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

Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#321

Post by dopamean »

pokemongoaway wrote: post #238
dopamean wrote: post #201

I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensib…

It seems that your whole comment doesn't work if you don't mischaracterize the whole situation. Please quote the original racism and/or misogyny. And yes, someone should legally be able to cite, for example, that Asians typically have higher IQs than others - don't you think? Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion, then how are you so different from a white who…

I didn't make an argument at all. I actually somewhat support the guy who got fired (only in that I don't think he should have been fired). All I want to know is how organizations can include people with views that other members of the organization find to be abhorrent.

> Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion, then how are you so different from a white who wouldn't go to school anymore after the first black joined?

This is an oversimplification of what I said and also doesn't make sense even on it's own. A black person's mere presence at a school does not negatively affect the other students at the school. A person more senior than me who holds the belief that for some made up biological reason I am less capable than someone else can actually negatively affect my career.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#322

Post by dopamean »

SamBam wrote: post #316
pokemongoaway wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that your whole comment doesn't work if you don't mischaracterize the whole situation. Please quote the original racism and/or misogyny. And yes, someone should legally be able to cite, for example, that Asians typically have higher IQs than others - don't you think? Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion, then how are you so different from a white who…

> Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion... OP didn't say he would quit because one of his colleagues held a (in his example) racist opinion, but would do so if the company just turned around and said that black employees should just be "more open-minded" to those opinions. You can separately debate whether the original memo was as bad as OP's racist example, b…

Thank you. I realize no that it's easy to think that I believe the made up scenario I presented is the same as what happened at Google. That wasn't my intention. My point was to answer the question (that pretty much no one has even attempted to answer) of how do you include people in an organization who hold views that are so counter to what many others in the organization believe. And not just different views but views that are thought to lead to real world negative consequences.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#323

Post by davidreiss »

edynoid wrote: post #276
davidreiss wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sounds like that weird right-wing notion of "censorship" I'm not right-wing, whatever that means nowadays. I'm what you would call a liberal from NY. > When I hear "censorship" I am thinking of government agents sitting in newspaper editorial rooms striking out all statements in an article that does not align with the government's point of view. Really? So if google blocks all lgbt content, it wouldn't be cens…

The "right-wing" categorization is probably not that helpful, I agree. If I understand you correctly, by turning the argument around (against LGBT, atheist, liberal, etc. people) you want to challenge my point that it is okay to criticize and resist certain opinions and draw consequences from them. I feel like there is a big difference between the scenario at hand and systematic persecution of certain groups of peopl…

> I feel like there is a big difference between the scenario at hand and systematic persecution of certain groups of people.

What's the difference? Persecution is persecution.

> You seem to assign a huge value to keeping a job.

It's one of the most important aspects of people's lives. One way of oppressing people is through their employment. What better way is there to intimidate and silence people other than attacking their employment?

> From my point of view, that employee actually tried to advance a very hostile political agenda with what he wrote

Care to point out where the hostility is? The guy was participating in a google led private forum. Nothing he wrote can be objectively and honestly construed as hostile.

> where you need to fight with people over whether you are even biologically capable of doing your job.

Pointing out biological differences is science. Saying that perhaps there are biological advantages that kenyans enjoy in long distance running

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/wh...

or that tibetans/himalayans are better adapted to high altitude environments

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-hi...

isn't hostile.

To say stating certain biological conditions exist is hostile is a form of anti-science rhetoric that all peoples on all side should be concerned with.

> And, no, I would not defend Google for firing somebody for, say, being a lesbian. That's a completely different scenario.

You say it is a different scenario but you don't explain why? A muslim company asks their employees to discuss on their private channel on how they could be a better company. A pro-lgbt person says we need more lgbt people in the company. Some muslim employees find it offensive and leaks this out to the media and the muslim media wages a media war against this pro-lgbt person. So they fire this pro-lgbt person. How is it any different?

All you are saying is that you just want your side to be protected. The "others" deserve no protection or empathy. That is very worrying.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#324

Post by stefantalpalaru »

xenadu02 wrote: post #181
TeMPOraL wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Having read the original memo, if anything in there actually violates Google's Code of Conduct, then they need to have a serious discussion about the CoC itself (and how they interpret it).

Uhh Pichai repeats exactly what the memo claimed: that women are >being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.” Go ahead and claim women are more neurotic and have a lower stress tolerance. Don’t expect everyone to pat you on the back and claim you’re just expressing a minority viewpoint... because you clearly aren’t. James Damore didn’t bother to do any research…

> Uhh Pichai repeats exactly what the memo claimed: that women are

>> being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

> Go ahead and claim women are more neurotic and have a lower stress tolerance.

Pichai seems to think that "neurotic" is an insult. Turns out it's just part of an established model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#325

Post by dopamean »

morgtheborg wrote: post #288
dopamean wrote: post #201

I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensib…

> Should the company just say "well this guy made some good points maybe we should reconsider our diversity programs." Only if they had been so close-minded to not consider that possibility before and are now convinced when this new evidence is presented after doing their due diligence to verify it (good luck with that). Seems more likely the truth of the guy's points are irrelevant and the programs the company provi…

Thanks for the reply. You're pretty much the only person that attempted to answer my question.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#326

Post by justinjlynn »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #314
justinjlynn wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, just that we won't get access to it. It may as well be an argument from authority - because that is what it is. One cannot hide behind "but the data show" and then refuse to show the data. That is not how science works and we shouldn't accept it for a second from anyone.

This is also the same argument about the success of the TSA in stopping terrorist attacks. They've stopped them, but refuse to show you the data.

Yes, but that's not really on topic for this discussion, is it?

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#327

Post by SamBam »

jazzyk wrote: post #258
edynoid wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, I am not alleging this in particular. For all I know, it might be true. Although given Breitbart's history reading anything on that site does not hold much value. After all, they have run stories about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring and continuously deny the scientifically evident reality of climate change, for example.

So, using your logic, I assume nothing in the NYT holds much value to you, because they have run stories (without proving any evidence) about "Trump and the prostitutes" in Moscow?

Has the NYT ever claimed that Trump met prostitutes in Moscow?

Go ahead, find a link saying they have.

Did Breitbart push the PizzaGate sex ring story? [Yes](https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552), [absolutely](https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920).

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#328

Post by stefantalpalaru »

cdubzzz wrote: post #69
visarga wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When calling it a "code of conduct" does it refer to concrete actions, or just expressing opinions? Other than speech, what was the violation here? Restricting free speech by threat of firing is the solution everyone is applauding? Apparently Google is declaring an attitude in opposition to what they did: "many points raised in the memo ... are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those…

Speech is action and just as capable of breaking any rule or code as physical action. Free speech is also not really relevant here as it has to do with the government's inability to restrict speech. I think it is certainly a very fine line to walk and people (including Google employees) will definitely see it in a lot of different ways. But, reading this as an outsider, the note appears to me to address the situation…

> Free speech is also not really relevant here as it has to do with the government's inability to restrict speech.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#329

Post by zaptheimpaler »

dopamean wrote: post #322
SamBam wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion... OP didn't say he would quit because one of his colleagues held a (in his example) racist opinion, but would do so if the company just turned around and said that black employees should just be "more open-minded" to those opinions. You can separately debate whether the original memo was as bad as OP's racist example, b…

Thank you. I realize no that it's easy to think that I believe the made up scenario I presented is the same as what happened at Google. That wasn't my intention. My point was to answer the question (that pretty much no one has even attempted to answer) of how do you include people in an organization who hold views that are so counter to what many others in the organization believe. And not just different views but vi…

What do you mean how? You just let them be in the organization. You let there be disagreement too. You foster a culture that encourages people to put aside their differences and do things the orgs way when its time to work, but you don't shame, lynch and fire everyone who disagrees.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#330

Post by justinjlynn »

palra wrote: post #293
ipsin wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Yonatan Zunger's essay Tolerance is not a moral precept [1] -- linked off his response to the "manifesto" -- did a good job of addressing this scenario. [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

That's almost a word-for-word restatement of Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" essay in A Critique of Pure Tolerance, which is essentially stating that Tolerance is only a great good so long as it means tolerance for Marxist ideas and that no leftwingers should ever be tolerant towards rightwing views.

Interesting, so, in a way, one's precept of tolerance is a meta-ideology in and of itself?
Post reply on HN