One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions • Hacker News Board

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#471

Post by DuskStar » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

JohnBooty wrote: post #349

mrrrgn wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "white supremacy" because you use it so often it seems like something nebulous. -- So it seems that "white supremacy" is a catchall term for anything that argues a biological basis for group differences. Thank you for the links and for not just being aghast that I didn't know this. :]

We'll Google it for you. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Damore#Sex_and_drugs_and... RationalWiki has a very opinionated take on things, but that article is very well-sourced (75 linked sources!) so you can read right up. Now, it could fairly be said that his pro-KKK arguments were more "glib humor" than endorsement and I'd agree. I would also say it's part of the pattern of negative workplace behavior that got h…

Just reading the section you linked, it sounds like he's autistic, not racist. If you didn't know that "Grand Dragon" and "Imperial Wizard" were KKK titles, you'd probably think they were cool - or at least that some nerds would think they were cool.

Hell, those titles being cool without their association to the KKK is why the KKK used those titles.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#472

Post by username90 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #469

stale2002 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcing. No, it is actually not. It is self defeating. The problem with giving "exceptions" for why you are now allowed to treat another person, in a horrible manner, is that humans are great at trying to take advantage of those exceptions. Basically nobody who is do…

This is revealing some interesting things to me. Seems to me the issue is poor self-examination. If you feel like you're doing something because someone "deserves" it, you're doing it wrong; examine the what led yourself here to find out what it's really about.

"intolerance of intolerance" leads to lynchings, that sort of behavior needs to be stopped at all cost. USA has mostly gotten over lynchings but still has way too much intolerance, you would be much better off if you were a bit more tolerant and less judgmental over there.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#473

Post by flatb » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:02 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #442

flatb wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch... >Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism (a higher-order personality trait) Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers…

> Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers that they should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you in regards to the job This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech. He said that gender differences can explain, i…

>This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech.

Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating:

>Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

And certainly he didn't say that women were genetically inferior in high-powered tech jobs! He simply said that they're genetically predisposed to dislike jobs that involve systematizing (such as...tech jobs), and that they're genetically inferior when it comes to handling stressful jobs (which, by pure chance, he happens to exemplify with Googlegeist, a...tech job), since they can't handle stress as well as men do because they're genetically predisposed to anxiety and neuroticism:

>Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). (...) More men may like coding because it requires systemizing. >Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist

I don't even know why I bother. I regret getting into this argument. Believe what you like; as long as you see movements for social improvement as some kind of personal accusation, it's what you'll do anyway. Yes, women in tech are not discriminated against, or if they are, it's either exaggerated or there's a reasonable explanation for it. Whatever, downvote away.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#474

Post by fareesh » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

MockObject wrote: post #445

fareesh wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what if your coworker likes attending KKK rallies and you're African-American? Or your co-worker is out there on the weekend holding signs that say "Death to Gays" and you just happen to be gay? What's the solution for the people in your country who are attending these rallies and holding up these signs? This boycott model of employment will eventually have them fired from minimum wage jobs too. So where would…

> Broadly though I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the prospect of someone exceptional who is working at a top tech company, with someone whose intelligence is low enough to advocate outright racism or bigotry. It's simple if the threshold for racism and bigotry is driven low enough that it ends up including the private beliefs of most of the country and even more of the world.

Right, which is why I was curious to know if there was a better example than KKK member, because we have seen this kind of inquisition approach to politics before.

If you go back to 9/11 we saw this same type of reasoning where instead of "KKK", "terrorist" was used as a fringe stand-in to justify the draconian structure where crazy things like spying, witch-hunting / denial of due process etc. became the norm.

I remember watching Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 in which they interview these sweet old people running a book club where they eat cookies and discuss books. A few weeks into it, the club members read an article in the paper that showed that one of their book club members was there under a fake name and was actually an undercover anti-terrorism police detective, which was confirmed by his department. Thereafter he explores the case of a retired old man who said critical things about President Bush at the gym and the FBI showed up to ask questions about him. (Around this timestamp: https://youtu.be/Q6lcP2f6Nvs?t=3515)

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#475

Post by flatb » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #447

flatb wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have YOU read it? Jesus Christ. > Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators. The whole…

> Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators. No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. And because Google rewards assertiveness, this means women have a harder time negotiating salaries at Google. In a workplace the prioritizes agreeableness over asserti…

>No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average.

Please, PLEASE look up the definition of 'discrimination' in any dictionary you like, and tell me if you really believe that saying 'women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average' does not fit the definition, or that James Damore's many characterizations of women on his memo ("higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance", "women generally have a harder time leading") don't, either. If that's the case, we are simply not going to agree with each other, so we shouldn't waste our time trying.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#476

Post by cptskippy » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

auiya wrote: post #463

cptskippy wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being fired from Google amounts to not just losing a job but "friends" and the only people who the company encouraged socializing with. I've never worked for Google so I have no basis for comparison but it's very common across white collar jobs for employees social circles to very closely if not entirely overlap with work. Unless you participated in extracurricular activities that weren't school sponsored, you prob…

I worked there until 2012. I find this opinion odd as I remain friends with many former colleagues, and probably 3/4 of them have left to work for other companies as well. The tech world is smaller than most people realize.

I wasn't speaking specifically toward the tech world.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#477

Post by username90 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

flatb wrote: post #475

manfredo wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators. No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. And because Google rewards assertiveness, this means women have a harder time negotiating salaries at Google. In a workplace the prioritizes agreeableness over asserti…

>No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. Please, PLEASE look up the definition of 'discrimination' in any dictionary you like, and tell me if you really believe that saying 'women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average' does not fit the definition, or that James Damore's many characterizations of women on his memo ( "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance", "wo…

Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. Discrimination would be if you said something like "We shouldn't hire women since they have trait X" or "Since women often have trait X they need to score higher in other areas for me to hire them" or "I always make sure that women don't have trait X before hiring them".

So for example "I want to hire people who don't have trait X. I give an objective test for this. More men than women pass it. Studies have shown that more men than women pass this globally, so it is as expected. Therefore, due to this test, the people I hire tend to be more men than women." is not discrimination.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#478

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:16 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #412

helen___keller wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> making judgments about the parent's values is a bit out of line. Some people really do just want to go to the office, put in a full day of work, and go home where their "real" life happens. My impression, from working in one of these progressive workplaces, is that nobody is forced to interject or defend their personal opinions, or be a part of those discussions at all. Indeed, just as we have employees bringing th…

I too work in one of these "progressive" workplaces. On political / social matters, I sometimes have an opinion that differs from the one that the company (very vocally) advertises. People holding the majority view are publicly cheered by the company, but people holding minority views are (at best) tolerated. This frustrates me on several levels: - There's no room for debate on these topics. The official company posi…

If a company claims to support multiple religious choices, isn't it inevitable that some of those will conflict?

They can probably avoid the more metaphysical questions but as soon as they have a canteen there's going to be issues if any group assumes their religious rules must be applied to everyone's food (and indeed what they're eating outside of work).

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#479

Post by leftyted » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:16 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #433

leftyted wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can feel however you want about power, about not joining a union, about not paying dues, but the employer always has more power than the employee; they pay you a small fraction of the value you produce for them, you collect a paycheck at their leisure, and they can replace you more easily than you can find another job. "Balance of power between labor and management" doesn't mean 50:50. It means the employee has…

Unfortunately, the only reasoning I can see that "a union for programmers is a terrible idea" is that you "don't want to read newsletters or listen to speeches or be involved at all in the grubby etc". A unionized workplace doesn't mean you 1) need to join the union (closed shops are illegal in the US) or 2) be involved in the "grubby underhanded maneuvering for power" -- in a pragmatic sense because you can't be com…

> Unfortunately, the only reasoning I can see that "a union for programmers is a terrible idea" is that you "don't want to read newsletters or listen to speeches or be involved at all in the grubby etc".

Really? My argument is very straightforward:

> The solution is a balance of power between labor and management. In my case, I feel I have plenty of power. In the case of Google employees, I feel they have plenty of power. Broadly speaking, programmers (in the US) have plenty of power.

> I don't think "unions are bad," I think they are a valid tool to correct power imbalances but they're just a tool, sometimes there is no power imbalance, and a union for programmers is a terrible idea.

I'm not a cog in a machine. I have a significant amount of control over what I'm working on and who I'm working for and how that work gets done.

> What I would find far more convincing is an explanation of how a workplace like Google would be worse if it were a union shop. Lower pay? Nope, union shops consistently draw larger salaries for their workers. Less workplace safety? Nope, union shops consistently have fewer injuries than non-union shops. Fixed salary schedule? Nope, a technical union could easily be structured like SAG -- e.g. Tom Cruise doesn't have a salary cap. Can't fire a bad apple? That seems like a bad idea until someone decides you're the bad apple.

This is exactly my point. Unionization for programmers is about MORE money, LESS work, and LESS accountability. It's an employee cartel. The idea that agitating for a union is a moral endeavor is laughable. It's a moral endeavor when you're a serf or a coal miner.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#480

Post by helen___keller » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #455

helen___keller wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can agree with your logic, in particular with one additional axiom: 3) an employer can respect employees religious views only if they will not imply the religious view is in error It's clearly (from your logic) the case that employers description of "respects" violates axiom (3). If you belong to one of the sects in question I can understand being upset, but I would argue that (given the breadth of beliefs in the w…

Thanks for the excellent response. Good job spotting my (unintentionally) suppressed premise, (3). > I would rather that my employers tries the best possible at the (futile) task of being respectful and celebratory to all, and if problems are raised they try to be concluded with minimal conflict and maximum respect. I think we agree that employers ought to take positions somewhere on the Pereto curve [0] of that trad…

Thanks for the discussion

> If nobody has a convincing argument for the proper balance in that tradeoff-space, though, it makes me wonder if it's simply a matter of personal preference / opinion for everyone involved.

I would suspect that it is, so I guess we've gone a bit meta because the "accepted" way for large organizations of humans to make these trade-offs is politics

So then is it right to say the solution to "too much politics at work" is office politics to decide the right amount of politics at work?