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

801–810 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#801

Post by flukus »

calvinbhai wrote: post #798
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…

I agree with you. I'm from India, living in the US, for quite some time I thoroughly enjoyed the FoS and FoE concepts exercised in the public (IMO, India is nowhere close to such freedom), but the levels of political correctness among peers seems to be a little too suffocating, which is exactly the thing I miss from my Indian experience. It's like the moment you try to have a conversation about some serious topic, yo…

From speaking with Indian colleagues I got the impression that talking about politics is the most common water cooler topic, is that true everywhere? In the end I got bored hearing about Modi all the time.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#802

Post by slededit »

sheepmullet wrote: post #791
GVIrish wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely not all opinions are welcome in the workplace. If someone spread a document that said, 'we shouldn't hire muslims because we can't trust their loyalties', surely expressing that opinion would merit firing. And there's also the question of how opinions are expressed. When you post something publicly for wide distribution, there's much less room to walk things back or to discreetly talk through things. Damor…

> If someone spread a document that said, 'we shouldn't hire muslims because we can't trust their loyalties' That escalated quickly! I think a closer example is someone saying "I support the trump immigration ban". With the far left crowd who have been hyped up by the media this causes the same feelings as saying "I want to ban Muslims" and "I hate Muslims". > And there's also the question of how opinions are express…

When you have quotes from key people like Giuliani saying on national TV: “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"

There is strong evidence the immigration ban is targeted at Muslims. If it weren't for quotes like that Trump wouldn't have had an issue with the courts.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#803

Post by ashayh »

kromem wrote: post #345

An interesting anecdote regarding gender bias and tech. In the very early stage of my company, we wanted to outsource some UX work. After an exhausting review of applicants on one of the freelance sites out there, we finally settled on a Pakistani woman who had the best balance of portfolio vs cost. At the initial Skype call, there was no video. And it turned out to be a guy speaking in a very high voice. We didn't r…

There is a very probable & simple explanation you have missed.

It is common to use a "competent" person to impersonate the actual candidate for remote and/or contract positions, especially in H1B scenarios. I used to insist on a video with a whiteboard or a follow up in-person interview.

In this case they just couldn't find a female in quick time.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#804

Post by sbmassey »

zimpenfish wrote: post #320
averagewall wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a coworker of mine started publicly saying that I'm not genetically qualified for the work I do Why are you changing the meaning of what he wrote? He didn't say that at all. He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. If you choose to misunderstand what someone said, when they did a good job of explaining it clearly, then I think you shouldn't spread that misunderstanding around in…

> He was very clear But, see, it's equally clear to other people that he was dogwhistling like crazy. This is the problem with this "discussion" - one side is doing the "only exact literal words count for meaning" dance (which, for me, is complete bullshit) whilst the other is saying "that's not how the real world works, context and implication is important". The two sides are never going to agree - which is ok - but…

"Only exact literal words count for meaning" is the only fair way of interpreting any given nonfictional writing. Without that, you have nothing to stop yourself from falling into mass hysteria, conspiracy theories, witch burnings and the like, based on nothing more than a bunch of preconceived ideas about people you happen to have in your head.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#805

Post by TezlaOil »

zimpenfish wrote: post #273
michaelchisari wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't say that inspires confidence that the poll is even legitimate. Do we at least have proof that it actually was an internal Google poll and not someone's 15 minutes in photoshop?

Assuming it was legitimate, 282 self-selected responses from a company with tens of thousands of employees wouldn't pass even the most basic "is this poll statistically valid?" test.

> wouldn't pass even the most basic "is this poll statistically valid?" test

It totally would. Statistically, a sample size of 282 out of a population of 60000 is pretty good.

If this test was authentic, we would be 95% sure that the true percentage of the population who think that the memo is harmless is between 47% and 60%.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#806

Post by mistermann »

KirinDave wrote: post #771
mistermann wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

It's applicable in that (in my opinion) the majority of the people aren't - rather they are interested in a fantasy version of the situation that exists only in their imagination. This is why even on forums like HN where people are far more logical than the average person, there is no shortage of bickering over obvious misinterpretations, moving of goalposts, etc. For example, how many of the outraged people here are angry about things that literally aren't even in the article, and even when this is pointed out to them, still they aren't able to wake up and realize how their brain is playing tricks on them.

The older I get, and the longer I see the very same arguments over and over again over decades, the more I am coming around to the idea that a massive portion of the human population possibly can't even see reality. Maybe I am one of them!

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#807

Post by mistermann »

KirinDave wrote: post #731
mistermann wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? "forgive these men their outrageously outdated and somewhat dehumanizing viewpoints and calmly explain to them that currently they are benefitting from a system called patriarchy that has normalized male dominance" doesn't sound like you're open to a debate, it sounds li…

So what you're saying is you don't appreciate my tone? You can nose around my comments. While I'm somewhat acidic with people who suggest it is the feminist responsibility to endure every negative opinion in perpetuity, I'm engaging in most conversations honestly. I am quite confident in the core components of these observations, but I was more skeptical of it some time ago. If you genuinely believe I cannot be swaye…

Not sure really, I guess it is a bit of a hobby, observing the psychological behavior of humans. To me, it is absolutely fascinating how widespread the affliction is where when you find yourself in a disagreement with a person, you can ask them if they think their position is right, they say yes, are you confident, they say yes (or, perhaps by this time they may already instinctively sense danger and leave the conversation), and then if you say ok, let's make a deal, I will ask you a question, and you must answer the question, the one I asked not a modified version of it, and you cannot change the subject....and then after that you can ask me a question....and so on.

In my experiences, this experiment "fails" 90%+ of the time, either by the person refusing to participate, or refusing to hold up their end of the bargain. Yet, they continue to believe absolutely that they are "right"!

I mean to me, this is very fascinating to observe in action.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#808

Post by mistermann »

KirinDave wrote: post #727
mistermann wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And some subjects don't have middle ground. Women being treated less than equal isn't a middle ground sort of issue. Which is why you need to have ongoing discussion, to determine if people are or are not being treated less equally. People who believe they are "right" but are unable or unwilling to defend that position with words ("the debate is over") should not be trusted, ever.

> People who believe they are "right" but are unable or unwilling to defend that position with words ("the debate is over") should not be trusted, ever. So what you're saying is the debate is over about the intentions of people saying the debate is over?

Haha, that's a nice turn of words.

Well, assuming you're serious, what's your thoughts on that? Can we have any absolutes? Or is everything indeterminate? If nothing is knowable and communication is not possible shall we stop sending our children to school and go back to living in caves?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#810

Post by mistermann »

tchaffee wrote: post #746
mistermann wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. It's open, but you'll be fired. > Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment, which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017, then yes I consider it unreasonable. All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in…

> It's open, but you'll be fired. A gross mischaracterization. Open never means anyone can just say whatever comes to mind. "Open discussion??? Oh goody!!! Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews! Wait, what??? You're firing me? Whaaaaaaa, look at me tears, you promised open discussion!!! I'm suing, all woe is me!" I'm confident you're not that naive, and I hope you can see the point of my exaggeration. Eve…

Well, how does one tell the difference between:

"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."

and:

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

Is there a definition for what constitutes "harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination"?

I think anyone interested in not having a note placed into their HR file now knows it is perhaps not a good idea to ask such questions.

> Everything, even open discussion, has limits.

Exactly - the author of the manifesto is free to discuss these concerns with his manager and have them ignored, or leave. They shall not be discussed publicly, or else.

Anyone that said "Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews!" wouldn't be taken seriously, because such ideas are obviously false. The content of this manifesto cannot be dismissed so easily, if it could I suspect someone would have done it and intellectually humiliated this person using superior ideas. The problem is, that's not possible in this case. Hence, in the spirit of equality and harmony, there's really only one practical approach, the one that was taken.

I'd rebut some of your other specific points, but as much fun as these arguments are, they don't really serve any purpose.

For me, it comes down to whether we want to live in a society where we acknowledge reality, or not. Where people debate ideas, or not.

Post reply on HN