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

341–350 of 352 posts

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#341

Post by kafkaesq »

anon12345690 wrote: post #339
kafkaesq wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you know that it's entirely possible to write something that's "based on facts" -- with nice diagrams and all! -- yet when we consider the whole cloth of what's being said, it turns out to be fatally flawed -- and basically a load of tripe? That's what this "manifesto" was.

i summarized it right there, what part do you think is flawed? if you're saying men/women think identically, then there is even no reason for gender diversity because it only becomes physical differences at that point, do you realize that?

There was way, way more to his "manifesto" than what's in your summary, actually.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#342

Post by kafkaesq »

macspoofing wrote: post #180
kafkaesq wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ... Maybe some people are calling for stuff like that. But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here ."

>But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here." And that's probably OK and kind of expected. To me what was interesting was that even the CEO had to not only denounce it, but also cut his vacation short to hold a staff town-hall.

To me what was interesting was that even the CEO had to not only denounce it, but also cut his vacation short to hold a staff town-hall.

Most likely because, whether the author intended it that way or not, the memo was draft in a way that was pretty much guaranteed to push people's buttons. And when people -- particularly very smart people who have a lot more important things to do with their time -- feel their buttons being pushed, they tend to react, and get to the root of the matter very quickly.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#343

Post by rbanffy »

macspoofing wrote: post #306
rbanffy wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it may not be

"May" is the important word here. We really don't know.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#344

Post by rbanffy »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #337
rbanffy wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it true?

Yes. - There are fewer white men in the NBA because they are biologically unsuited to it. - There are fewer tall fighter pilots because they are biologically unsuited to it. - There are fewer women as pitchers in the MLB because they are biologically unsuited to it. These are descriptive statements about reality. The world in which we find ourselves. You may not like that world, you may think we should change the rul…

So, do you believe women are biologically unsuited to be software engineers?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#345

Post by lliamander »

kafkaesq wrote: post #261
lliamander wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Ah that makes sense. A fair point. Still, I think that "organizing around workplace conditions" and "calling attention to possible violations of anti-discrimination laws" (both of which were mentioned in the article I referenced) are possible grounds for a suit.

> But his campaign went quite a ways beyond that, as well.

Do you mean the claimed violation of Google code of conduct that was the basis for his firing? I don't know what their CoC is specifically, but if it's anything like the other CoC's I've seen, I think it's debatable whether he did actually violated it.

Many of the claims I have seen about hurtful things in the memo (such as that the women at Google don't deserve to be there) are unsubstantiated by the text of the memo itself. The topics he was trying to discuss, the topics which the CEO himself (and at least 60% of the employees) say should be discussed, are an emotional minefield. Despite claims to the contrary, Damore was very careful with his words.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#346

Post by zimpenfish »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #333
zimpenfish wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing the bit about where he says he'd understand about the people punching him in the face? In fact, he's saying that he wouldn't assign people to work with him for fear of that - which I would take to mean he disagrees with the action.

He's saying that he would keep those of his employees who, when presented with a viewpoint which they consider offensive, would punch their coworkers in the face from having to be in any kind of a working relationship with someone because of the viewpoints which they hold. He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers.

> He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers.

That is wholly unsupported by any reading of his sentence.

He literally says he would avoid creating a situation where even the possibility of someone punching him in the face might happen. If he was siding with the face-punchers, why would he avoid that situation?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#347

Post by sobani »

rbanffy wrote: post #343
macspoofing wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it may not be "May" is the important word here. We really don't know.

Which was exactly the point of the memo!

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#348

Post by jessaustin »

kafkaesq wrote: post #253
lliamander wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And is arguably walking a very fine line in doing so. IANAL, but it is illegal for employers to use the threat of firing to compel employees to take (or avoid) a political course of action. Furthermore, it is illegal for employers to punish employees for speaking up about issues the employee believes affect working conditions (which was largely the premise of the employees essay). Google side-stepped the issue by fir…

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.

Truth in account name...

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#349

Post by jessaustin »

kafkaesq wrote: post #338
josteink wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet you dismiss it? I don't dismiss it because I have no idea what it's about. I don't approve of it either, for the exact same reasons. Anyhow: You're comparing reading less than 10 pages of large text with generous spacing and numerous illustrations to end-to-end reading a full book almost 500 pages long. You can't be serious.

I don't dismiss it because I have no idea what it's about. The church he founded was one of the major annoyances of the latter half of the 20th century. If you're interested in the general history of Really Bad Ideas (and how they draw otherwise warm sensitive, intelligent people into their fold), you might want to look into it. Let's just say I've considered the works of a lot cranks and crackpots, over the years -…

Let's just say I've considered the works of a lot cranks and crackpots, over the years...

Is that like, a hobby? And by "considered", do you mean you read them, or skimmed them, or just heard about them from uptight censorious authoritarians on the internet?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#350

Post by kafkaesq »

jessaustin wrote: post #349
kafkaesq wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't dismiss it because I have no idea what it's about. The church he founded was one of the major annoyances of the latter half of the 20th century. If you're interested in the general history of Really Bad Ideas (and how they draw otherwise warm sensitive, intelligent people into their fold), you might want to look into it. Let's just say I've considered the works of a lot cranks and crackpots, over the years -…

Let's just say I've considered the works of a lot cranks and crackpots, over the years... Is that like, a hobby? And by "considered", do you mean you read them, or skimmed them, or just heard about them from uptight censorious authoritarians on the internet?

Is that like, a hobby?

Actually it was, for a while. And I actually did read a lot of these works; and considered their points, very carefully; and debated them with their adherents, very patiently and thoughtfully.

Until I figured out what general superstructure of thought patterns was behind their arguments (which mostly boil down to: cherry picking; what-about-ism; and "authority, authority authority") -- and moved on other things.

Post reply on HN