eintagsfliege (mayfly) will die now. Bye.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#36

Wow, I didn't know I could cringe that much in such a short time.

The only thing cringe worthy IMO was that he didn't appear to cite any studies or data to back up his claims. Or did that publication of the document omit things like that? If he had done so, would it still be cringe worthy?

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#37

It is one thing to debated the veracity of a view, it is another to declare that that view should not be debated. For every point there is a counterpoint; every argument a counterargument. Arguing that the reasoning is flawed is not sufficient to ban it from discussion.

If there's one thing decades of arguing on the Internet has taught me, it's that debate is highly overrated.

And if there's anything decades old social science research has taught me, it's the Overton Window: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#38
post #28

It is one thing to debated the veracity of a view, it is another to declare that that view should not be debated. For every point there is a counterpoint; every argument a counterargument. Arguing that the reasoning is flawed is not sufficient to ban it from discussion.

So, would you also agree that the existence of climate change should still be up for debate, even though there is overwhelming scientific evidence in one direction? NB: I do not know what the scientific consensus is on cognitive differences between men and women.

That's a straw man reply. You cherry picked one of the most easily defensible claims and then implied that the OP would disagree. What gives you the right to implicate them in this way? Or did I miss another post in this thread where the OP did, in fact, express skepticism of climate change?

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…

It's perfectly all right to say that there are statistical differences between the average biological man and the average biological woman. The problem is to then assume a gigantic pile of facts not in evidence (that the differences observed are 100% biological with no cultural influence whatsoever, that they conclusively explain gender disparities in many fields, etc. etc.) and accuse anyone who disagrees with you o…

Blind interviews is a good idea that I think could/should satisfy parties on both sides. I mean it's really putting your ideas to the test. And either way you can take some comfort knowing that, if properly set up, the process will be fair. Now the correlation between a good interview and doing well on the job is another issue altogether.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#40

> Microaggression training wat? They now train people in microaggressions at work? Is the "training" mandatory?

It's not mandatory. However, when I was at Google several years ago, it showed up on my calendar, it was not optional, my manager said that I was expected to attend, and I attended. But it's not mandatory.

If my boss told me I am expected to attend a "microaggression training" I would quit instantly. Oh wait - that wouldn't happen because I don't work at a libero-fascist place. I have no time for bullshit, I need to get stuff done.
Post reply on HN