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

301–310 of 352 posts

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#301

Post by tanilama »

slavak wrote: post #289
amyjess wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aff…

That is the point.

Avoid talking about something controversial is deemed self censoring by a lot of people here in HN.

You might be a forgiving person, but that is a gift not a necessity, and better not assuming people would return the favor. For more controversial stuff I choose to only talk with my inner circle which I assume I knew them well enough. The author makes the memo public to ALL employees, most of them he wouldn't even know their names. That is his freedom, however he should expect there will be reactions to his piece from them. And it is not really his business or within anybody's control to decide what reaction is appropriate or over the top at that point. This is internet, where things escalate proportional to the speed of light.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#302

Post by rbanffy »

stagbeetle wrote: post #251
rbanffy wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your argument that software engineering is a religion women don't believe in?

My argument is that one's religious beliefs dictate what sort of organizations one will be a part of, just the same a person's physiological makeup will dictate his profession of choice.

Does that imply women are not discriminated against in comp-sci?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#303

Post by rbanffy »

flukus wrote: post #262
rbanffy wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it true?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#304

Post by rbanffy »

slavak wrote: post #295
rbanffy wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

His main point was that MORE of them were biologically UNINTERESTED in it, not that MOST of them were UNSUITED. And to your point... yes? If someone said a profession mostly working outside in the desert has less gingers in it because most of them are biologically unsuited for prolonged sun exposure, would you really take offense? This isn't phrenology we're discussing here. If you're discussing real, tangible biolog…

Is the gender bias due to a biological lack of interest by women, by cultural norm, by harassment, or by active discrimination?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#305

Post by macspoofing »

josteink wrote: post #272
kafkaesq wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neah, kinda just skimmed it. That is, "really read" a select paragraph or two. Enough to make a basic determination as to what he's driving at -- and to note that we've seen variants of this message from other sources, before -- and make a decision about how much of one's attention resources it merits, moving forward -- accordingly. As one does with any rant, or other poorly thought-out screed.

So you didn't actually read it, but here you are still spending time defending how its author really should be fired over it. Crazy.

I've read it and I still think it is justifiably a fire-able offense in that a) it's an open semi-public manifesto against a company policy that is inline with market expectations and b) addresses sensitive and controversial issues. Try writing this kind of a manifesto, and pin it in the lunchroom at your workplace and see what happens. Jerry Maguire got fired for a manifesto as well.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#306

Post by macspoofing »

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'm actually not surprised that he got fired, and I do think the firing is justifiable. Writing open manifestos against company policies on controversial and sensitive issues is going to get you in trouble. It just will, whether you're at Google or 'Dave's Grill-house'.

But that's not what I was responding to. OP implied this guy is a racist or a misogynist and stated she couldn't work with someone who held his kinds of beliefs.

I've read the manifesto and it's not as strong as you make it out to be. For example, I've argued that you can't expect perfect proportional demographic representation in a free society in any field. It will not happen, for a variety of reasons that may not be nefarious. If women are under-represented in programming it may not be because of sexism.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#307

Post by slavak »

tanilama wrote: post #301
slavak wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aff…

That is the point. Avoid talking about something controversial is deemed self censoring by a lot of people here in HN. You might be a forgiving person, but that is a gift not a necessity, and better not assuming people would return the favor. For more controversial stuff I choose to only talk with my inner circle which I assume I knew them well enough. The author makes the memo public to ALL employees, most of them h…

I tend to agree with your approach, but the point is that Google are apparently actively fostering the opposite atmosphere, supporting and encouraging open discussion of such topics in the workplace and in dedicated internal forums. If this is true you can hardly fault the guy for doing just that in a way that, at the very least, appears to be trying to be balanced and respectful.

My understanding is that is that the guy shared this memo among a small group of friends at work using an internal forum specifically designed for this kind of discussion. If that's true, I hardly think it's fair to hold him accountable for the reactions of Googlers he never shared the text with, let alone those of the world at large once someone else leaked the memo to the internet.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#308

Post by macspoofing »

ucaetano wrote: post #269
macspoofing wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone

I responded to your patronizing and condescending tone. If you want a civil debate, make an rational argument.

When you write: "I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself." Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else? You're implying that because I don't share your opinion I must have not thought hard enough about the issue. "Please teach me your ways so that I too may be as enlightened as you".

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

Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world?

Honestly, you're lecturing me but you cannot even fathom the idea that you may be completely wrong about this ... because you took time and effort to really really really think about it and you finally figured it all out.

Urgh.

>I'm explaining that perhaps you can't comprehend why people act in a certain manner because you're not in their place

Does a gay black woman know the experience of straight white man? Or a recent immigrant from China? Or a rural farmer? Or black executive from Wall Street?

Democracy is based on the idea that we collectively make decisions that then apply collectively. You're saying that a gay black woman cannot comprehend the experience of white, straight men so she shouldn't engage in policy debates that affect them? Are you seriously making that kind of an argument?

So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#309

Post by slavak »

rbanffy wrote: post #304
slavak wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His main point was that MORE of them were biologically UNINTERESTED in it, not that MOST of them were UNSUITED. And to your point... yes? If someone said a profession mostly working outside in the desert has less gingers in it because most of them are biologically unsuited for prolonged sun exposure, would you really take offense? This isn't phrenology we're discussing here. If you're discussing real, tangible biolog…

Is the gender bias due to a biological lack of interest by women, by cultural norm, by harassment, or by active discrimination?

I don't know, but I think the answer is not obvious and this is a discussion worth having. Which is, arguably, exactly what the guy who wrote this memo was trying to do.

There IS well-established scientific evidence for differences IN THE DISTRIBUTION of areas of interest and specific abilities between the sexes, although even /that/ is apparently too taboo to discuss in this day and age. How big an effect this has on the gender bias in specific professions is a much harder question, although personally I find the assertion that it is "none" difficult to accept without overwhelming evidence.

Add on to that the question of how to correctly tackle this bias and you've got an even more divisive topic, as now you've layered on an ideological issue on top of a difficult-to-isolate research question on top of a scientifically well-studied but publicly controversial topic. Unfortunately, this is the issue the author of the memo tried to address.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#310

Post by macspoofing »

MBCook wrote: post #238
macspoofing wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wasn't trying to put a position forward, only explain why some people felt so strongly about it being discussed/shared. > And what does what you are doing look like to you? From your comment I thought you didn't understand the parent so I tried to help by trying to explain it differently. I was trying to help clear up possible confusion. Does what I posted look like advocacy to you? I honestly didn't mean it that w…

>I wasn't trying to put a position forward, only explain why some people felt so strongly about it being discussed/shared.

I understand exactly what he's saying. I wasn't born yesterday. I reject the notion that policy is not up for debate if you're not the right gender or skin color. I reject the notion that if you don't have the right skin color or gender you cannot put forward good arguments for or against.

>From your comment I thought you didn't understand the parent so I tried to help by trying to explain it differently.

OP was simply patronizing when they wrote: "I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself".

That you don't see how condescending, narrow-minded, and patronizing that kind of statement is, is your blind-spot.

Post reply on HN