Earlier quoted context omitted.
To quote the original manifesto would be to normalize hatred.
If I quote Hitler in a debate about world war 2, am I normalizing the Holocaust?
Buzzzzzz. Godwin's law.
About This Googler's Manifesto
21–30 of 404 posts
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
To quote the original manifesto would be to normalize hatred.
If I quote Hitler in a debate about world war 2, am I normalizing the Holocaust?
It's a question of how you quote him. If you quote him to argue against him, especially if you do so in a reasonable, thoughtful way, you would be implying the initial statement or argument was reasoned, and thoughtful.
"Normalization" is the process by which we treat ludicrous things as not ludicrous, but debatable.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#23The easiest way to see the article is just fighting a strawman of the original manifesto is to notice the article never directly quotes the manifesto.
The article quotes “ideological echo chamber.” It also further quotes:
> The manifesto talks about making “software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration” but that this is fundamentally limited by “how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be;” and even more surprisingly, it has an entire section titled “de-emphasize empathy,” as one of the proposed solutions.
So basically you're just factually wrong.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I quote Hitler in a debate about world war 2, am I normalizing the Holocaust?
Buzzzzzz. Godwin's law.
I hope you're joking. If not, I am reminded of the scene from Idiocracy and being on the receiving end of: "You talk like a fag and your shits all retarded."
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ad-hominems aside... That's clearly not an ad hominem -- it's not even close to the definition! And, the rest of what you said is even more incorrect. Fortunately, no one is obligated to spend their time to refute your bullshit.
Insults don't add anything helpful to the discussion, and only contribute to further polarization across political divides.
There's literally no insult in my comment. But, I appreciate your desire to reduce polarization by legitimizing bigotry! Keep on keepin' on.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#26Not an argument
there is no need for one. Google is a company, not a marketplace for people's prejudices. They have every right to shut discourse like this down, and they should because it is insulting to every women working at Google.
The good thing about being a company instead of a townhall is that you don't need to accomodate adolescent men feeling insecure about their female coworkers.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#27Is there any other professional industry as politically divided and toxic as tech has become? Is there any other industry in which private companies shove their "values" down the throats of their employees in the manner we experience in tech?
Is there any other industry as thoroughly intertwined with the Bay Area? I think the political problems are tied to the far left geography.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ad-hominems aside... That's clearly not an ad hominem -- it's not even close to the definition! And, the rest of what you said is even more incorrect. Fortunately, no one is obligated to spend their time to refute your bullshit.
Insults don't add anything helpful to the discussion, and only contribute to further polarization across political divides.
You label it a "political divide" when it's one group of people who consider other humans biologically inferior, and therefore less deserving, than others.
If your beliefs are about restricting the rights of others when you have those rights yourself, you are not on one side of a "political divide." Labelling it as such is a euphemism for prejudice.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#29It's just embarrassing at this point that an engineer at a well known company like Google even thinks like this. (The original author, not Yonatan.) Reading the original manifesto felt like something my 17-year-old self would write. Too clever and completely oblivious at the same time.
I understood the original manifesto's main argument to be against intentional, institutional discrimination (e.g. affirmative action) -- with many supporting points.
I don't know what's shameful about that (unless you're referring to something else). He did seem to value gender equality in the sense that men and women should be valued and respected equally (unless I'm reading into it).
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#30> You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.
This sets the tone for the entire article: An emotionally driven rant that refutes nothing and argues against a strawman.