Outraged about the Google diversity memo? • Hacker News Board

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#491

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:36 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #206

_b8r0 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made the grave mistake of trying to express that point on Twitter. Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time, but it's a dumpster fire right now full of raging people who don't understand what you've just said. I was in SV last year for a couple of months during the election, and everyone I met were all paid up members of the church of political correctness up front, but when you spo…

> Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time Understatement of the century. How on earth can you expect to have "nuanced debate" with only 140 characters?

This is like complaining that our mouths can only make 1 word sound at a time.

How can you have a nuanced debate with a serial device? It just won't work.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#492

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:36 PM UTC

scandox wrote: post #465

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

You're considering things from a formal perspective rather than a practical one.

In theory the fact that someone unjustly attacked you should not change your positions on anything, but it may reasonably cause you to stop associating with them.

And associating with different people will cause you to hear different arguments, which is likely to change your positions because it changes the ratio of convincing arguments you hear from each side.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#493

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:37 PM UTC

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…

> The problem is that you can use unprovable statements to justify anything.

This is exactly why we can't shut down conversations the way Google did. Saying line employees are unqualified but Google executives are qualified to judge truth is very stifling to rational thinking and, yes, diversity that actually means something.

But nobody really believe that Google leadership is the best arbiter of diversity. Otherwise, everyone would be telling those class action discrimination lawsuits to pack up and go home.

So what do you think? Does Google leadership have a monopoly on public thought? Do the employees release all expectations of fair treatment when they sign an employment agreements?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#494

Post by eregorn » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:41 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #394

archagon wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regard…

I feel like this happened because it seems he accidentally presented himself to the outside world as alt-right. You'd only know he was a right libertarian (my impression at least) if you regularly listened to him.

For example, Look at his Wikipedia article vs his /r/politics AMA. His Wikipedia article paints him as alt-right, because all of his major accomplishments that reach outside the audience are hyper-focused on culture wars and academia influence on politics. His support of Israel was mentioned, but he did flip to an alt-right acceptable view. The only thing suggesting on the wiki page he's not alt right is not supporting Trump, but it doesn't help that its implied they mostly attacked him for being Jewish.

From that alone I would think it was a Milo situation, where they are alt-right that are unaccepted by the "alt-reich" because of a specific character trait.

The AMA however gave me the idea he's right libertarian. A lot of his answers seem to circle back to the free market. His pro-life opinion is even a slight extension of that, where he believes life needs to be guaranteed to at least participate in the market. This, however, required direct drilling of the guy to actually get.

So TLDR, He talks libertarian, but his noticeable acts are alt-right. I think this is a bit his fault, considering he didn't think to advertise his libertarian ideas at all in books or speeches even though he started his career before he even graduated college.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#495

Post by Brockenstein » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:41 PM UTC

ramblerman wrote: post #173

KirinDave wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing. Mad someone for touching your bum? Speak up. You spoke up? Now you're…

He didn't say it the fault of feminists, only that this was probably going to be the result. And It's exactly why public debate should be had. To come to a better solution in the middle, rather than create fringes on the sides. Your reaction here is just more of the 'Shock and Awe' and hurt feelings that doesn't really help push the agenda.

Problem is most of this subject has been in public debate for decades, centuries even. The people trying to maintain the status quo are never going to give it up willingly. They're always going to cry when change comes and they aren't ready for it (IE when they're dead). At some point the debate has to be reasonably over and action expected.

And some subjects don't have middle ground. Women being treated less than equal isn't a middle ground sort of issue.

There are already sides, there have been sides forever. People being pushed or pulled one way or another isn't a new phenomena. And there's no amount of public debate and middle ground treading you can do to prevent people who are going to be polarized as of the result of any backlash of their already fringe beliefs. That's inevitable. And the gymnastics required to keep them in the middle just aren't worth it. The actual goal is the thing of value for the people pushing for it. Not appeasing ignorance and bigotry just enough to keep them pacified.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#496

Post by jshevek » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:41 PM UTC

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.

No.

Assuming someone is posting in bad faith for this reason is an act of bad faith.

Your statement reveals hypocrisy.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#497

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:41 PM UTC

kfriede wrote: post #487

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…

Here as a conservative, I do think Google had the right to fire him. I don't agree with the decision, but I don't need to. It's not my company. On that note, I don't think the memo was intended to speak for Google, but rather _to_ Google. Was it even intentionally public? Or was it leaked?

I think Google legally had a mechanism to do this, but ethically is messed up big time. The saying was "don't be evil", not "don't be criminal". I don't know if Google leadership was evil but the underlying principle is that "don't be illegal" is a low bar. I expect everyone to strive to do much better than that.

I don't see a lot of calls in these comment threads for an employee bill of rights or something, so I don't know why this keeps coming up.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#498

Post by vasilipupkin » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:42 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #411

vasilipupkin wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, a private company in the US cannot stop you from discussing anything at work but reserves the right to fire you at will, including for discussions it deems unproductive. Discussing politics in polite company in the US is indeed discouraged by culture. I personally think that's a good thing as people on opposite sides of the spectrum often can't agree on a basic set of facts, which makes discussions point…

Sometimes the point of the conversations is reminding each other that we're decent and intelligent humans. Giving up on engaging because you haven't converted people is giving up too soon. Sometimes the changed mind is in how we value political opponents, not whether we agree with them.

Yes, but you can't have a political discussion that is productive if there is a fundamental disagreement about the facts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#499

Post by _r_o_y_ » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:42 PM UTC

ramblerman wrote: post #173

KirinDave wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing. Mad someone for touching your bum? Speak up. You spoke up? Now you're…

He didn't say it the fault of feminists, only that this was probably going to be the result. And It's exactly why public debate should be had. To come to a better solution in the middle, rather than create fringes on the sides. Your reaction here is just more of the 'Shock and Awe' and hurt feelings that doesn't really help push the agenda.

There can be no discussion when you start with a bad premise. What can you argue with someone that says the other sex is inferior?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#500

Post by tchaffee » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:43 PM UTC

reubeniv wrote: post #289

I'm trying to understand his motivations, maybe it is just naivety, but that he wanted to talk about something that was bothering him, and didn't understand why he couldn't (or shouldn't) talk about it publicly seems fairly typical of a condition like aspergers, is it possible he simply has something like that? Either way the witch hunt needs to cease immediately.

This is actually the first reasonable defense of the guy that I've heard. If Google truly embraces diversity, they need to figure out a way to make room for the awkwardness and lack of empathy from those on the spectrum.

But I don't see a witch hunt. People are debating whether or not he should have been fired. He's not going to jail, and he is highly employable. And he did violate Google's code of conduct, which is a reasonable cause for getting fired.