Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture • Hacker News Board

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#721

Post by _Tev » Tue, Sep 04, 2018, 8:41 AM UTC

mike10010100 wrote: post #712

Const-me wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> haven't been able to articulate any. See the link in the previous comment. Being fired for expressing a political viewpoint is a classic example of discrimination. Also because the subject was about work conditions, the firing was illegal in California jurisdiction. > describing how he and others believed women weren't as "qualified" to be programmers Apparently, you have not read that memo. He never said that (I’v…

> See the link in the previous comment. That really doesn't describe a threat to the "white heterosexual Christian" identity. In fact, you're free to be a white heterosexual Christian at Google or anywhere else for that matter. > Being fired for expressing a political viewpoint is a classic example of discrimination. Again, the viewpoint on women and minorities was an intolerant one. Please study the Paradox of Toler…

He makes observation of women's preferences, based on data. You claim he is "suggesting" something that is not there (seems like projection). Is this really the best argument for Damore's "intolerance" (in the memo) you can make?

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#722

Post by _Tev » Tue, Sep 04, 2018, 11:51 AM UTC

methodover wrote: post #669

ThomPete wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for. So no it's not causal, it's exactly the opposite correlational. Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about? This is what is absurd about it. Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies, conservatives on the other hand are. And no I am not a conservative. Virtue signal…

> We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for. Huh? I think you're missing some key words in this sentence. You're trying to say that it's inappropriate for a company to "fight for" gay acceptance? Is that it? That could have many different meanings, depending on who you ask. Why don't you show me a specific thing a SV company has done that you find objectio…

> As far as alienating people who disagree, GREAT! That's the whole point! Those people who have a problem with gay people should find somewhere else to work.

This is glorious! Thanks for great illustration of problems with politics at work / US* politics in general. You are winning, but at the cost of alienating opposition. You will never convince anyone outside of your social "tribe", and therefore you are just sewing conflict.

And THAT is the biggest problem in politics today.

* of course this tribalism is natural to humans, therefore everywhere. But few "democratic" countries are as polarized as USA.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#723

Post by PhasmaFelis » Wed, Sep 05, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

AvocadoPanic wrote: post #386

coliveira wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the whole mindset of people who want to maintain the status quo. "Just keep your mouth shut" is a mantra that only helps to maintain the oppression system.

Is the oppression system the bit that keeps the lights on? The alternative tends to be the system where everyone starves.

You seriously think those are the only two options?

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#724

Post by jeffmcmahan » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 1:41 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #716

jeffmcmahan wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it cynical to demonstrate that a specific claim -- put across with unreasonable certitude -- is in fact flatly false? Let me ask you: is De Morgan's theorem political? Directly? Indirectly?

Would it benefit some group more than the other? Then it has political consequences. Logic seems fairly apolitical, but logicians rarely. Thus it's pretty reasonable to think of circumstances where simply stating a fact turns out to be political.

"Would [De Morgan's theorem] benefit some group more than the other?"

Your actual publicly adopted opinion reads like a joke.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#725

Post by mike10010100 » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

_Tev wrote: post #720

mike10010100 wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Against treats to that identity. What, precisely, about other minorities existing threatens that identity? You keep repeating this claim of threats, but haven't been able to articulate any. > I don’t think the right way to solve this is oppress, stamp out, or discriminate people positively or negatively. And yet that's precisely what the Google engineer linked to was doing by circulating his memo describing how he…

> And yet that's precisely what the Google engineer linked to was doing by circulating his memo describing how he and others believed women weren't as "qualified" to be programmers based solely on their biology. Hence, why he was fired. After all discussions on the HN on the topic you still hold this view? When you paint the dissenting view in the worst possible light (and imagine a few things just to be sure), you w…

> Hence the identity threat to the conservatives.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Just be prepared for your ideology to be called out for what it is if you choose to publicly stand for it.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#726

Post by mike10010100 » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

Const-me wrote: post #715

mike10010100 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> See the link in the previous comment. That really doesn't describe a threat to the "white heterosexual Christian" identity. In fact, you're free to be a white heterosexual Christian at Google or anywhere else for that matter. > Being fired for expressing a political viewpoint is a classic example of discrimination. Again, the viewpoint on women and minorities was an intolerant one. Please study the Paradox of Toler…

The quotes you’ve copy-pasted are about statistically significant gender difference in interests and preferences. The conclusion you’ve made in this and previous comments is about abilities. Huge difference between the two.

> The conclusion you’ve made in this and previous comments is about abilities.

This is the conclusion the author of the memo reaches as well. His suggestions are not to fix the culture surrounding these preferences, but instead to simply "give women what they prefer", which inherently limits their experience and makes an implicit claim on their ability without that compensation.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#727

Post by mike10010100 » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

_Tev wrote: post #721

mike10010100 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> See the link in the previous comment. That really doesn't describe a threat to the "white heterosexual Christian" identity. In fact, you're free to be a white heterosexual Christian at Google or anywhere else for that matter. > Being fired for expressing a political viewpoint is a classic example of discrimination. Again, the viewpoint on women and minorities was an intolerant one. Please study the Paradox of Toler…

He makes observation of women's preferences, based on data. You claim he is "suggesting" something that is not there (seems like projection). Is this really the best argument for Damore's "intolerance" (in the memo) you can make?

> He makes observation of women's preferences, based on data.

He then prescribes things based on that generalization that make implicit claims about the ability of women to work without said compensation.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#728

Post by _Tev » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

mike10010100 wrote: post #727

_Tev wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He makes observation of women's preferences, based on data. You claim he is "suggesting" something that is not there (seems like projection). Is this really the best argument for Damore's "intolerance" (in the memo) you can make?

> He makes observation of women's preferences, based on data. He then prescribes things based on that generalization that make implicit claims about the ability of women to work without said compensation.

Quote them. Seriously.

Because you really sound like making stuff up, just to confirm your bias against Damore. The whole memo was about something else, yet you claim that because:

> He then prescribes things based on that generalization that make implicit claims about the ability of women to work without said compensation.

(whatever that actually means)

he is:

> He's regurgitating the idea that biology, rather than society, is what is holding women back in the tech industry.

That's gross hyperbole at best, and, considering you have not provided single citation (even after being called out), seems like random baseless belief you hold.

Frankly, now your two liner applies wonderfully:

> You are free to believe whatever you want. Just be prepared for your ideology to be called out for what it is if you choose to publicly stand for it.