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

511–520 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#511

Post by snikeris »

_b8r0 wrote: post #183
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 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…

> "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"

For further reading on this topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#512

Post by Veedrac »

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…

> 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.

You've just said that if you accept male-dominated work culture exists, males are considered better by default.

Ergo either males are considered better by default or such a culture doesn't exist. You deny the latter, so clearly you are claiming the former.

You just made that claim, not the guy who was fired.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#513

Post by tryingagainbro »

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…

Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family.

Totally agree, but it was like this. Religion and politics never mixed while working, outside a small circle of friends. Even then, if one was "offended" and complained, you'd be screwed.

But Google did the right thing--if you ask 100 top corp lawyers, advisors and politicians. Better to fire a guy than having to deal with the wrath of the side currently winning the debate. In the end Google is there to make money for its shareholders: not to advance workplace free speech or to deliver the most useful results for its users.

Google will probable spend a few million to fight and then settle this case. It will feel like losing a dime to the average person.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#514

Post by hhhsdfnn888 »

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.

Wow you post a seemingly legit email address and other details, then act like a douche.

Personally, I don't want to be signed up for spam, or have it found in some AshleyMadison like leak. I don't care about fake points. I don't care about community rep. So I don't curate an online persona.

But you know what, zimpenfish, you're right. The first conclusion that crosses the mind if zimpenfish is of course the right answer.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#515

Post by hobs »

mnglkhn2 wrote: post #509
Brockenstein wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the people on the wrong side of history want to talk and talk and talk. They want to stall for time. And every individual who doesn't get a shot to talk and shape the culture feels like they've been robbed and their ideas and beliefs suppressed. They're just ignorant of the fact that these issues have been talked about, at length, ad nauseam, for decades, centuries even. And they don't understand that they don't…

:) Your comment must be something that came out of an AI bot: right down the middle, ambiguous to the max. Saying nothing with so many words :) and with the right amount of righteous indignation. Love it! It proves my point actually.

Let me simplify it for you.

People espousing hate because of their trash opinions that have already been consigned to the dustbins of history are not going to have their crappy thoughts entertained by those who have moved beyond that stupidity.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#516

Post by menacingly »

It's funny that the outrage actually opens opportunities for white men to feign outrage too and stay in power. That's why you keep seeing so much agitation in this area but not much actual change, because the smart play is to be the white male in a comfy position but distract from that by disguising yourself as a fellow freedom fighter.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#517

Post by olala69 »

emmelaich wrote: post #430
cm2187 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether we agree with the memo or not, there was a very good point that guy made and that we should keep in mind, it's the paragraph with the two overlapping distributions. Even if you admit that all genders, races, any way you want to segment the population, do not have the same distribution, that doesn't mean anything to a person as an individual. For instance I think it's fair to say that black people are better a…

> fair to say that black people are better at athleticism/running Is it fair though? Is it supported by metrics of muscle strength and length etc? And does it take into account the differences between blacks (Africans?), west vs south vs central (pygmies!). Also, there's the possibility that whites of equivalent athleticism find better options for their life than being a professional sportsmen, the bottom 80% [1] of…

Yes, it's all well supported by genetics and biology.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#518

Post by micahbright »

Interesting perspective, but:

>I’m not remotely surprised, however, that Damore naturally assumes the differences between typically female and male traits mean that men are more skilled.

He never said or implied that. The whole problem is people overreacting about what they read in to it.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#519

Post by hhhsdfnn888 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #455
doubleshame wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except... wait for it... the employer: Google. Employees at work: shouldn't be discussing issues that distract them; shouldn't be socializing with each other because work and personal life should obviously be separate; they should just keep their heads down and keep working. There's no doubting that all recent controvertial topics have led to the ideas that: divide up society into individuals afraid to express their…

Recent discussions have unearthed this plot twist: Google soliticed employees' opinion on the topic. They asked people what they think, then sacked an employee who did what they asked.

Really? Cause I read it as Google hosts a forum for non-PC discourse. But that's not the same as "solicited". It's optional and not a requirement.

And when the company has a desire to move in a direction, and it's being openly undermined, employees that undermine it get fired.

The only reason this is so visible is because of the gender content.

Otherwise, this is standard operating procedure in corporate America.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#520

Post by nowo »

_b8r0 wrote: post #416
nowo wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize his paper was posted to a list at google called "pc-considered-harmful"?

Can you indulge me in a thought experiment. You seem like a reasonable human being but I think your question shows that you may have fallen into a moral trap. Can you explain to me the point I've made that you're arguing for or against with your question. Show me how your question has any impact on that point. If you're taking a side and saying "But did you know this person was literally Hitler" then you may have fal…

> Can you explain to me the point I've made that you're arguing for or against with your question.

The idea in your comment is that you can't, or at least are dissuaded, to express certain opinions. Most the things I hear about Google, including the existence of a list talking about the harms of political correctness, that the author felt free to write such a report and many other reported freedoms at work indicate that this isn't the case. That in fact people at Google are more free to express themselves in these types of issues than at other companies.

You're the one who seems to be upset. I wrote one line and you jump to conclusions, question my motives, dig into my comment history and even managed to bring up Hitler. I try to argue the facts. Maybe you should question yourself as you question others.

Post reply on HN