Outraged about the Google diversity memo? • Hacker News Board

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#841

Post by lsaferite » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 1:05 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #745

Sacho wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I want to point out you are employing a classic motte-and-bailey tactic. In your initial post, you said: > In this memo's case, perhaps you're mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action Getting mad at the memo seems like an unreasonable reaction to me, especially for the stated reason. Now you've moved to: > There is a big…

> What I'm worried about though, is that once we stop talking, you will charge down to the bailey, and decry Damore as a sexist who should never have opened his mouth, You're wrong. I've met him in passing, he didn't strike me as worth considering, then or now. I deliberately avoided prior conversations precisely because of how clear it was that he was going to be fired for this. He had to know it would happen. There…

No rebuttals to your arguments here, just an observation. You seem like the exact kind of person that I would never want to interact with in person. Perhaps modulating your rhetoric just a tad would make people more inclined to have a reasonable debate with you.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#842

Post by lsaferite » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 1:37 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #812

mistermann wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lik…

> 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! All we can do is dedicate ourselves to following the evidence where we can and avoiding judgement when possible.

> I've met him in passing, he didn't strike me as worth considering, then or now.

That seems fairly judgemental to me.

Edit: To clarify, you are making a value judgement of a person based on some unspecified happening when you met then in passing. That seems to indicate you didn't give much chance in the way to understand that person or the reasoning behind their thoughts.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#843

Post by mistermann » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

tchaffee wrote: post #837

mistermann wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> 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.

Agreed, but that's my very complaint! As they say, the pendulum has swung too far! (In my opinion, of course.)

> 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.

What bothers me is the trajectory we are on. You can debate things "in society", but "freely"? Have you not read news articles on the increasing suppression of free speech on campuses, or people being physically attacked for what they believe in? And of course, Google is free to do whatever it wants, that is true, but please don't simultaneously say that it is indisputable that they have a culture of free speech, or that their messaging is somewhat out of line with their actions.

I'm not unsympathetic to the other side of this debate, how people (myself included) perceive the world makes it extremely difficult to appreciate different points of view, and I often think people are far off the mark, for example the commentary on the intentions of the author of this manifesto.

These conversations agitate me because it can seem like people think you are completely wrong, even though I doubt (or hope not) that is your intent or belief.

EDIT:

I imagine you've seen this: http://huyenchip.com/2017/08/09/sexism-in-silicon-valley.htm...

"We need to be careful when encouraging affirmative action in tech to ensure it doesn’t reinforce the philosophy of treating women differently."

This is one of the things I had in mind when I said "All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is." Yes, women may be getting hired, but for what reason matters.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#844

Post by lsaferite » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 1:51 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #521

mpweiher wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. First, the section is "Non-discrimnatory ways to reduce the gender gap". You cannot reduce the "gap" by aiming at the women who are already at Google. This should be obvious. They are already there. To make a dent in the gap, you need to attract more women who currently do not choose to work in tech or not at Google. So nothing he writes is about his colleagues at Google, or by extension women who are already in…

> You cannot reduce the "gap" by aiming at the women who are already at Google. This should be obvious. They are already there. To make a dent in the gap, you need to attract more women who currently do not choose to work in tech or not at Google. So nothing he writes is about his colleagues at Google, or by extension women who are already in or interested in tech. It is about potentially attracting those who are not…

> That depends. If I told you the only way you're going to be competitive and not drag down the standard of my organization is by pairing up with another person, should you take that as a compliment?

This is factualy not what was said in the memo.

https://diversitymemo.com/#reduce-gender-gap

> Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

> We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration.

That was literally the only mention of pair programming the the entire memo and it was as a suggestion to make positions more appealing to women who were more interested in people and more social. Not once does he equate pair programming as some remedial for your perceived statement of lower quality ability. The guy was trying to suggest ways to attract more women and you flip it around to demonize him. Do you not see that you are large part of the problem? Instead of trying to engage and explain to him why his points are perhaps wrong or misguided, you instead twist his words to simply eviscerate him instead.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#845

Post by lsaferite » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 1:59 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #162

nailer wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the same thing as telling an individual they're less capable.

Why? What positive connotation could be drawn from it?

You: Suggesting pair programming is an insult because you think I'm less capable.

Author: Pair programming may be one possible way to bring more social women into programming by appealing to their interest in people vs. things

He wrote one thing, your read another. Who's the one with a problem here exactly? The author or the reader?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#846

Post by vasilipupkin » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 2:31 PM UTC

jovdg wrote: post #826

vasilipupkin wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I understand that in the USA you are usually either "left" or "right", but in the EU there are a many "center" parties. Would this not make a substantial difference? If you put two opposite extremists of moderate intelligence together to talk, you will probably not hear a great conversation. (This is not only true for politics.)

Democratic Party and Republican Party in the US are coalitions of different types of people. We are talking about discussing politics when people strongly disagree being pointless. Presumably, supporters of different center parties in Europe don't disagree that much

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#847

Post by vasilipupkin » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

tchaffee wrote: post #840

vasilipupkin wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are missing the fact that private workplace is not a free speech forum. It's just a private place of business. You can do what you want but employment is at will. By all means, you should be free to discuss whatever you like, but a company is perfectly free to fire you so you have more time to continue your discussions elsewhere

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#848

Post by vasilipupkin » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 2:34 PM UTC

raarts wrote: post #825

humanrebar wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes the point of the conversations is reminding each other that we're decent and intelligent humans. Giving up on engaging because you haven't converted people is giving up too soon. Sometimes the changed mind is in how we value political opponents, not whether we agree with them.

Not all countries have two-party systems.

Not sure I understand what that has to do with my original comment

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#849

Post by protomyth » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 2:37 PM UTC

eregorn wrote: post #839

protomyth wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'll point out how you started this thread:

> I feel like this happened because it seems he accidentally presented himself to the outside world as alt-right.

Through all this, I still don't understand what you think he did to "present" himself as alt-right? I really hate when people put labels on others just to be able to dismiss them and calling someone alt-right should be backed up with a little bit of evidence.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#850

Post by tchaffee » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 2:38 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #843

tchaffee wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

> 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. Agreed, but that's my very complaint! As they say, the pendulum has swung too far! (In my opinion, of course.) > Look Mom! We are freely debating something right here, right in society! D…

> Agreed, but that's my very complaint! As they say, the pendulum has swung too far! (In my opinion, of course.)

I'm glad we're finally getting to some sort of consensus that this is firmly in the realm of human relationships and has little to do with facts and more to do with opinions. Your co-workers' opinions of you are very important. Like it or not, fair or not, that is never going away. Fortunately you have some freedom in where you choose to work and can try to find a good cultural fit to your own values.

> What bothers me is the trajectory we are on.

Newspapers need clickable headlines to stay in business. I'm not worried. There was never a guarantee in the USA that you will have a public forum for whatever nonsense (or genius) you want to spew. It has always been up to the public, or your co-workers, if they want to give you a forum. As long as the government isn't interfering with my speech, I can handle company policy, co-workers, friends and family, and the general public, all with just by using my people skills.

> please don't simultaneously say that it is indisputable that they have a culture of free speech, or that their messaging is somewhat out of line with their actions.

No one, not me, not even Google, is claiming their primary goal is free speech. Per their CoC, a primary goal is a workplace free of harassment. Which by definition limits your speech. In fact they fired someone for what he said, no apologies. So I don't see any inconsistency. Your speech is indeed limited at work if you work for Google or any big company in the world.

Now if conservatives at Google, as a minority, are being harassed or silenced just because of their political views, then I do agree that is a problem, and one I hope they fix. Not in the name of free speech, but in the name of another stated goal they have: diversity.

> I imagine you've seen this

She also admits that sometime the best way to have women feel comfortable in tech is to just first get a lot of women into tech. Chicken and egg problem. I encourage aggressive affirmative action once you've already identified existing bias against any minority. Sexism and racism are problems in the tech world. When they aren't problems anymore, the affirmative action will go away due to market forces. No company will bear the cost of affirmative action if there is no risk of lawsuits from minorities currently being excluded.