Live data from Hacker News

On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

techcrunch.com

401–410 of 443 posts

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what's so insane to me about how willing people are to throw away the foundations of civilized society for short-term political victories. Especially for those who claim to be fighting for the marginalized, it should be obvious to anyone who's not a complete idiot that the marginalized are those who suffer in the long run when dissenting speech is punished. Not to get nakedly political, but for someone who be…

Couldn't agree more. The polarization I've seen in the last two years is just insane to me. I've always been pretty firmly in the center, and I feel like it's a lot of work to stay there.

Google seems to be culturally ahead of the curve, for better or worse: some of the craziest things I've heard in the last few years (eg explicit denial of the value of innocent-until-proven-guilty and idea pluralism), I heard internally from other Googlers _years_ before I would've expected to hear it outside. (Now, of course, both of those things are routine).

Similarly, there's been a bit of a turning of the tide publicly back towards sanity: the first thing I can recall seeing that signaled a defense of basic liberal tenets was The Atlantic's "The Coddling of the American Mind". No one with a baker's dozen of brain cells found anything new in that, but for the vast majority of people who only consider an idea when their chosen publications grant their approval, it was a huge step. (Pres Obama pushed back against this kind of barbarity in his own half of the political spectrum much earlier, but he was politely ignored).

It's kind of interesting to see Google culture out in front of the pendulum's swing back, too. I can't imagine this kind of an essay being published in most "blue tribe" fora.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no positive and negative racial discrimination. There is only racial discrimination and its always a bad thing. If you are advocating for racial discrimination against European people then your no different then European people who advocated for racial discrimination against Africans. There was many books and arguments that advocated for discrimination as a 'good thing' in the 18th and 19th century. They are…

This is a curious strawman, but I'll play, what the hell? I believe you and I agree that there has been systemic oppression against, let's choose african-americans in particular. Slavery, Jim Crow, the War on Drugs, Block-Busting, these are pretty cut-and-dried examples. So the government did this stuff. I maintain that, as beneficiaries of our forefathers' efforts in establishing this country, we owe a debt to conti…

> So the government did this stuff. I maintain that, as beneficiaries of our forefathers' efforts in establishing this country, we owe a debt to continue their work and clean up their messes. It's a great benefit to live here and I have to be honest, I didn't do shit. I was born here. I did nothing but get born. My grandfather fought, my father fought, on for several generations. I am a businessman, that's what I do, and that's fine.

Your argument is confusing your very personal emotional cultural and racial feelings with what you assume to be the experience of other American citizens, this is a false presumption. You are further assuming that these feeling supersede Our legal framework and constitutional rights.

> "beneficiaries of our forefathers"

For my self and I can attest for most of my social circle neither George Washington or any of the colonial American founders or 18th and 19th century Americans are my 'forfathers'. The are the founders of America and I am legally an American citizen but I have no cultural or hereditary connection to any of these men or America previous to my families very recent immigration to this country.

"we owe a debt to continue their work and clean up their messes"

Again there is no 'work' that I or any other American citizen is legally obligate to do to as you say to 'clean up there mess'. On a general note one of the key freedoms that we enjoy in the modern democratic state that separates us from feudalism is the abolition of intergenerational debt. And again there is no intergenerational relationship between myself and any historic American hereditary.

Do you think that a Ukrainian immigrant who immigrates to this Country in 2017 should be denied employment to give the job to an Ethiopian immigrant who immigrates here in 2017 also to 'finish the work' of 18th century English American who farmed potatoes there whole life and probably never even saw a an African let alone owned any land or slaves?

Quite frankly its a bizarre and brutish sort of racial totalitarianism that is being put forward by American liberals to deny opportunity to broad brush of people they have chosen to discriminate agaist.

Should a Chinese immigrant who works as a dishwasher be denied a spot at Harvard to make room for a Black American who comes from a Millionaire sport star family so that an arbitrary quota is filled?

These historical grievances are alien to an increasing percentage of the American public who has no racial or historical connection to any of these issues. And we are certainly no going to forsake out future wealth and prosperity and the opportunities of out children to 'make happy' a small wealthy group of mostly white Americans who think they have the right to discriminate against us for 'good reasons'.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#403

No matter what side of this debate you're on, I don't think you can argue against the notion that there is only one side of it whose adherents can feel completely free to express their opinions or argue their case without fear of retaliation. Many stupid, unsupportable statements have been made by people on the left side, but I've yet to see much in the way of internet rage mobs formed against them. I think if google…

Why is it interesting to you that one side of this debate doesn't feel free to express itself? This debate has that in common with plenty of other debates, from the legitimacy of ISIS to the criminality of child pornography --- both of which are debates that have happened in some form on HN, if you think I'm just cherry picking. Sometimes these dynamics form simply because there's a clear right answer, and we're repu…

I'd ask you to read some of my past posts that brush up against this subject matter. I consider myself aggressively moderate, but if you look at the "results" of what I considered rather unoffensive thoughts, you'll see that they were met with almost immediate silencing.

First; it's a bit disingenuous to paint it as a white vs black; since much of the substance of the debate to my eyes is the nature of the intervention you chose, not "is there necessarily a problem", but given that, I think it's very fair to say those on the spectrum of opinion short of "full unflinching support" have felt a chilling effect as of the last few years. Granted I can only speak for myself, but to suggest that differing opinions on the greys of implementation could be perceived as "repulsive" is an excellent and apt example of how far the discourse has already fallen. It's on both sides, frankly. Extremely polarized with dogma abounding. I don't know how to fix that problem, unfortunately.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a curious strawman, but I'll play, what the hell? I believe you and I agree that there has been systemic oppression against, let's choose african-americans in particular. Slavery, Jim Crow, the War on Drugs, Block-Busting, these are pretty cut-and-dried examples. So the government did this stuff. I maintain that, as beneficiaries of our forefathers' efforts in establishing this country, we owe a debt to conti…

> So the government did this stuff. I maintain that, as beneficiaries of our forefathers' efforts in establishing this country, we owe a debt to continue their work and clean up their messes. It's a great benefit to live here and I have to be honest, I didn't do shit. I was born here. I did nothing but get born. My grandfather fought, my father fought, on for several generations. I am a businessman, that's what I do,…

You say you owe your country nothing. If you truly don't think so, we're all the poorer for it. A very modern malaise. The right wing in this country has taken a curious turn of late.

I think embracing these imagined grievances is going to lead you down a dark road, but living well is the best revenge. Enjoy whatever it is you get out of your trolling. Ta ta.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes are not opposed goals, and the left hasn't abandoned the former for the latter. They may not be opposed goals but if a method includes the exclusion of certain racial and sex groups then you can not call the method an equality of opportunity. You are simply trying to gift success to a preferential and privileged race or sex. That is the method the American liberal…

> They may not be opposed goals but if a method includes the exclusion of certain racial and sex groups then you can not call the method an equality of opportunity. Actual affirmative action programs do not include the exclusion of racial or gender groups, so your comment is a non-sequitur regardless of its validity in isolation. > Equality of opportunity will never, and can never guarantee an equality of outcome. Wh…

> Which is why its likely affirmative action will always be necessary.

Affirmative action programs like most progressive ideology and policy has simply not produced any tangible lasting results. In most respects the focus groups of these programs are in worse shape now then they were 30 years ago. The presumption that 'racism', 'sexism' or 'oppression' is responsible for the failure of certain groups is simply unfounded blame shifting by sloppy ideologues. And the notion that gifting them undeserved employment opportunities is going to fix there problems is also a misguided and harmful idea.

The premise is simply wrong and will continue to fail at its stated goal but have the consequence of creating new groups of disadvantaged people who have been systemically discriminated against for having an undesirable skin color or genitalia according to the Liberal Lefts preferred fetishes.

Either out of social opposition or economic necessity these programs will be ended. The most egregious of policies such as race based admission quotas that certain universities use is already under sustained lawsuits and there is every indication that they will be forced to stop there racist and misandrist discrimination against European and Asian men.

> Every poll I've ever seen breaking out support for affirmative action policies by age groups, and I've seen a lot over the from the early 1990s through the last couple of years, has consistently found support higher among younger Americans.

The Baby Boomers cling to these ideas out of stubborn habit but people under 60 when asked if they think certain racial groups should get preferential access to job opportunities strongly disagree. That's not to say certain groups think they themselves should get preferential access to jobs for xyz reasons. Disparate groups claiming they deserve affirmative action for a cornucopia of mostly undefinable grievances like 'oppression' and 'reparations' is not going to sustain these misguided programs in the current century.

It's a shame that people cling to these misguided failed ideas. There is a lot of good work people could do trying to fix the broken communities that have problems. But I suppose that would be a lot of work and perhaps not as economically rewarding as keeping a failed and bloated bureaucratic failure on its feat at least until they can retire.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At one point calculators were rows of women performing rote calculations. Early programming was similarly dull/full of detailed work that went through successive waves of abstraction. This is (also) a sexist stereotype, but maybe just maybe women are drawn to detailed work (say, needlepoint knitting, picking berries) while men are drawn to broad, imprecise work (such as selling insurance policies or chasing antelope)…

"Early programming" was essentially systems and embedded programming.

I think the point is you 'wrote' bulk of the code on paper. There weren't keyboard interfaced computers as common as they are today.

So once some programmer writes the code/flowchart, and gives it you on a paper. Its supposed to converted to punch cards/switches/whatever and then fed to a computer. The difference between the former and latter now is huge. The latter job is now nothing more than being a glorified typewriting kind of work.

I realized this when I was doing some really complicated GUI work on an embedded system. I was programming all the time on paper, I was doing it a lunch table, during transit, thinking during shower etc etc. After working several papers worth of programming, I converted it to C code, a few hundred to may be a thousand+ lines.

The real job of writing C code was largely a ritual that took like a few hours. Working out the algorithm was real programming that spanned a few days.

I could see how early programming went. Plenty of algorithm writing and unit testing through induction on paper.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#407
post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He seems to be claiming that black people, gay people, women, trans folk and the poor were in no way oppressed and it was all made up by Communists to take down capitalism. You can probably find some people who agree with individual parts of that but if you get a full bingo then you're basically dealing with a Nazi. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Ma...

> He seems to be claiming that black people, gay people, women, trans folk and the poor were in no way oppressed and it was all made up by Communists to take down capitalism. No he doesn't. He says Marxists participated in gender/race politics, and the ultimate goal of Marxists was destruction of capitalism. Which, btw, if you read any of real Marxists - who aren't exactly hiding, thanks (not ironically, they shouldn…

No, I called someone a Nazi because they put a extreme right wing conspiracy theory into a footnote of a manifesto about hiring less minorities.

No one asked for their opinion on Marxism. No one asked for their opinion on Google hiring practices. They volunteered both, and the fact that in their mind these things are entwined together.

Which, not coincidentally, is a talking point of those so far right that facist or Nazi is not a slur but a descriptive adjective, sometimes self-applied.

Plenty of people hate Marxists. It's the ones that think Google wouldn't hire gay people unless Marxist's wanted them to, and therefore hate Marxists that you need to watch.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#408
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he was never hostile towards any one person or group of people. Even if the argument he was making was that Google should fire or cut the pay of its female software engineers (which it wasn't), it wouldn't necessarily be aggressive. Let me present an argument: "Black people are killers, thieves, and lazy layabouts. Statistics [Citation, Citation, Citation] support me. The only reason employs black people is affirma…

> Black people are killers, thieves, and lazy layabouts. Introducing "killers" and "thieves" to this example distances it from the discussion we are having, since you introduced words with violent connotations. Let's leave it at: > Black people are... ...lazy layabouts. This is still a far cry from the contents of the memo, but we can work with it. There are a lot of negative adjectives that can be applied to this se…

Hacker News, where taxation is theft backed by state violence, but systemic racism is just, like, an opinion, man.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the government did this stuff. I maintain that, as beneficiaries of our forefathers' efforts in establishing this country, we owe a debt to continue their work and clean up their messes. It's a great benefit to live here and I have to be honest, I didn't do shit. I was born here. I did nothing but get born. My grandfather fought, my father fought, on for several generations. I am a businessman, that's what I do,…

You say you owe your country nothing. If you truly don't think so, we're all the poorer for it. A very modern malaise. The right wing in this country has taken a curious turn of late. I think embracing these imagined grievances is going to lead you down a dark road, but living well is the best revenge. Enjoy whatever it is you get out of your trolling. Ta ta.

I owe the United States and fellow citizens precisely what they owe me. The right to succeed or fail based on my abilities with the right to equal opportunity under the law regardless of my race religion etc.

I certainly do not owe another man's child my child's future and wealth because we have been christened 'White People' and are now responsible to atone for unfashionable property holding of 18th century English American Noblemen and be discriminated against by the state. If that is what the 'left' of America thinks this country stands for and that is how we should live then I am fairly certain they will continue on the downward trajectory into the pages of history and possibly the insane asylum.

A healthy and prosperous farewell to you my geriatric Boomer good man.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#410
post #346

> But this groupthink terrifies me when it’s used to bully people for exercising their right to free speech. How will we know what people are truly thinking if we rush to silence them? I think "right to free speech" is a weak and kind of scary argument to be making here. Inside a corporation, you don't have the same right to free speech you would have on the outside. HR can fire employees for things that wouldn't get…

> I think "right to free speech" is a weak and kind of scary argument to be making here. Inside a corporation, you don't have the same right to free speech you would have on the outside. HR can fire employees for things that wouldn't get you arrested for saying in public. It's an argument that certainly makes a lot of sense from a libertarian perspective. But those of us on the left have already dismissed similar arg…

The United States has historically given very broad protections to free speech in public, which is something I support and am very glad of. There is some kind of speech that isn't appropriate in a corporate setting. There are some kinds of speech that I think should be legally protected both inside and outside a corporation. I think the manifesto should fall inside the category of protected speech, as he was only saying things that a reasonable person might think given what he saw inside of Google. Workers should be free to criticize management decisions or comment on working conditions.

There are some things that aren't okay, though. I wouldn't want to work with someone who decorates their cubicle with iconography commemorating the third Reich, or who makes unwanted remarks about which of his or her attractive coworkers they would most like to sleep with.

I don't know exactly what the criteria should be for what speech inside a corporation should be protected and what should not, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that an employee has no right whatsoever to any free speech in the course of their job, but I don't think that an employee has exactly the same free speech rights while they're on the job that they would have in any public place.

Post reply on HN