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

Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 352 posts

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#261

Post by kafkaesq »

lliamander wrote: post #258
kafkaesq wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt that any judge (or sufficiently informed jury) would find that Google acted in response to any political activity on his part, per se.

Perhaps not, but what was Google responding to? The central concern of the employee (as stated in his memo) was the political behavior by Google. See also: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google...

Right, but I from what I understand the statutes that project against coercion on the basis of "political behavior" define it fairly narrow terms such as endorsing candidates, making donations and so forth. Which do not apply in this case.

And as to "organizing for better workplace conditions" - well yeah, there's some overlap, there. But his campaign went quite a ways beyond that, as well.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#262

Post by flukus »

rbanffy wrote: post #237
oskbor wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you even read his text? Please quote the "deeply hurtful" passages

We can start from the implication that it's natural there are less women in the profession because most of them are biologically unsuited to it. Now replace woman with black (or Jew) and see what happens. Do you still think it's OK?

If it was true then yes. If you find reality offensive then that's your problem to deal with.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#263

Post by azinman2 »

nxsynonym wrote: post #175
azinman2 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guessing you’re not a minority in anyway. When others who aren’t a member of your class tell you anything that’s inherent to your class DOES hurt people... such ideas are often used to restrict what you can do or set you up for failure in society in a particular way because ideas spread. They also do a lot of internal self-harm just from being expressed by others. It’s bad enough to get that in life in general, but t…

You know what they say about assuming things... I get this is a sensitive topic, but don't try to discount my opinion by claiming I don't have the necessary experience or vantage point. You know nothing about me.

You asked for a substantive reply given the downvotes by others, and I gave you one. Are you going to reply to it or focus on the guess (which I called out as a guess... hardly an assumption).

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#264

Post by azinman2 »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #42
azinman2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it’s not civil when you suggest there’s inherently biological reasons for your coworkers to be inferior to you.

Those who keep misusing the word "inferior" instead of "different" expose themselves for either having not read, or not understood, what was written.

I admit that I read everything surrounding it and not the original document before commenting here. That’s a rare moment for me as I usually RTFA before commenting. I’ve now read it, thank you for calling me out on that.

That said, I don’t think it’s a textbook example of civil discourse to be circulating this within your own organization. When one side suggests “distributions of differences” are root causes (without diving into them and first principals), it takes all the oxygen out of the room. It makes for a very uncivil situation for colleagues to have to defend their own gender.

Cloaking false information inside of distributions and using the word “different” doesn’t mean somehow that the expressed opinions are fair, unbiased, or rooted in some truth. It clearly implied that we shouldn’t expect an equal distribution of men and women in tech because women “on average” aren’t as well suited for the job. Bullshit.

I’ve seen myself male dominated teams that create their own monoculture that makes it hard for an outsider to enter. I’ve been part of such teams at Google! It’s not necessarily the fault of the people on the team, and for the most part people seemed to want to accept others. But I did encounter moments of racism, sexism, and homophobia that were quite shocking to me. And I’m a white male, so presumably people felt “comfortable” with me there enough to express it. Can you imagine being be a woman of color and trying to feel welcome? And this was a less bro-y team. Being gay I felt very uncomfortable with it, but at least they automatically gave me an intellectual pass due to the “distributions” I come from.

We need to look at individuals and not distributions to bring a class up. Over time societal forces change, which will affect such “averages.” It used to be that on average, women didn’t work outside the come. That’s no longer true. It used to be that on average, women made far far less than men. That’s no longer true (but still not equal.) Things are dynamic, so by trying to hide under statistics we ignore the potential (and necessity) for change. This article _implies_ that females inherently inferior for high-level Google/tech jobs (or things that deal with “ideas”... so insulting)... and that’s just plain wrong.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#265

Post by WalterSear »

MBCook wrote: post #208
WalterSear wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His previous behaviour is as irrelevant as the content of his post: he was given an expectation of safety to express his opinion and that trust was abused by multiple parties.

Is it? If he has a pattern of making statements deemed by HR demeaning to women (or whatever the problem was) as was told "don't keep doing that or else you're fired" this could easily be seen as violating that agreement.

Why don't you read it yourself and see what all the fuss was about.

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#266

Post by jshevek »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #233
jshevek wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but this mob rule rests on the authoritarian mindset of the individuals, and their ability to coerce centralized authorities to use/abuse their power.

I'd put it slightly differently: People with an authoritarian mindset stir up this mob rule as a path for the authoritarians to exercise power. But maybe I'm saying the same thing as you are...

I think we are in agreement, though we are speaking of two slightly different types of "authoritarian mindsets".

I think you are speaking of those who wish to become part of an authoritarian elite.

I'm speaking of the mob members who simply agree with certain absolutist and easily manipulated notions. (Like: "Hate speech is violence", or "we should never question someones claim of being emotionally hurt"). Simply believing in these notions make prone to mob aggression in support of authoritarianism.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#267

Post by rifung »

jshevek wrote: post #226
rifung wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have but I can't quote anything because I wasn't offended. Other people were clearly hurt by it though and I don't believe I'm in a position where I should tell other people what they should or shouldn't feel.

We are all responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of claims of being hurt by someone. Otherwise dishonest or mentally unwell people hold us all hostage to their arbitrary claims.

> We are all responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of claims of being hurt by someone. Otherwise dishonest or mentally unwell people hold us all hostage to their arbitrary claims.

If they are mentally unwell, it doesn't make their suffering any less real does it? I admit I am biased as someone with a mental illness, I wouldn't want someone to disregard my opinion based on knowledge of my illness.

As for dishonest people, I suppose I like to believe I can believe other Googlers, especially when there are so many of them in this case who were upset by this.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#268

Post by slg »

jshevek wrote: post #266
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd put it slightly differently: People with an authoritarian mindset stir up this mob rule as a path for the authoritarians to exercise power. But maybe I'm saying the same thing as you are...

I think we are in agreement, though we are speaking of two slightly different types of "authoritarian mindsets". I think you are speaking of those who wish to become part of an authoritarian elite. I'm speaking of the mob members who simply agree with certain absolutist and easily manipulated notions. (Like: "Hate speech is violence", or "we should never question someones claim of being emotionally hurt"). Simply bel…

>I'm speaking of the mob members who simply agree with certain absolutist and easily manipulated notions. (Like: "Hate speech is violence", or "we should never question someones claim of being emotionally hurt"). Simply believing in these notions make prone to mob aggression in support of authoritarianism.

Do you have anything to support that notion?

We are all prone to mob aggression. That is the whole problem with mobs. It allows the individual to disconnect themselves from the actions of the whole. Any large group of people has the potential to turn into a mob.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#269

Post by ucaetano »

macspoofing wrote: post #216
MBCook wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what the GP meant is that if you're a young white guy this all seems a bit accedemic because your job isn't in direct question. Perhaps it would be harder to get hired in the future. If you're in a minority being questioned (women here, could be a racial group, age range, etc) people are directly questioning your ability and implying you aren't fit for your job. It looks like a much more personal attack. So t…

>I think what the GP meant is that if you're a young white guy I know what he meant. I know what you mean as well. This isn't a substantive conversation on the issue. You and OP are not putting forward a cogent argument to support a position. You're making an appeal to emotion and valuing an opinion based on the skin color and gender of the person that argued it - not on its own merits. >It looks like a much more per…

> I know what he meant.

No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone, I can see that not only you completely misunderstood my post, but also was offended by it.

Not only that, you don't even seem to think that maybe you don't know, that there are different ways to voice and interpret messages.

I'm not making an appeal to emotion, I'm explaining that perhaps you can't comprehend why people act in a certain manner because you're not in their place. That is normal, we all do it. It has nothing to do with gender or skin color, just with not being in the place of the other person.

I even tried to make it very clear:

> Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't make us better or worse, just humans.

But you just chose to ignore it and believe in your own truth.

So not only you don't know what I meant, you intentionally ignored my clarification and decided to create your own reality. And I'm sure that no matter what I say, you'll continue to claim that I just mean to offend you.

Well, if the cap fits, wear it.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#270

Post by joelrunyon »

twentythree wrote: post #245
joelrunyon wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Colin wasn't fired. He opted out of his contract - making himself a free agent. http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2/Colin-Kaepernick-Opts-Ou... This is like quitting your job and complaining you don't have a job.

That's not a fair comparison; Kaepernick would have been cut had he not opted out. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/31/john-lynch-4... "We gave him the option, ‘You can opt out, we can release you, whatever.’ And he chose to opt out, but that was just a formality."

I think it's more complicated than that. They didn't get along - evidenced by the fact he gave up almost $15M in guarantees to opt-out.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/3/1/14599712/colin-kaepern...

There's a lot of other issues here - it's unfair to say he got "fired" because of what he did last year. He's been very bad lately - huge dropoff since he went to the SuperBowl.

Post reply on HN