Outraged about the Google diversity memo? • Hacker News Board

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#391

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:10 PM UTC

minipci1321 wrote: post #243

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…

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…

> ...he seems to have done an irreparable damage to Google's image...

1. From my perspective, the firing was more damaging to Google's reputation than anything in the article. People still remember the Eich incident with bad feelings for Mozilla. This one is actually worse because there's no "CEOs are PR officers" reasoning to fall back on. If there's still damage when the dust settles here, it will be due to blowback originating from people who misunderstood the text or don't care that it's basically misunderstood. That's my next point.

2. It's becoming more apparent to me that a large portion of the outrage is due to a misunderstanding of the text. I suspect that people haven't actually read the text, not really. The concrete objection I notice the most ("he said that female engineers are inferior") is not true and directly addressed in the text. There are comments in this thread that are misunderstanding or uninformed about what he wrote about overlapping distribution curves.

3. With that in mind, I can't tell if Google leadership is having a reading comprehension issue, a problem understanding statistics, or if they are making a purely political/PR decision here. None of those situations should make a Google engineer confident in their leadership.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#392

Post by saiya-jin » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:11 PM UTC

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…

nonono you got it all wrong... too many facts, too little emotions, being fed up and whatnot. that's not how these discussions roll

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#393

Post by occultist_throw » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:11 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #51

Johnny555 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? There's no right to free speech in the work place. If he was fired for something he wrote on his private blog, or discussed with coworkers at an off-site bar, that might be different. If he does sue, Google will have little problem showing that the employee, through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google.

California has very strong employee protection. Yes, even though it is "at will" there are still some very strong protections. For example, in California it is illegal to fire someone for "political activity", which this memo, debateably, may have been. It is also illegal in California to fire someone for bringing up workplace concerns (this falls under union/worker organizing laws). Finally, and most ironically, it…

Read footnote 6. That to me, is a pretty smoking gun of a comment.

"6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs"

....discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done)....

Wonder if he has proof?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#394

Post by protomyth » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:12 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #296

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…

I find it disturbing that somebody would even consider switching to the alt-right over this. Do people not have deeply-held beliefs anymore? Personally, that is a line that I would never , under any circumstance, cross, even if I was the one who got fired and blacklisted. It is a non-negotiable position.

It’s not that someone would switch to the alt-right, it’s that the definition of belief is moving the line so others are defining you as alt-right. As an example, Ben Shapiro is by statements and beliefs not alt-right. He was attacked by them quite a bit. Yet, people have started calling him alt-right in media and forums.

I too would never cross that line, but I believe others will be happy to redraw that line regardless of my actual beliefs. This is what happens when others can slap labels on you and there is no real debate.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#395

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:12 PM UTC

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…

> When has that ever not been the case in the workplace

In progressive companies like google.

> There was a time when

And it changed because the public became outraged over it, and individuals concerned fought back with social and legal options. Same may happen here too.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#396

Post by throw2016 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:14 PM UTC

Casting aspersions on colleagues is not cool. There is no 'science' to do this.

The science of studying gender and racial differences does not lend itself to 'easy conclusions' and generalizations and certainly not practical application or advocacy.

Tomorrow a colleague could write a tome pointing to studies about male aggression and the risk of putting them in collaborative environments or about introverts unsuitability for certain roles and presume to advocate 'other roles' for them. This is beyond the pale.

Cherry picking studies in a way they are not meant to applied in any real world scenario is a dangerous unscientific preoccupation of bigots and supremacists.

The fact that you are making these conclusions not as an expert in the field trying to further knowledge but in a real world application context about your fellow workers in an act of extreme prejudice and hostility and completely compromises this individual and his memo.

The biggest concern of this misguided memo is the level of support for this troubled individual. It appears women in the valley really have something to worry about. There exist all these men and colleagues who harbor deep doubts about their capabilities. This is alas what hostility looks like.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#397

Post by Chris2048 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:15 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #296

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…

I find it disturbing that somebody would even consider switching to the alt-right over this. Do people not have deeply-held beliefs anymore? Personally, that is a line that I would never , under any circumstance, cross, even if I was the one who got fired and blacklisted. It is a non-negotiable position.

I notice that there appears to be a competing definition of "alt-right". One is the age-old white supremacist groups that pre-existed Trump et al. The other is Milo and right-leaning you-tubers etc. I think there might be some confusion over this.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#398

Post by huji » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:16 PM UTC

virtualized wrote: post #372

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…

Google could have published a letter that addresses the issues mentioned in the leaked memo in a diplomatic way without firing anyone. Google's immature reaction damaged the perception of the diversity ideology instead of defending it.

Diversity of ideology geez who do you think these ppl are? Bunch of guys behind a desk the whole day keeping advertising empire afloat...you are not going to see any of them in front of a tianamen tank.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#399

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:16 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #296

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…

I find it disturbing that somebody would even consider switching to the alt-right over this. Do people not have deeply-held beliefs anymore? Personally, that is a line that I would never , under any circumstance, cross, even if I was the one who got fired and blacklisted. It is a non-negotiable position.

> I find it disturbing that somebody would even consider switching to the alt-right over this.

It's logic too cynical for me, but it's basically:

1. OK. They decide this culture war out there is serious and nobody is looking out for them.

2. They find "their" camp and support it.

3 (sometimes). After switching/limiting media sources to match new political assumptions, opposing views seem more malicious and more unhinged.

It's worth noting that a lot of the blowback from this incident is due to #3 happening for a different group of people.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#400

Post by jernfrost » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 12:17 PM UTC

Great perspective. As a Northern European having dealt with American company ownership I don't think the main problem in Google's case was political correctness but rather a general American problem with how free speech is defined in the US. Freedom in America is always about government NOT doing something, while in Europe government is defined as a protector of these freedoms. This shows up clearly with respect to stating an opinion at a US company. There is no protection of free speech on private property in the US. I first encountered this when out company got bought by an American one and they i sisted that religion and politics should not be discussed at work. It surprised them that such a demand was illegal in Norway. Private property does not trumph everything else as it often seems to do in the US.

While americans are free to utter quite inflamatory speech in the public, I find that American culture seems to discourage any sort of controversial topic in polite company.

That applies to conservatives and liberals alike in the US. Discussing religion among conservatives in the US seems taboo. While liberals are not very open to having PC opinions challenged.