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

Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#271

Post by jamesrcole »

cf wrote: post #221
Const-me wrote: post #113

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…

People can express any opinion they want in public. Inside a company isn't public. Also while you do have a right to an opinion you don't have a right to it going unchallenged and questioned. Also how can you be so sure he wasn't alt-right already. "Classic liberal" is essentially the closest you are allowed to get in public.

> People can express any opinion they want in public. Inside a company isn't public. Also while you do have a right to an opinion you don't have a right to it going unchallenged and questioned.

It's grossly misrepresenting the response to the memo to imply it was just a matter of challenging and questioning. A quick read of any of the forums where it's being discussed makes that clear, and remember how the author was fired?

A lot of the issue people have with the response is precisely that it wasn't making a substantive attempt to actually question or challenge the memo's content.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#272

Post by dictum »

manicdee wrote: post #201
Const-me wrote: post #113

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…

That's a gross oversimplification of the issue. Would the same outcome have happened if this guy had posted his manifesto on a blog outside the office, rather than distributing it to colleagues at work? Would the same outcome have happened if the various arguments in the manifesto had been individual articles on a personal blog over a period of time? Would the same outcome have happened if the manifesto hadn't been e…

> Would the same outcome have happened if this guy had posted his manifesto on a blog outside the office, rather than distributing it to colleagues at work?

Yes.

The only thing that could have prevented his firing was to have never published it under his real name (and this is not completely safe).

Since it's an internal issue, I think he did the right thing in this aspect: he published it in the internal forum, instead of dragging the dirty laundry for the world to see.

Most codes of conduct explictly apply all their conditions to venues that are not related to the project itself, so I doubt the outrage would be different if he published it elsewhere, under a pseudonym, and was IDed later.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#273

Post by zimpenfish »

michaelchisari wrote: post #187
panda88888 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since it's allegedly Google internal poll, you probably won't find more information on it beyond screenshot. After what happened to Damore and calls for his supporters to be fired as well, most people are probably clamming up now.

I can't say that inspires confidence that the poll is even legitimate. Do we at least have proof that it actually was an internal Google poll and not someone's 15 minutes in photoshop?

Assuming it was legitimate, 282 self-selected responses from a company with tens of thousands of employees wouldn't pass even the most basic "is this poll statistically valid?" test.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#274

Post by PeanutCurry »

mirimir wrote: post #229
PeanutCurry wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems overly broad. many societies aren't even a millennia old and derive from events that would indicate some quantity of disdain for their previous governors. Unless the argument is that people, regardless of culture, are behaviorally the same then there isn't much to gain by simply going by such a large time frame.

OK, what societies have been fundamentally gender neutral?

I'm not seeing the relevance of your rhetorical question here. My point was that it's weird to measure institutional discrimination over millennia since most institutions that matter in the modern era aren't that old. So you're either mashing multiple institutions together and ignoring their cultural differences or the premise needs to be refined more.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#275

Post by sheepmullet »

GVIrish wrote: post #250
maehwasu wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You can say anything you want, unless you're saying something that I choose to define as unacceptable."

When has that ever not been the case in the workplace? Every workplace has norms and values where someone who runs afoul of them may be fired. Norms change over time. There was a time when it would've been okay to use the 'n' word to insult black people in many work places, now it's not okay. There was a time when lewd and demeaning talk about women was ok in the workplace, now it's not. The people who sign the check…

The difference is senior leadership lying through their teeth about valuing diversity of opinion.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#276

Post by pmlnr »

dandare wrote: post #216

Disagreeing with Damore’s arguments is perfectly ok. Not liking the style of his memo is perfectly ok. Calling Damore young and clueless is useless ad hominem. Chances are he is smarter than you and me and the memo is actually well sourced. Calling him a WHITE MAN is an essentialism that reveals the author's bias.

This.

To respond to that manifesto, to argue, talk, discuss, write a similarly well organised response.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#277

Post by kgwgk »

mpweiher wrote: post #199
KirinDave wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says women will benefit from making coding more social. Pair programming. Remember?

No. First, the section is "Non-discrimnatory ways to reduce the gender gap". You cannot reduce the "gap" by aiming at the women who are already at Google. This should be obvious. They are already there. To make a dent in the gap, you need to attract more women who currently do not choose to work in tech or not at Google. So nothing he writes is about his colleagues at Google, or by extension women who are already in…

> You cannot reduce the "gap" by aiming at the women who are already at Google. This should be obvious.

That is far from obvious. Everything else being equal, you would increase the proportion of women if you reduced their turnover.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#278

Post by dunkelheit »

danschumann wrote: post #174

I giggled when this article said "most of Google's work is people centric". It's data. It's an isolated intelligent person at a computer screen. At the center is a server. On one end, a programmer, the other end, a user. People don't enter into it.

There is plenty of people-centric work in big organizations. Less charitably, it can be described as "navigating the bureaucracy".

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#280

Post by carapat_virulat »

dahart wrote: post #62
supremesaboteur wrote: post #42

This article also has a few problems > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Claim bearers are burdened with proof. Otherwise I can say 'I claim it is not so and if you believe other…

> Claim bearers are burdened with proof. I think that was her point...

But the point of the original "manifesto" was that google makes the claim that uneven distribution of men and women is due to discrimination, and the "manifesto" explains how a 100% fair and non-discriminatory selection process may result in uneven results.

In that case, there's no reason to assume discrimination unless it's proved.

Post reply on HN