Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

About This Googler's Manifesto

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#291

Post by mcphage »

carsongross wrote: post #277
mcphage wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. All of human moral progress can be briefly summarized as "not hurting other people". Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence, but you don't solve disagreements via discussion if you attack them verbally.

Comment 1: > It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong. Comment 2: > Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence lol, always amusing when I assume both intelligence and good faith when discussing things on the internet. You think I'd learn.

Wait, are you actually equating discussions, with verbally attacking someone? And then you have the gall to accuse me of acting in bad faith?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#292

Post by [deleted] »

mcphage wrote: post #291
carsongross wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comment 1: > It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong. Comment 2: > Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence lol, always amusing when I assume both intelligence and good faith when discussing things on the internet. You think I'd learn.

Wait, are you actually equating discussions, with verbally attacking someone? And then you have the gall to accuse me of acting in bad faith?

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#293

Post by unityByFreedom »

edison85 wrote: post #278

Having read the full manifesto, I find myself agreeing with the author's thought process for a bunch of his points and clearly disagreeing with others. He presented them well, not offensive at all, and if I had a discussion with him I'm sure he seems open to change certain beliefs if presented with ample evidence. I would generally love talking to this guy. Instead everyone shames him, tells him his mostly very valid…

> Instead everyone shames him, tells him his mostly very valid thought process is sexist and his career is done

What? This guy has gotten an unbelievable amount of attention and debate on the topic he wanted to discuss, both in support and against it.

Trump got the same attention, and constantly complained he didn't get enough.

Enough with this lie that certain [far right] conservatives don't get enough press. They get plenty of it by making outlandish statements that they know will get them lots of attention, both good and bad.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#294

Post by blub »

mcphage wrote: post #204
pacala wrote: post #199

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just…

> The heretic must be isolated and extirpated, with physical violence for good measure. More like "the [heretic] has burned any social capital or respect their coworkers might have had for them, and so no longer are capable of working in a collaborative environment with their peers"

Having just read the manifesto, I've seen someone trying to approach a very tough subject in an awkward way. They were not hateful or fanatical.

It was disappointing to see they didn't provide citations for their statements, but the argumentation is quite nuanced and contains plenty of disclaimers, clarifications and apologies. The "neuroticism" statement was quite crass, but otherwise I must confess that I don't have the necessary knowledge to disprove the manifesto's argumentation. Furthermore, some statements match what I read in some evolutionary psychology books.

I believe it would be very helpful if people could correct the manifesto author's statements and provide references instead of attacking the author.

I don't see why they should lose social capital or the respect of their coworkers. Why does the US society want to punish people so severely for expressing opinions in a polite way instead of correcting them when necessary and giving them a second chance?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#295

Post by Udik »

Udik wrote: post #151
notjack wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a disagreement on political positions, this is a belief that women are inherently less capable than men at software engineering. It's a direct attack on the legitimacy and humanity of his coworkers. A disagreement over political positions would be if the author wrote a manifesto about the efficacy of sin taxes or nuclear treaties, not that his teammate Sandra is biologically inferior at her job and undese…

> this is a belief that women are inherently less capable than men at software engineering Should we therefore assume that women are equally capable as men at running the 100 meters, or at playing football? Don't get me wrong, I'm a male and probably half the women my age run faster than me or play football better than I do. But you know that this doesn't generalise: on average , men are faster runners and better foo…

At the end of the day, not a single answer. Good.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#296

Post by pacala »

blub wrote: post #294
mcphage wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The heretic must be isolated and extirpated, with physical violence for good measure. More like "the [heretic] has burned any social capital or respect their coworkers might have had for them, and so no longer are capable of working in a collaborative environment with their peers"

Having just read the manifesto, I've seen someone trying to approach a very tough subject in an awkward way. They were not hateful or fanatical. It was disappointing to see they didn't provide citations for their statements, but the argumentation is quite nuanced and contains plenty of disclaimers, clarifications and apologies. The "neuroticism" statement was quite crass, but otherwise I must confess that I don't hav…

Just in case you were reading Gizmodo's version, http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-div..., please note that the original document has been edited specifically to remove data and references.

> The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#297

Post by smb06 »

edison85 wrote: post #278

Having read the full manifesto, I find myself agreeing with the author's thought process for a bunch of his points and clearly disagreeing with others. He presented them well, not offensive at all, and if I had a discussion with him I'm sure he seems open to change certain beliefs if presented with ample evidence. I would generally love talking to this guy. Instead everyone shames him, tells him his mostly very valid…

You are saying what the guy posted wasn't offensive and also that everyone is finding it offensive.

That makes no sense unless everyone is stupid.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#298

Post by carsongross »

mcphage wrote: post #291
carsongross wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comment 1: > It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong. Comment 2: > Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence lol, always amusing when I assume both intelligence and good faith when discussing things on the internet. You think I'd learn.

Wait, are you actually equating discussions, with verbally attacking someone? And then you have the gall to accuse me of acting in bad faith?

Absolutely: I am accusing you of either that, clouded thinking, or both.

In fact, this discussion is a demonstration of my point. We are both attacking one another's intellectual and moral reasoning abilities via speech. This is better than than us having a fist fight over the matter.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#299

Post by untog »

blub wrote: post #288
untog wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We tolerate groups like the KKK or Black Panthers or Westboro Baptist because even if they are vehemently WRONG, they have a right to speak freely. We also don't hire the KKK. Those of us who run companies or manage people respect our employees more than to have a gay employee pair program with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Free speech does not mean immunity from the consequences of your actions.

It's inhuman to attempt to destroy someone's life for having politically incorrect opinions, no matter what those opinions are. The employee should instead give them a warning and educate them. Writing a manifesto is not a capital crime.

More or less inhumane than forcing a gay employee to work alongside someone that has publicly stated he thinks gay people should be killed?

The problem is that someone has to bear a cost when opinions like this are made public.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#300

Post by dictum »

edison85 wrote: post #278

Having read the full manifesto, I find myself agreeing with the author's thought process for a bunch of his points and clearly disagreeing with others. He presented them well, not offensive at all, and if I had a discussion with him I'm sure he seems open to change certain beliefs if presented with ample evidence. I would generally love talking to this guy. Instead everyone shames him, tells him his mostly very valid…

> Instead everyone shames him, tells him his mostly very valid thought process is sexist and his career is done.

It's a method: https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

Post reply on HN