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

571–580 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#571

Post by user432468 »

davidreiss wrote: post #423
steveeq1 wrote: post #26

> That leaked internal memo from James Damore at Google? The one that says one shouldn’t expect employees in all professions to reflect the demographics of the whole population? I don't see how this is an unreasonable argument to make. There is a dearth of male kindergarten teachers, for instance. This doesn't mean the school is being "sexist". It might just mean that certain genders tend to be attracted to certain t…

Or look at the NBA, coal miners, oil rig workers, chess teams, math clubs, computer gaming tournaments, etc. There are gender disparities all over the place. There are racial disparities all over the place. As long as these disparities aren't enforced intentionally by sexist/racist laws, I fail to see what the problem is. If truly there is discrimination against talented women in the tech industry, then another compa…

Indeed, to focus on certain industries to force "diversity" and to ignore the many, many others that you mentioned that are even less diverse seems wildly hypocritical to me. Why are certain industries cherry picked to be obsessed over and others ignored? If they're going to demand equal representation of skin color and gender across professions, they should be consistent about it.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#572

Post by obstacle1 »

_dps wrote: post #481
obstacle1 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emotion…

By exercising your freedom to negotiate and threatening to use your freedom to leave, you can attempt to cause changes in the corporation. Please don't attempt to tell me that I know my argument is bad.

>Please don't attempt to tell me that I know my argument is bad.

I didn't attempt to tell you that, I did tell you that.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#573

Post by fulfillaneed »

losteverything wrote: post #545

Let me present a walmart associate opinion on the person that was fired. Tldr - sometimes really smart people do the dumbest things. Where was his common sense? For the average associate i know the overarching Question would be did he not know he could be fired? "I would have loved to go to college. I couldn't afford it. Id love to have a job at Google. He probably makes over one hundred thousand dollars. All those y…

There is a big difference between going on Facebook to talk shit about your employer and what happened here. The memo writer asked for feedback on his memo and was ignored. He tried again and again to get feedback on his opinion internally until turning to the Google internal 'skeptic' community. The skeptics doesn't quite like what he wrote so they strung him up and made an example of him. He was encouraged to give feedback like this so that the company could react to internal problems and self correct before they became worse. In a collective sense Google is acting like a child by refusing to address this problem and their reaction will alienate employees more than this memo ever could.

On a personal rant, I've contracted for Google doing software architecture on a few projects. They do have practices which mildly disgust me. Stuff like flagging people as 'diverse' and making sure the correct number of diverse people are in attendance.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#574

Post by smoyer »

jules wrote: post #551
obstacle1 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emotion…

The freedom to leave gives you leverage within the company, even if you don't leave. Imagine how it would be within companies if the government forced people to stay.

Effectively this is what Utah's new non-compete laws achieve. You won't leave if you can't work at another company in your field.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#575

Post by [deleted] »

michaelchisari wrote: post #127
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…

We'll see how the trend moves going forward, but even after capturing (by rhetoric if not act) the white house, the alt-right continues to be a radical fringe, and suffers from serious internal contradictions that make any serious movement building doomed. The movement has attracted the attention of a lot of white nationalists, anti-semites and hardline fascists (amren, natall, kss), while also attracting a new wave…

[deleted]

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#576

Post by yequalsx »

yequalsx wrote: post #505
_b8r0 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You make excellent points and are, logically speaking, correct. We are emotional creatures and we usually respond emotionally. If the list was called "hitler is my hero" there would be a visceral reaction. The framing, the contextual anchoring of a comment does matter and it should matter since we are social creatures that respond emotionally. I very much agree with the top comment made by Const-me and the overall po…

I like the downvote I got. It reinforces the point I made about humans being emotional creatures!

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#577

Post by mnglkhn2 »

hobs wrote: post #515
mnglkhn2 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:) 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.

It is obvious that you guys on the left share the same manuals, since you also come up with the "history's dustbin" and "trash opinions". You learn your words and hammer them consistently. At least you get props for that. :)

No pressure to exhibit coherent and consistent argumentation.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#578

Post by humanrebar »

tchaffee wrote: post #464
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 a…

> If you intimidate enough employees via a widespread memo, you will get fired.

Which part of the memo was intimidating, harassing, or illegal? Which part promoted biases?

> As an example, would anyone expect to keep their job if they published a memo with "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]."

No, but that's because of my low expectation of fairness from corporate leadership and middle management, not because I think that opinion is harassing, intimidating, or illegal. I suppose you could argue that it promotes bias, but then you'd have to make the case that it wasn't true. Otherwise it would be reality with the bias, right?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#579

Post by xapata »

throwanem wrote: post #441
xapata wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it? Yes. In the memo, at least.

Where? How? In what words?

Implication means not explicit. Thus it's up to your interpretation. The context also can affect the implications, including the author's actions after the publication (his interviews on YouTube).

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#580

Post by humanrebar »

madez wrote: post #267
mathw wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've removed possible bias from your hiring process, then you have to accept an imbalance is either a result of uneven retention inclusive-or something operating earlier in the process of training your candidates. The point is to remove as many obstacles as possible. We want the best to get the jobs, but if the are barriers based on gender or race or religion that's potentially denying us a brilliant woman, or b…

I think it's bad to write "woman, or black man, or muslim'. Being a woman or a black man is something that is determined before birth. Your religious views are adopted after birth. That's why I think it is bad to speak of muslim people, as if that defined them the most. That leads to seperation and distrust, we-against-them. Your sex and skin colour is given, your religion can change.

> That's why I think it is bad to speak of muslim people, as if that defined them the most.

Lots of people primarily identify by their religious affiliations. I think that's fair.

> Your sex and skin colour is given, your religion can change.

Ask a Muslim which will change first: their gender, their skin color, or whether Mohammed was Allah's prophet.

All that being said, your point about religion and race being separate categories is fair and well taken.

Post reply on HN