Outraged about the Google diversity memo? • Hacker News Board

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#311

Post by yorwba » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:37 AM UTC

pgeorgi wrote: post #197

anabis wrote: post #21

Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers being fired in 2006 showed that there could be no rational discussion of this topic. Sad to see it unchanged in 2017. Doubly sad because if the anonymous survey linked in the post is true, 1/3 of Googlers agree with the memo. Only 1/3 "strongly disagree", and the people who wanted him fired should be a further fraction of that 1/3. https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/pr…

> Doubly sad because if the anonymous survey linked in the post is true There were multiple revisions of the document (yay online text editors where this is possible). I understand that the leaked/published version is of a somewhat later date. That might explain both the amount of outrage compared to a text that many think is rather tame (the earlier version supposedly was more strongly worded), and it allows the int…

Does this online text editor support viewing older revisions and changesets? (I have never used Google Docs, which I assume is used within Google.) If this is the case, I'd like to see a copy of this rumored earlier version. The one I have read obviously had a response added to it, but if things have been cut without indication, that would change my opinion much more dramatically.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#312

Post by scandox » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:38 AM UTC

sheepmullet wrote: post #285

scandox wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person is engaging in reasonable dissent then why is this true: "If anything, their position will be radicalized."? The (true) implication is that their reasonable dissent actually is a bland cover for a position that is much more radical once it is reduced to its core propositions.

Nonsense. If you treat me with respect I will treat you with respect. We can have a civil disagreement and the next day I'll happily help you out. Being able to disagree is healthy. I disagree with my wife and with my children on some pretty important issues. On the other hand if you try and ruin my career, or if I think you will try and ruin my career, then I will knock you down at every opportunity.

Just because someone attacks you doesn't mean your hypothesis or arguments should change. If you believe what you say is reasonable then it is not rooted in a personal animus. That is all I am pointing out.

Often, however, our arguments have a strong unacknowledged bias. When we're challenged the bias becomes more visible.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#313

Post by rsp1984 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:40 AM UTC

Quite refreshing to hear a European voice in this debate (not suggesting that she represents all Europeans -- but it definitely strikes a chord with me).

She's wrong about one thing though:

Damore was fired, basically, for making a well-meant, if amateurish, attempt at institutional design, ... , he was fired, in short, for thinking on his own.

No, he was fired because Google is already neck-deep into being investigated by the DoL for gender pay discrimination [1] and they have a class action lawsuit coming up about the same issue [2]. He was fired for the same reason that they recently hired a chief diversity officer [3].

Believe me, at that point they would do almost anything to avoid those cases turning south (and what that would mean for the corporate public image), and giving voice to someone who has even the slightest doubt about diversity in the workplace is a big fat political No-Go.

James Damore made the mistake of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, that's all.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-wo...

[3]https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/29/google-hires-intels-former...

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#314

Post by scandox » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:42 AM UTC

thinkfurther wrote: post #269

scandox wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person is engaging in reasonable dissent then why is this true: "If anything, their position will be radicalized."? The (true) implication is that their reasonable dissent actually is a bland cover for a position that is much more radical once it is reduced to its core propositions.

> If a person is engaging in reasonable dissent then why is this true: "If anything, their position will be radicalized."? Uhmmmm.... because they get fired for deviating from the party line, not for being unreasonable. How can you skip that "detail"? In this case, it seems to be even lamer than that, seems like he was not fired for the memo, but the reaction to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977750 > Dam…

I don't understand your point. Mine is that being attacked should not change one's ideas. Getting fired is bad, but it isn't new information pertinent to the original debate. It may inform your ideas about the climate in which the debate is occurring, which may radicalize you personally. It shouldn't radicalize your position.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#315

Post by Lukasa » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:44 AM UTC

averagewall wrote: post #309

timgrahamtech wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the goal is making him understand that he got fired for how he expressed those opinions. He didn't just talk to HR or his manager, he published a rant for all the world to see making it the CEO's problem. Anyone who publishes an incoherent 10 page manifesto insulting their coworkers and trashing their company's policies can reasonably expect to get fired. It doesn't matter if any of the bosses agree or disagree…

> If a coworker of mine started publicly saying that I'm not genetically qualified for the work I do Why are you changing the meaning of what he wrote? He didn't say that at all. He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. If you choose to misunderstand what someone said, when they did a good job of explaining it clearly, then I think you shouldn't spread that misunderstanding around in…

> He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals.

Since when does that excuse anything? If he'd written "Jews are, in general, hateful monsters. Not the Jews who work here, they're great, but most of the rest" does that statement become acceptable?

More importantly, Mr Damore does not know all the women at Google personally. He cannot. So when he says "In general, women are less suited to/interested in programming careers", he cannot possibly implicitly mean "but clearly that does not apply to every woman currently employed at Google, who were all hired because they are the best in the world at their jobs". Damore asserts that Google practices discriminatory hiring practices. For this to be true, Google must have at least once hired a woman where a better male candidate was available, and more importantly must do so more often than they do the reverse.

If you are going to make general statements about a group of people, then you should not be surprised when individuals in that group assume you mean that statement to apply to them.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#316

Post by cf » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:46 AM UTC

jamesrcole wrote: post #271

cf wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm sorry you didn't feel any of the challenges had substance. They were still challenged.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#317

Post by sheepmullet » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:50 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #241

therebedragons wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What positive connotation could be drawn from it? IMHO that is the wrong question. Connotations aren't something anyone can argue for or against - one can have bad connotations for all sorts of words. Actual example: my ex hated the word "negotiate" in any personal discussion as she saw negotiations as something where you tried to screw the other person over (she was a lawyer). This was to the point where she refus…

The "different = inferior argument" is strongly implied . If you accept the premise that there's such a thing as a male-dominated work culture with stereotypically male values, then attitudes and actions that match those values are considered better ("normative") by default. Anyone who has different requirements or interests will always be considered an outsider who will to have allowances made for them while receivi…

> The "different = inferior argument" is strongly implied.

Is it?

For the average person working at a big company it is much more important to have a good fun team than a productive team.

After all a fun happy team benefits me on a day to day level whereas if company profit jumps 20% I'm unlikely to see any benefit.

The exceptions are a few tech giants who hand out lots of stock.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#318

Post by syshum » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:50 AM UTC

timgrahamtech wrote: post #306

syshum wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>he published a rant for all the world to see making it the CEO's problem. Except he did not publish it, My understanding it put it on a internal system shared with a few people, other people inside google shared it more and more people inside of google until another Google Employee sent it to Motherboard or Gizmodo who published it for the world to see. So then would you support Google firing who ever sent internal…

Would he have been fired if he had instead expressed these views to his manager in a room with closed door? I'm not aware of any executives of large institutions that are perfectly happy with leaks. They just usually aren't dumb enough to pretend that a rant like this wouldn't get leaked.

You have a vastly different definition of rant than I do, aside from that why do you believe this should only be discussed behind closed doors, that is infact one of the points the author was attempting to explorer the idea that with in google anyone that did not have left political leaning felt they were not allowed to express those positions with in the company.

You seem to agree

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#319

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:50 AM UTC

syshum wrote: post #268

minipci1321 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't read his memo, am not interested in the debate, and am not saying he should be fired or kept. That said, I'd think that he was fired not because of his opinions, but because he seems to have done an irreparable damage to Google's image: for good or bad reasons, people will react strongly and negatively to the publication of his memo, and whatever Google does -- keeps him or lets him go -- this negative impact…

>> but because he seems to have done an irreparable damage to Google's image The same can be said for the firing, it is also doing irreparable damage to Google's image, likely more so than the publication of the memo

[deleted]

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#320

Post by zimpenfish » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 10:51 AM UTC

averagewall wrote: post #309

timgrahamtech wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the goal is making him understand that he got fired for how he expressed those opinions. He didn't just talk to HR or his manager, he published a rant for all the world to see making it the CEO's problem. Anyone who publishes an incoherent 10 page manifesto insulting their coworkers and trashing their company's policies can reasonably expect to get fired. It doesn't matter if any of the bosses agree or disagree…

> If a coworker of mine started publicly saying that I'm not genetically qualified for the work I do Why are you changing the meaning of what he wrote? He didn't say that at all. He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. If you choose to misunderstand what someone said, when they did a good job of explaining it clearly, then I think you shouldn't spread that misunderstanding around in…

> He was very clear

But, see, it's equally clear to other people that he was dogwhistling like crazy. This is the problem with this "discussion" - one side is doing the "only exact literal words count for meaning" dance (which, for me, is complete bullshit) whilst the other is saying "that's not how the real world works, context and implication is important".

The two sides are never going to agree - which is ok - but one side is going to struggle with this kind of issue forever until they accept how reality works.