Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#861

Post by rexpop » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

fareesh wrote: post #460

rexpop wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Witch-hunts were authoritarian campaigns of gendercide. A gross, systematic slaughtering of thousands upon thousands of women. It's egregiously callous for you to misuse the term in this way. Perhaps you men "snark-hunt".

It's not misuse, it's intentional. Men were not the target of witch hunts because they were the "incorrect" sex. Today, in cases where merit seemingly takes a backseat to diversity, men are the "incorrect" sex for some opportunities, like say if you want to speak at a node.js conference, or attend some special mentoring workshop. The opposite is not true, if you are not a man, there are no instances that I am aware o…

I think this is an inaccurate view of witch. How did you come to your understanding?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#862

Post by gowld » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

finnthehuman wrote: post #718

gowld wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In context, that appears to be referring to voting or supporting a candidate in elections, not for discussing platforms or issues.

No. You can't put the law "in context" while outright ignoring case law. Courts have consistently found 1101 and 1102 to offer broad protection. I'm not a lawyer, nor want to do the research. AIUI from learned legal commentary, the broadness has not been tested for exactly this sort of issue, but that doesn't make it slam-dunk unprotected either. You're claiming to put something "in context," but rather than clarify…

It's not "fake-smart" to read a document and try to understand it. Refusing to do research yet making uncited authoritative claims strikes me as far more "fake-smart"

This type of arrogant hostile condescension makes me unhappy with with Hacker News.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#863

Post by gowld » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 1:38 AM UTC

randyrand wrote: post #252

gowld wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In context, that appears to be referring to voting or supporting a candidate in elections, not for discussing platforms or issues.

The line between those seems quite thin. Showing support for a candidate is quite literally showing support for a certain set of platforms or political idea.

Yes, but the converse is less clear, which is why supporting ideas is more acceptable than campaigning for a candidate.