Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#281

Post by coldtea » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:19 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #101

coldtea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author was fired because some issues are considered thought crimes and you have to go with the mainstream opinion.

For a clear-cut example: Is calling my co-workers who are people of colour racial slurs a thought crime? Should I be fired for that, or should my employer tolerate it? Should I be allowed to make remarks about how evolutionary psychology tells me that women should be in the kitchen? Or that African Americans are predisposed to crime? At what point does saying things stops becoming thought crime, and starts becoming '…

>Is calling my co-workers who are people of colour racial slurs a thought crime?

Probably. Did the Google guy do even remotely that (or the sexist analogous)? No.

>At what point does saying things stops becoming thought crime, and starts becoming 'creating a hostile work environment'? There has to be a point of crossover, somewhere, right?

That would be relevant if I had said that there's no point of crossover.

But my "thought crime" argument wasn't that saying some things can't be "beyond the pale" (which I can agree with).

Rather it was that today some things can't even be discussed openly with rational arguments because people are not allowed to even touch them without automatically being labelled -- however good their intentions are and however sensical their arguments -- or how in accordance to science.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#282

Post by jhanschoo » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:19 AM UTC

keerthiko wrote: post #279

josteink wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's core, it was very unscientific He was very good at sourcing almost every single one of his claims with references to published scientific studies. Your statement on the other hand has zero quotes to support your claim. I know which one I will consider "unscientific".

A scientific approach to discussing something is not about upholding your view with select studies that back your viewpoint. It's about proposing a hypothesis, then collecting and presenting unbiased studies, observations and data for all sides, and then supporting final inferences and conclusions. The last part is "the message" of a scientific publication (the "why I worked on/wrote this"). Why was his memo unscient…

Actually, his conclusion itself was also sourced: his main contention was that Google should reconsider its positive discrimination policies, and he cited a WSJ article reporting that positive discrimination can lead to more gender strife.

I think the standard that you have set for the author expressing these opinions is unfairly high, and the bar that you have set for yourself for criticizing him for expressing that is unfairly low. You criticize that the author has cherry-picked his sources; you now have to support that claim by showing the deluge of counter-studies that show that it is not true that women are inclined to X personality. I've checked the Slate article and it doesn't link to sources that show that. In fact, the first paragraph of the article links to articles that agree with that WSJ article and with the author that discrim. leads to gender strife.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#283

Post by jhanschoo » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:29 AM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #235

macspoofing wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy isn't a racist or a misogynist. A better example is an atheist working with an evangelical. Both the atheist and the evangelical will have very strong opinions on each others' belief systems.

Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in his profession because their biology makes the inherently less interested in it?

I'd like you to more closely read the thrust of his memo. His main thrust is that Google should review their processes and see if they can't create a workplace that the average woman would like to work in (taking as inspiration the average personality tendencies of the average woman), without resorting to sledgehammer positive-discrimination policies that target women because they are women.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#284

Post by dqv » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:38 AM UTC

keerthiko wrote: post #279

josteink wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's core, it was very unscientific He was very good at sourcing almost every single one of his claims with references to published scientific studies. Your statement on the other hand has zero quotes to support your claim. I know which one I will consider "unscientific".

A scientific approach to discussing something is not about upholding your view with select studies that back your viewpoint. It's about proposing a hypothesis, then collecting and presenting unbiased studies, observations and data for all sides, and then supporting final inferences and conclusions. The last part is "the message" of a scientific publication (the "why I worked on/wrote this"). Why was his memo unscient…

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/07/the_google_a...

> the sources linked in this slate article

I couldn't find any counter-studies in the article you linked. I tried traversing the sources, but those sources don't have any studies either. Is that the link you intended to post?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#285

Post by jhanschoo » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:39 AM UTC

dangerlibrary wrote: post #23

sidlls wrote: post #8

What's more likely: the author was fired for suggesting alternate methods of improving diversity at Google or the author was fired for repeating unsupported gender stereotypes, offering alternate methods that themselves played on gender stereotypes, and creating an environment in which he would not be able to effectively carry out his responsibilities as a result of promoting gender stereotypes?

A false dichotomy. A third: Google is currently in hot water with the Department of Labor for their extreme gender pay gap and wants a PR win.

I'm personally entertaining the possibility that for Google to engage in a proper response would require it to admit to certain illegal positive discrimination practices.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#286

Post by slavak » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:43 AM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #223

GhotiFish wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be blunt, it kinda does. Before, the major actor that could issue genuine consequences for speech was the state. The word "Consequences" in the statement "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", means a punch to the face or a stern shaming from townsfolk. You got on with it, kept doing your job, continued to live your life. When the state objected to your speech, it would end your life, it woul…

Before, he'd have said it among his friends, who would dismiss it and forget his opinions the following morning. He published his opinion, that Google's efforts that enabled thousands of his female peers to pursue careers there, are misguided and harmful, that some of his female coworkers are biologically unsuited to their jobs. He did it to himself.

He said nothing of the sort you're attributing to him here, yet here you are with the pitchfork. What brought this on him was the internet lynch mob condemning him as "anti-diversity" without taking the time to even look at the pictures he included in his memo, let alone read the damn thing.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#287

Post by slavak » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:50 AM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #98

naturalgradient wrote: post #10

What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian. Not the Tweeters shaking with…

> What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. How is this any different than if I was to exercise my "free speech" to insult my CEO and found myself fired? This was a private corporation, operating in an at-will employment state. Now if the government had taken steps to censor speech,…

I think the problem people have with this is that Google was (and still is) promoting themselves as a place where expressing differing opinions is welcome and encouraged, and the internal forum where he posted this was apparently used and promoted as just that. (A sort of "Google-only Reddit," as some Googlers describe it.)

I think it's widely accepted that work is generally a place where discussion of politics and gender relations is not appropriate. I know I do my best to avoid arguments on those topics at work, and that's fine. But when your employer explicitly encourages carrying out this kind of discussion in specific work-only forums, and then turns around and punishes you for it when some people throw a hissy-fit, that's gonna leave a bad taste in many people's mouths.

To use your example, if I insulted my CEO and got fired for it no one would be surprised. But if my CEO was soliciting honest feedback on their performance and then I got fired for pointing out some stuff they dropped the ball on, I'd be (understandably, I think) quite upset.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#288

Post by zimpenfish » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:55 AM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #260

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.

The point is: the employee had concerns about working conditions at Google and how Google was pursuing it's goals. He even offered (what he believed) were useful suggestions. Other employees had similar concerns. Instead of answering his concerns, they fired him because they thought his suggestions were offensive (or rooted in offensive ideology).

> they thought his suggestions were offensive

Not only were they offensive, they had no grounding in reality and made it impossible for many people there to work with or trust him.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#289

Post by slavak » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:58 AM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #138

paapi__gudiya wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole episode has been so disgusting and shows how regressive and authoritarian the mainstream tech community is. People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view? If you can resort to violence against someone and get away wi…

As a woman, I could not work with an outspoken misogynist. As a lesbian, I could not work with an outspoken homophobe. As a Jew, I could not work with an outspoken antisemite. Forcing minorities and women to work with people who are bigoted against them is a recipe for a lawsuit.

As an (actual, not hypothetical) Jew, I could absolutely work with someone who claims Jews are statistically better at banking; Especially if that statement is scientifically well-supported, but even if it isn't.

As long as that person isn't constantly soliciting investment advice from me or asking me to front them loans, I don't think it's unreasonable for an adult to be expected to tolerate opinions that do not affect their work.

Hell, I've worked with co-workers who consider Jews illegitimate occupiers of their country, yet we still got along just fine by avoiding talking about politics in the break room.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#290

Post by zimpenfish » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 8:00 AM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #107

influx wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious if you feel Colin Kaepernick should have been fired and blacklisted for supporting Black Lives Matter? After all, it was only a consequence of free speech from his employers.

I don't think he should've been fired, no. But I also feel the NFL or team owners are within their rights as private citizens to not hire him. Does that make them racist? Sure. But being bigoted and supporting racist social policies in and of itself isn't inherently illegal.

> But being bigoted and supporting racist social policies in and of itself isn't inherently illegal.

And, as a consequence, the US now has an immature tantrum-throwing child as President with a GOP doing nothing but enabling his worst actions.