Outraged about the Google diversity memo? • Hacker News Board

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#771

Post by KirinDave » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:21 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #769

KirinDave wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important difference is that in the olympics, a fair and objective qualification system exists. Kenyans are disproportionate in the RANKINGS but not the POPULATION. In Google's case, women fare poorly in botrh (with rankings expressed in the axis of pay or leadership positions). That's a significant difference.

My point was moreso about how prevalent the phenomenon of ignoring obvious objective reality is when certain topics are involved, the key ones off the top of my head being: race, gender, sexuality. Threads such as this are chock full of examples of people who are normally very logical and scientific, but once the subject turns to one of the above, suddenly everything's different, nothing can be determined, observed,…

> My point was moreso about how prevalent the phenomenon of ignoring obvious objective reality is when certain topics are involved, the key ones off the top of my head being: race, gender, sexuality.

Fair. I just wanted to add that it's not terribly applicable to the specifics of the memo and article. People are upset about systemic total representation and undervaluation rather than a lack of singular genius.

But I agree that there are people who find any conversation about statistics as it regards this subject as a form of heresy.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#772

Post by daveheq » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:23 PM UTC

See, just because STEM is less than 50% women means it's sexist against them... Just like nursing, HR, home care, child care, social services, accounting, and a bunch of other services being less than 50% men is sexist against men! Make them equal! Begin the gender wars!

Don't take my word for it though:

https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/professions-wo...

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#773

Post by protomyth » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:25 PM UTC

eregorn wrote: post #765

protomyth wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am trying to figure out what exactly he has done to make him alt-right since they attack him constantly. From the Wikipedia page: > n May 2016 New York Magazine reported: "Shapiro...has increasingly found himself targeted by the so-called alt-right movement, a loose conglomeration of online personalities—many if not most of them anonymous—currently devoted to tweeting and posting their support for Donald Trump and…

Welp, I made a mistake. He's had multiple opinions on Israel, and he's currently pro-Israel at the moment, this was the offending quote: "A decade later, however, Shapiro reversed his position. In an article published on March 13, 2013, Shapiro wrote, "Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestini…

I'm not bringing up Wikipedia or anything else. I am going to one of the main alt-right people to define their beliefs and membership[0].

Vox Day is alt-right. That probably is not a controversial statement to anyone. I would assume that he knows who is alt-right and who is not. Given that he wrote an article[2] that declares Ben Shapiro and enemy of the alt-right and later tries to classify Mr. Shapiro[3], I am given to believe being someones enemy is a pretty good sign that you are not that same someone.

I think you desperately want to classify Ben Shapiro as alt-right for some weird reason. I would assume so you can ignore any argument he puts forward with a cheap label.

0) having to read some of this stuff to actually reply is truly painful and frankly its bad enough I have to read far left stuff, reading alt-right stuff is just as painful.

1) https://infogalactic.com/info/Vox_Day

2) http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/03/an-enemy-of-alt-right.htm...

3) https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/04/does-ben-shapiro-belong-...

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#774

Post by biggerbistro » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:26 PM UTC

michaelchisari wrote: post #240

cm2187 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but agreeing with the infamous memo doesn't make someone a far right extremist. The parent comment suggested it will push them to vote for a harder-line movement but there is a big margin between being opposed to affirmative action and white supremacists.

I absolutely agree that agreeing with the memo doesn't make someone a far right extremist, and I don't believe I ever stated or insinuated that. That's a bit of a non-sequitur, though. This is the exact point I was referring to: they won't change their position. If anything, their position will be radicalized. For example, from classical liberal to alt-right. This is been a common sort of mantra since Trump won the p…

It's funny because this is the EXACT line the left has been parading around after every single islmaic terrorist attack. They say "not all muslims! don't blame islam, it will only radicalize them further!". Whether this line of thinking is right or wrong it means people on the left will have some thinking to do (or mental gymnastics).

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#775

Post by SamReidHughes » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:27 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #336

Lukasa wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. Since when does that excuse anything? If he'd written "Jews are, in general, hateful monsters. Not the Jews who work here, they're great, but most of the rest" does that statement become acceptable? More importantly , Mr Damore does not know all the women at Google personally. He cannot. So when he says "In general, women are less suited to/…

I say: black people are more suited to be NBA players. This is obvious looking at black players % in the league in comparison to the total population as well as the fact that black people are poorer on average and get less opportunities (or even chances for proper nutrition, let alone training). Should white NBA players be offended by that statement? The answer is obvious: they shouldn't as that only means they were…

The funny thing is, you might be wrong about black guys and NBA suitability. The reason is, black people hit puberty earlier, and that might cause them to be selected for and receive extra attention and training because of a temporary athletic advantage, in much the same way that hockey players born in a certain part of the year (the oldest among their cohort) tend to be.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#776

Post by tchaffee » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:29 PM UTC

Caveman_Coder wrote: post #721

tchaffee wrote: post #446

"one also doesn’t solve a problem by yelling “harassment” each time someone asks to discuss whether a diversity effort is indeed effective." Google simply didn't, and neither did Google employees. The letter from CEO Sundar Pichai makes this clear: "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 w…

> "I suspect the reason so many people have trouble with the firing, and the responsibility stated in employee CoC is that it puts a lot of power in other people's hands." I disagree. I think people are upset, at least conservatives within Google, because they see this "against the CoC" idea selectively applied. I can tell you first hand that there were a lot of things said by those on the left, especially after the…

I'm sure it's a little of both of what we said, and other reasons as well.

One has to ask: did the conservative Googlers who felt intimidated or harassed by the hug session report that to HR or management?

If the the CoC is selectively applied then people have to prove it, not just have a hunch about it and moan about it. They need do what every minority group in the past has done: collect stats, show the evidence, and take action.

If this is in fact happening, then I wish them luck, even if I disagree with some of their politics.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#777

Post by qbaqbaqba » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:39 PM UTC

jernfrost wrote: post #400

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 s…

May I ask you about which regulation forbids the behavior You have described? Are you sure it was a directly constitution, not some employment regulations?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#778

Post by rtx » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

rpiguy wrote: post #725

sctb wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Substantiveness and civility aren't unrelated: a lack of the latter undermines the former. A doctoral thesis would be expressed quite differently, for example.

Yes substantiveness and civility are related. However, making a point in 500 characters vs. 20,000+ characters lends itself to some brusqueness. I agree however, that lack of civility can undermine your argument. See the very uncivil comments below from Damore's fellow Google employees, including managers. They undermine their argument and literally create a toxic and scary work environment. I abbreviated the names,…

What's more scary someday people like Larry and Sundar will step down. Then these people will have all the Google's power.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#779

Post by yebyen » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:46 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #584

ramblerman wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that all the things you argue against him for, his small worldview, not willing to come to his senses, are what you are doing yourself. You are kicking and screaming against anything that upsets your viewpoint on this issue. And we actually agree on the most important facet (as do most people) that any discrimination based on age, gender, or race is absolutely not tolerated. But how to achieve this in th…

> You are kicking and screaming against anything that upsets your viewpoint on this issue. Interesting. So in this case I shouldn't debate anyone here. Because somehow that makes me wrong because... By not agreeing my worldview is small? > that any discrimination based on age, gender, or race is absolutely not tolerated. Honestly, I genuinely do not believe that many people here believe this. I think they find excuse…

I read the thread you linked and I'm not sure what you want us to see. It looks like Sacho is being completely reasonable and you two are having a rational, honest discussion.

I don't see anyone "rationalizing marginalizing women"

It looked like the other poster was trying to evaluate the arguments rationally, that's not the same as rationalizing.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#780

Post by mywittyname » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 8:58 PM UTC

hashberry wrote: post #635

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…

> I just dont understand how people who are supposed to be so smart can be so dumb. Aspergers or something similar. Watch the Jordan Peterson interview. He's not well-spoken and he's not even that passionate. It's a joke the mainstream media is calling his memo a "manifesto" when it was just his attempt to analyze gender and diversity in his own socially awkward way. This really is about outrage culture.

He definitely has that arrogance and entitlement complex that some Really Smart developers tend to have. I kind of got this impression from his email, especially when he postulates that competitiveness and self-reliance are traits of excellent developers while being collaborative and people-oriented are traits that bad developers have.

Once I saw him in this video, it became pretty clear that he's one of those entitled developers that you really don't want to be stuck on a team with.