Ex-Google recruiter: I was fired because I resisted “illegal” diversity efforts

Post by commandlinefan » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC

throwaway1584 wrote: post #301

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one has been flagged out also. It’s beginning to look like HN really doesn’t like this story, since it’s the third time in the last 24 hours they’ve blown it off the front page.

Personally I wanted to discuss the article yesterday, but it was moved off the front-page too fast despite high interest. It is very common on HN for articles that does not agree with or points out problems in the prevailing viewpoint to be blown off the front page. I think this is emblematic of how tyrannical some of the people subscribing to the prevailing Silicon Valley viewpoint are.

Post by Eridrus » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

memo_ree wrote: post #309

Eridrus wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The refrain I hear is that you can do 20% projects, but you have to do it on top of your 100% project, which isn't contradicted by what you say.

So that refrain seems to imply the 20% project must be done as additional work after spending 40 hours a week on the 100% project. My point was you actually can spend roughly 32 hours a week on your main project, if you are performing well, and then roughly 8 hours a week on your 20% project, and still get high performance ratings.

Post by lwhalen » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

JustAnotherPat wrote: post #326

jerf wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a time dependency in some of this. What "diversity" is, even from a purely left-wing perspective, has changed a lot within my lifetime. I was born in 1978, and when I was growing up, the left-wing diversity perspective focused on "race blindness", MLK's dream about his children being measured by the quality of their character and not the color of their skin, and that sort of thing. Now... well... I know a lot…

There's a very easy answer to your question. It's the understanding that bias/implicit bias exists and needs to be overcome. The MLK quote is such a red herring. It's a nice statement, but what one guy said 50 years ago doesn't define a culture or society.

Post by mental1896 » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 4:52 PM UTC

ashelmire wrote: post #224

ComputerGuru wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Affirmative action is definitely not illegal, regardless of whether it should or shouldn’t be.

Affirmative action literally means the opposite of what you think it means. It means that there will be efforts taken to ensure no discrimination in hiring on the basis of race, sex, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246 etc

Post by CWuestefeld » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

JustAnotherPat wrote: post #338

lwhalen wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "You were born into implicit bias/racism" shtick sounds an awful lot like religion's "You were born into original sin" shtick. The fix is almost identical too: give us money, attention, and spread the word, or else you're extra double-plus ungood and we'll shame you harder.

So you deny that implicit bias exists? Implicit bias has shown to affect areas as dry as medicine to scientific research, yet racial bias is somehow made up?