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

#491

Post by flatb » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #477

flatb wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 giv…

>Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

>Definition of sexism

>1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex

Enough. Just believe what you want, I give up. There's no sexism on the tech industry or schools. James Damore is right and is an oppressed victim of his own bravery. Whatever.

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

#492

Post by helen___keller » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

godshatter wrote: post #425

helen___keller wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues From the company's PoV you're correct. From the employee's PoV I'm not convinced.

I must be old or something. To me, it's a simple question. Is my employer paying me to discuss politics or religion? If no, then I don't see why I should be using their time and their resources to do so.

My employer isn't paying me to poop either but I make sure to do that every day ;)

To be less glib, the level of acceptable discourse tends to be built into a companies culture. I've never seen a workplace with zero discourse on the outside world, and I doubt it exists. Companies like google clearly push the concept to its breaking point, though.

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

#493

Post by username90 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

flatb wrote: post #491

username90 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 giv…

>Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism >Definition of sexism >1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex Enough. Just believe what you want, I give up. There's no sexism on the tech industry or schools. James Damore is right and is an oppressed victim of his own bravery. Whatever.

I hope people on a tech forum understand what "or" means.

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

#494

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

helen___keller wrote: post #480

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

I have the feeling I'm a few philosophy-degrees short of being confident in any particular answer to that question :(

I hate it when discussions about potentially important topics end with a muddle of uncertainty about metaphysical matters. It seems to end this way just about every time.

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

#495

Post by RangerScience » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #485

RangerScience wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1... > getting a tattoo of a swastika You can totally go get it. I won't welcome you back. You are no longer celebrating other people's self-expression, and so lose our celebration of yours. > So this means I no longer need to tolerate you, personally? Hmm... Yeah, seems reasonable. Here's a different approach: It seems clear that most people are able…

That link claims to be about tolerance, yet leads with a picture of someone holding a bat menacingly but wearing a uniform that appeals to your political taste. Sorry, no, that is not tolerance. Rather it is political violence . Political violence may be justifiable, but needs to be argued for on its own merits - not couched as an exception to "tolerance". > You can totally go get [a swastika tattoo] . I won't welcom…

Okay, different way to explain it:

Person A says "Let's kill all of Group B"

Person B says "I won't tolerate Person A"

Person C says "I won't tolerate Person B"

Person A is being intolerant. They are breaking the terms of the notional peace treaty; the consequence of that is losing the right to be tolerated.

Person B is OK because Person A has lost the right to be tolerated. They are not breaking the notional treaty.

Person B is not OK because Person B has not lost the right to be tolerated. They are breaking the notional treaty.

As for the rest of what you're saying...

Yeah, I can see how that bat picture is off-putting. I don't always notice those kinds of undercurrents. Thanks for pointing it out!

> discourage people from expressing themselves in ways you do not agree with

You can, if your differentiator is along different axis. See the Person A/B/C example above.

> Furthermore

Thanks for expressing that you're picking this up. That's not something I'm putting down, so I'm not sure where that's coming from.

> perceived as intolerance

Yep. I don't yet have a way to address this en masse, although talking to individuals seems to work.

> Setting subjective feelings as a measure

...That seems appropriate? But you're right about the failure mode. I'd then say the issue isn't using this sensor we've all got, but in directly reacting to the results of that sensor. If your box is showing high CPU usage, and all you do is up the CPU...

> I stand by my original comment.

You do you, and I value that you're expressing what you're picking up. It's not what I'm putting down.

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

#496

Post by RangerScience » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #489

RangerScience wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you How do you differentiate between "biases" and "legitimate disagreement"? I do it by exploring how much attention someone's paid to they path they took to where they are. Biases generally present as short, unexamined paths. > Or: Two wrongs don't make a right. I would agree. Too much of justice is about negative incentives.

Because I think you need to have more empathy for why people align themselves with causes you disagree with. If you have the time, I suggest reading "They Thought they Were Free," by Milton Meyer. It's a well-known book that tries to answer why generally "good" people joined or supported the Nazi party in pre-WWII Germany. It's been about a decade since I last read it, but I keep it on my shelf. What I remember, thou…

I've gotten my feet wet in terms of understanding that kind of thing, but not really gotten into it. Thanks for the book recommendation!

That said, as legit as your recommendations are, I don't see how this answers my question:

How do you differentiate between biased and legitimate disagreement?

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

#497

Post by manfredo » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

flatb wrote: post #491

username90 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 giv…

>Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism >Definition of sexism >1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex Enough. Just believe what you want, I give up. There's no sexism on the tech industry or schools. James Damore is right and is an oppressed victim of his own bravery. Whatever.

Damore advocated for neither prejudice nor discrimination. He explicitly stated that people should not assume that differences in averages should be applied at an individual level. And not only did he not advocate for discrimination, he advocated for Google to eliminate it's discriminatory practices.

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

#498

Post by username90 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 8:23 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #495

mindslight wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link claims to be about tolerance, yet leads with a picture of someone holding a bat menacingly but wearing a uniform that appeals to your political taste. Sorry, no, that is not tolerance. Rather it is political violence . Political violence may be justifiable, but needs to be argued for on its own merits - not couched as an exception to "tolerance". > You can totally go get [a swastika tattoo] . I won't welcom…

Okay, different way to explain it: Person A says "Let's kill all of Group B" Person B says "I won't tolerate Person A" Person C says "I won't tolerate Person B" Person A is being intolerant. They are breaking the terms of the notional peace treaty; the consequence of that is losing the right to be tolerated. Person B is OK because Person A has lost the right to be tolerated. They are not breaking the notional treaty.…

A more relevant example:

Person A: B raped a girl, so B doesn't tolerate women!

Person B: I did not!

Person C: I don't tolerate person B.

Person B's Friends: I don't tolerate person C since they broke the tolerance contract, B hasn't done anything.

Person C's friends: I don't tolerate B's friends since they broke the tolerance contract by not tolerating A.

Does this sound familiar? It was the start of the Tulsa massacre. If you say that "intolerance of intolerance" is a good thing then I take it that you think that the Tulsa massacre was warranted, since they were just intolerant of intolerant people right?

Edit: Or in the case of for example Damore:

Person A: There are inherent differences between group A and group B, so likely not all differences we see between them are due to discrimination.

Person B: I don't tolerate A's intolerance, he is clearly bigoted and thus broke the contract!

Person C: I don't tolerate B's intolerance, A might be misguided but didn't really show intolerance.

A, B and C now starts a verbal war causing several people to get fired on both sides before it calms down.

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

#499

Post by RangerScience » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 8:25 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #472

RangerScience wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> stopped at all cost

Including the cost of, say, being intolerant of intolerance of intolerance?

AFAIK, one of the major reasons to be intolerant of intolerance is to prevent lynchings.

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

#500

Post by normalnorm » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 8:33 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #262

normalnorm wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Expecting to have the same rights as if using your own devices when using someone else’s device that they are paying you to perform work on qualifies as an indignity to me. Every single second that you are working, you know that your employer might be looking over your shoulder. It's like living under a microscope. For me, this is an indignity. Having to work in such circumstances would probably drive me to deep de…

US law holds the employer responsible for what happens on their computers. No one cares to if you check your email every now and then or read the news. But how can an organization protect itself from the myriad ways someone can damage the computer or others on the network without monitoring it? In addition, everyone has a personal computer in their pocket they can use if they want privacy.

Yes, yes. There is always some legal reason with you guys. Somehow we manage here in Europe. Go figure...