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

On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 443 posts

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#151

Post by rcoveson »

mnm1 wrote: post #138

This idea that all opinions are equal and need to be respected is ridiculous and needs to stop. Politics is real and political opinions and actions have real consequences. Not all political opinions should be respected. In fact, it's our duty as citizens to evaluate and mock / scorn the opinions of others that we see as toxic. No one is protected from this and people that think they are, are feeling entitled to somet…

Not implying that I agree with anything the author said, but could you give an example of a "toxic" quote from the original memo? I'm confused because your comment makes it sound like we're talking about some vitriolic diatribe, which isn't the case at all.

Honestly, this whole thread could use more quotes from the original text. It's disturbing to me how much meta-conversation is being had about the author and his email without real examples. One of the biggest failings of the memo was its lack of citation where it was most needed; can we not hold ourselves to a higher standard?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#152

Post by mnm1 »

jblow wrote: post #144
mnm1 wrote: post #138

This idea that all opinions are equal and need to be respected is ridiculous and needs to stop. Politics is real and political opinions and actions have real consequences. Not all political opinions should be respected. In fact, it's our duty as citizens to evaluate and mock / scorn the opinions of others that we see as toxic. No one is protected from this and people that think they are, are feeling entitled to somet…

I find pretty unconscionable this line of rhetoric, which I see a lot lately from people on the left: "this isn't a free speech issue, because it's not the government doing the censoring". I want to live in a society that embraces liberal values like freedom of expression. Preventing the government from encroaching on those values is a good idea. But if we then go and clamp down on those freedoms everywhere else, the…

So then the government should step in and provide protections against his firing? Should they tell Google, no you can't fire this guy even though you don't like him and he's bringing down the morale of your whole workforce? Should that apply to someone who might actually be a neo-Nazi or become one during an employment term? Should Google be forced to hire / unable to fire people tattooed with swastikas or ones that verbally support ISIS or any other number of despicable positions?

And how is the government going to choose the right side of enforcement here? Company A wants to fire an employee for X and now we have government intervention to the utmost degree. Yeah, that's exactly the kind of society that "embraces liberal values like freedom of expression." No one has a right to a job or to not have their opinions trashed because they're stupid, cruel, or whatever they may be. If you're complaining that corporations have too much power, I agree, but that's a completely different point.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#153

Post by chrisco255 »

losteverything wrote: post #37

This is called growing up. We dont need to know how everyone thinks. We dont want to know either. We tailor our words to our audience. We avoid saying or typing dumb things. We only say what we really feel to our confidante. These outwardly stupid writings are simply that: bad childish judgement.

Growing up is being able to hear an opposing viewpoint without automatically dismissing their intelligence or morality. Growing up is understanding that no one is immune from the influence of their peers, upbringing, or background. Growing up is engaging in a constructive conversation instead of shaming someone into silence or unfriending or firing someone in a knee jerk manner. Growing up is accepting and appreciating our differences in thought and understanding that the vast majority of people actually mean well.

Are there limits to this line of thinking? Sure, if someone is being a completely disrespectful asshole, that's when they deserve to be shut down. If someone puts forward a thoughtful essay...even a half thoughtful essay...even if that rocks you to your core...growing up is realizing that even your values are not absolutely correct.

Discussion is the only way we ever get to engage with other points of view. Discussion is an invitation and opportunity to be persuaded otherwise.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#154

Post by AlexCoventry »

grey-area wrote: post #130
EddieRingle wrote: post #43

One of my first exposures to this "manifesto" was on Twitter with someone starting a thread with "Google has a Nazi problem." The majority of the other responses I read either attacked the author, dismissed the entire text in whole, and/or refused to actually argue the paper's points because they saw them as so ridiculous or "obviously" wrong. I read the paper. I don't see at all how it relates to fascism, Trumpism,…

Since most of these threads are pretty content free, and you asked for it, here's a rebuttal, by a woman who's good at math. https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3... Of course men and women are different on average, but are they different enough to justify the massive disparity in tech? No.

That is a lazy slide deck. From the paper it cites (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-14384-001):

> It is important for us to know that females begin in high school to perform less well than males on mathematical problem-solving tasks. Problem solving is critical for success in many mathematics-related fields, such as engineering and physics. In this sense, mathematics skills may continue to be a critical filter.

It speculates that this may be because

> the content of problem-solving items on those tests may have heavy representation of masculine-stereotyped content, which has been shown to produce better performance by males in some studies, although results on the issue are mixed

So the Figure 1 the slide uses from the paper has smeared the critical skill, from a software-development perspective, across a large set of other math-related skills. The results of the paper with respect to that skill are inconclusive, not surprising since it's a 27-year-old meta-analysis. Surely there are better results to cite by now?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#155

Post by mnm1 »

rcoveson wrote: post #151
mnm1 wrote: post #138

This idea that all opinions are equal and need to be respected is ridiculous and needs to stop. Politics is real and political opinions and actions have real consequences. Not all political opinions should be respected. In fact, it's our duty as citizens to evaluate and mock / scorn the opinions of others that we see as toxic. No one is protected from this and people that think they are, are feeling entitled to somet…

Not implying that I agree with anything the author said, but could you give an example of a "toxic" quote from the original memo? I'm confused because your comment makes it sound like we're talking about some vitriolic diatribe, which isn't the case at all. Honestly, this whole thread could use more quotes from the original text. It's disturbing to me how much meta-conversation is being had about the author and his e…

That's really up to Google to decide in this case. My personal opinion on whether his writings are toxic is irrelevant. It seems a lot of people are outraged by it, both in and out of Google. If Google does decide that this is toxic, even if just from a PR point of view, they should have no problem firing the guy. That's my point. Expressing opinions is not an action without consequences.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#156

Post by rcoveson »

mnm1 wrote: post #155
rcoveson wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not implying that I agree with anything the author said, but could you give an example of a "toxic" quote from the original memo? I'm confused because your comment makes it sound like we're talking about some vitriolic diatribe, which isn't the case at all. Honestly, this whole thread could use more quotes from the original text. It's disturbing to me how much meta-conversation is being had about the author and his e…

That's really up to Google to decide in this case. My personal opinion on whether his writings are toxic is irrelevant. It seems a lot of people are outraged by it, both in and out of Google. If Google does decide that this is toxic, even if just from a PR point of view, they should have no problem firing the guy. That's my point. Expressing opinions is not an action without consequences.

I agree with you, but I would add to what you're saying by noting that this very thread and the opinions expressed in it, along with those expressed by the media, will influence Google's decision in a huge way. If a sufficient percentage of the general public considers this memo toxic and irredeemable, this guy could get fired (and I agree, that is absolutely Google's prerogative). On the other hand, if the pervasive opinion is that the views he expressed, wrong or right, were not expressed in an overly negative or aggressive way, Google is likely to keep their engineer.

This isn't unlike The Oatmeal vs. Funnyjunk, or the United Airlines thing. The Internet and the opinions expressed on it really do make decisions for people, companies, juries, and the like.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#157

Post by bassman9000 »

kristianc wrote: post #27

The major elephant in the room here, which the memo doesn't seem to address, is that as late as the 1960's, computer programming was seen as a natural career for young women. Has biology changed that much in the last fifty years?

This is blatantly misleading. computer programming was mostly typewriting back then.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#158

Post by pnathan »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #26
pnathan wrote: post #12

What happens when the lone voice is in the right, and the mass of people are in the wrong, and all of the preponderance of current science and wisdom is against the lone voice? It's no great stretch to find examples through history of this in different social contexts.

> What happens when the lone voice is in the right, and the mass of people are in the wrong, and all of the preponderance of current science and wisdom is against the lone voice? Unless you're trying to endorse that memo, perhaps you should save this comment for when that actually happens.

How would we know? In all likelihood, we'd be in the majority then too...

Are we actually right? is a good question.

Are we letting people ask the provocative questions to move forward is the bigger question that must be asked. Wherever we are on the political question.

Truth often is uncomfortable.

Now, if I say "I think the memo was wrong", could you trust me? Would I be conforming ideologically to avoid blow back... or would I really believe it? :) I leave it to those who know me or hunt comment histories to form an opinion...

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#159

Post by mnm1 »

rcoveson wrote: post #156
mnm1 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really up to Google to decide in this case. My personal opinion on whether his writings are toxic is irrelevant. It seems a lot of people are outraged by it, both in and out of Google. If Google does decide that this is toxic, even if just from a PR point of view, they should have no problem firing the guy. That's my point. Expressing opinions is not an action without consequences.

I agree with you, but I would add to what you're saying by noting that this very thread and the opinions expressed in it, along with those expressed by the media, will influence Google's decision in a huge way. If a sufficient percentage of the general public considers this memo toxic and irredeemable, this guy could get fired (and I agree, that is absolutely Google's prerogative). On the other hand, if the pervasive…

I agree that the opinions of the general public will influence that decision. To some extent, they should as they have always done. This is part of living in a society and sharing things electronically. One needs to be aware of this before sharing opinions, especially when they are specifically related to one's employment. This isn't a case of making a joke on Twitter and getting fired for it. His opinions also have an effect on his co workers and the whole company so I see no reason why this shouldn't be so. Imagine trying to work with this guy as a woman, knowing he thinks less of you simply because you're a woman. He really should have thought of this before sharing his rant or even putting it on a computer. He can't claim he doesn't know what happens to shared digital data (you can't control it) because he's a Google engineer.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#160

Post by bassman9000 »

russelluresti wrote: post #96

Regarding the "is it okay to fire this engineer" argument the author is making - here's what I'd ask the author. If you were managing the team this person was on, would you feel comfortable placing a female engineer on the team to work with him knowing the he fundamentally believes women are inadequate engineers? That answer should be "No." By that alone, that engineer has created a toxic team environment. You can't…

You've clearly misrepresented his views, and probably haven't read the thing at all. His point is against positive discrimination trying to even what he perceives is an statistical reality: less women apply for the job for biological reasons.

The fact that there are less women applying doesn't mean you can't find one suitable for the job, and one that's better than any other candidate applying for it.

Post reply on HN