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

461–470 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#461

Post by nilved »

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.

> 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.

> Chances are he is smarter than you and me

Did you read the memo? And hear his interview? Your assumptions are way off-base.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#462

Post by matwood »

sheepmullet wrote: post #330
scandox wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Just because someone attacks you doesn't mean your hypothesis or arguments should change In practice that is just not true. Many of my positions are self-moderated by the understanding that smart, kind, and reasonable people have opposing views.

> Many of my positions are self-moderated by the understanding that smart, kind, and reasonable people have opposing views.

A great example of this revolves around religion. Many smart, reasonable people are religious. I think a lot of the atheist crowd comes across as complete assholes, which does not help one win in any argument.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#463

Post by obstacle1 »

_dps wrote: post #389
elcapitan wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum" "What kind of freedom is there inside a corporation? They’re totalitarian institutions – you take orders from above and maybe give them to people below you. There’s about as much freedom as under Stalinism." Amen to that.

There is the freedom to negotiate, and the freedom to leave. Comparing it to Stalinism is silly, and surely disrespects the millions of people who genuinely suffered and died under Stalin.

OP's quotation is not speaking of freedom generally, which you are; it is speaking of freedom within the corporation, i.e., you are there and you do not leave.

>Comparing it to Stalinism is silly, and surely disrespects

No, making a comparison of abstract forms of government is not in any way disrespectful to people who lived under a regime. It can only be construed as disrespectful if you are looking for an emotional tangent to distract people reading from the argument at hand (which, incidentally, indicates that you know your argument is bad!)

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#464

Post by tchaffee »

sersi wrote: post #349

I do not agree with a lot of points of that diversity memo but that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired. Discussion is how people change their opinion. It's by being free to discuss and say what you think that you can exchange ideas with other people you disagree with and maybe change your mind once you understand their view point. If you close discussion,…

> that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired.

Here is what CEO said on the about it in his response [1]:

"many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions."

The author of the original memo wasn't fired because of trying to discuss the topic. He was fired because he violated Google's code of conduct, which expects:

"each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination."

If you intimidate enough employees via a widespread memo, you will get fired. I see no problem with that. The freedom to discuss a topic also comes with responsibilities.

As an example, would anyone expect to keep their job if they published a memo with "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]." at any big company anywhere in the world? Regardless of scientific basis? It's an absurd expectation, unless you work at a company doing scientific research on that specific subject.

[1] https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-...

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#465

Post by scandox »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #427
scandox wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a difference between challenging someone by exposing the flaws in their argument and challenging them by campaigning to have them fired.

I agree, but that difference would not itself make me change my position.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#466

Post by anon_d »

zimpenfish wrote: post #287
throwaway257157 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing it. Help me out? It's not a contradiction, if that's what you're implying. Have you ever taken a statistics class?

Oh, throwaway257157, if I thought you were posting in good faith, I'd certainly engage with you but using a newly created account means you aren't.

They are publically defending an argument that got someone fired, so using a throwaway account is totally reasonable here.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#467

Post by biofox »

d--b wrote: post #438

I am sorry if I come across as a liberal who gets offended, but I completely support the decision of Google to fire him. In fact, I think that Google had no other choice than to fire him, and that's mostly because the engineer shot himself in the foot. Memos are not meant to express debatable personal arguments, memos are meant to express a company position. By widely spreading a personal view, the author impersonate…

As I understand the situation, it was an internal memo to try and open up a debate within the organisation. It was never intended to impersonate the company or be externally distributed.

It contained nothing extreme or explicitly hateful.And even if his arguments are flawed, they should have been discussed and countered.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#468

Post by irishsultan »

kgwgk wrote: post #277
mpweiher wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if you reduce their turnover to be below turnover for men. Which at first thought seems to be worse than discriminating only during the hiring phase.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#470

Post by golemotron »

nailer wrote: post #265
dahart wrote: post #78

Really great post, and I had what I thought were some great observations about the article I wanted to share. But then in the article's comments I read this by Outer M.: "By the way, in science and technology, conservatism is a minority ideology (he says so himself in his letter). How would he feel if we start saying that conservative people aren't apt for science and technology? That if he doesn't feel welcome he sh…

Politics, favorite foods, religion, dress sense and other ideas aren't innate. Gender, age, ethnicity and sexuality are. Hence swapping gender for politics doesn't work. Additionally Damore argued for assessing individuals as individuals rather than as tribe members and assuming discrepancy is down to bias - even if you did sub someone's chosen politics for their gender, Damore's proposed fix would still require you…

> Politics, favorite foods, religion, dress sense and other ideas aren't innate.

Actually, food choice and political disposition are heritable. Look at this and the Minnesota Twins Experiment.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DKUL32K

Post reply on HN