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

831–840 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#831

Post by zimpenfish »

sbmassey wrote: post #804
zimpenfish wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> "Only exact literal words count for meaning" is the only fair way of interpreting any given nonfictional writing.

We'll have to disagree on that - subtext is an important factor to consider, especially in political / charged contexts.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#832

Post by zimpenfish »

TezlaOil wrote: post #805
zimpenfish wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

Presumably that would require a population-representative sample of 282 though, not a self-selected (and therefore potentially biased) sample.

Otherwise you could run a poll "Who thinks [minority] should leave the USA?", get a high "yes" response, say "THE POPULACE AGREE!" but then discover only racists/whatever have replied because Breitbart/4chan dogpiled the poll - which would make it 100% invalid, no?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#833

Post by flukus »

fweespeech wrote: post #700
flukus wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was, then the social justice movement decided that companies should be political and that they should take an active role in promoting their political positions. Some on the other side did as well (what sort of cakes they had to make). This is the obvious and predictable blowback that has come from companies becoming political.

> It was, then the social justice movement decided that companies should be political and that they should take an active role in promoting their political positions. Some on the other side did as well (what sort of cakes they had to make). This is the obvious and predictable blowback that has come from companies becoming political. It isn't just the SJWs. Conservatives have called for being fired for offending them…

Fair enough,I live in a pretty secular country so I haven't witnessed that personally, only the SJWs.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#834

Post by zimpenfish »

jshevek wrote: post #738
zimpenfish wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A throwaway account created specifically to post one comment is a sign of bad faith. It's entirely possible that I am wrong but the lack of subsequent engagement suggests otherwise.

"using a newly created account means you aren't." This is wrong. Using a newly created account does not mean the communicator is approaching this in bad faith. That's a complete non sequitor. "lack of subsequent engagement suggests otherwise." Not at all. There are numerous reason they might not engage further within this time frame - or ever.

> Using a newly created account does not mean [...] bad faith

Specifically to post one (1) comment strongly implies it though. You disagree, fine; we'll agree to differ on this.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#835

Post by ManlyBread »

_r_o_y_ wrote: post #499
ramblerman wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How does one knows that the premise is bad when you're not even allowed to disciss it? Furthermore, how come the discussion itself is viewed as harmful? If you claim that the premise is wrong shouldn't it be very easy to prove so? What if the other person is open minded and actually willing to consider your arguments, as long as you're willing to do the same?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#836

Post by zimpenfish »

jshevek wrote: post #501
TeMPOraL wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the value on the y axis, for those two points taken from presented distributions, is the fucking same ... It's hard to make that point even more obvious.

It's pretty clear from the totality of this person's comments that they are here to obfuscate and troll. Not sure why this is allowed on HN.

Would you care to revise your statement given https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14981300 ?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#837

Post by tchaffee »

mistermann wrote: post #810
tchaffee wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> how does one tell the difference between...

By talking to people and using your people skills.

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

Yes. It's not a written definition. It's a living and changing definition created by the people who work there and how YOU make them feel. You need to use your people skills in order to extract the definition from your co-workers.

> wouldn't be taken seriously, because such ideas are obviously false.

This is the core of your misunderstanding. The scientific merit of ideas has zero relationship to whether or not you are harassing someone. Anyone who said the offensive things I wrote wouldn't be taken seriously and would be fired because they are offensive. True or not. Obviously true or not. And for all you know, whoever said the above does work for cheap Jews (my apologies if I've offended anyone with this language - I love Jews like everyone else and I hope you can understand I'm using this for illustration purposes only).

> 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.

Look Mom! We are freely debating something right here, right in society!

Don't confuse "Google" (an employer) with "society". No one is forcing you to work at Google nor for your employment status to be determined by their code of conduct.

Even HN has a code of conduct, and yet you seem to be ok debating things here.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#838

Post by OscarCunningham »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #816
OscarCunningham wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. But I notice that most discussions on sexism in technology companies focus on the outcomes; gender ratios and pay gaps. It would be interesting to try to measure the bias directly. Hide a bunch of microphones in offices and see if the number of sexist comments is larger at Google than it is at a law firm or a hospital. Perhaps somebody has already done this. What would be the correct search terms?

> But I notice that most discussions on sexism in technology companies focus on the outcomes; gender ratios and pay gaps. It's a specific instance of the more general manage-by-metrics disease. The thing you actually want is hard to measure, but it correlates with something that is easy to measure. So instead of doing the hard work to understand what is actually happening in detail, they measure the easy thing and op…

Sure, but knowing where it was most prevalent might give us information about how to promote a better culture.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#839

Post by eregorn »

protomyth wrote: post #773
eregorn wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 give…

I think you completely misunderstand me. A bit my fault cause I usually plan out how I argue and I honestly did not expect this type of questioning. I'll reiterate my first comment in that I know the guy's libertarian (I think, definitely not alt right)?

I mean shit, this whole argument has nothing to do with whether I want to listen to his arguments. It was an explanation of how silly things like this happen in the first place where a libertarian gets confused for an alt right person.

Maybe the goat metaphor wasn't the best thing to go for, since the goat lover is an actual goat lover regardless of the other things he does. Maybe framed 7 times with a goat makes more sense? Maybe plain words are better: He's advertised the things people consider alt right, but not the things about him that prove he isn't. The actual alt right notice these discrepancies regardless and correctly identify him.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#840

Post by tchaffee »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #406
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…

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…

> 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.

There is zero difference in practice. If I'm fired and can't come to work anymore, the discussion has been stopped, no? Happy to be corrected if I'm missing something.

Post reply on HN