Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 603 posts

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

#521

Post by inferiorhuman »

repolfx wrote: post #253
inferiorhuman wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re already keeping your social media protected/private, that seems like a pretty good sign that you’re not a political troublemaker or activist. How do you figure that? I keep most of my social media stuff private but I would happily participate in, for instance, a unionization campaign and I will vocally support the sorts of folks that people like Damore seek to condemn.

Damore didn't condemn anyone, that's just a smear attack.

True, he's just biologically incapable of understanding anything beyond his immediate situation.

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

#522

Post by ChuckMcM »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #488
ChuckMcM wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were a number of things in the Google employment agreement that my attorney suggested were either unenforceable for legal reasons or overly broad, he also pointed out that companies generally don't retain people who sue them (the contract is employment 'at will'). His advice was that if you didn't like it, just quit. That is the low cost way of getting out from under the contract that left little ill will behin…

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

An acquaintance loves that quote, but modifies it slightly, " ... Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man to get someone else to change it."

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

#523

Post by flatb »

manfredo wrote: post #486
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…

No, it does not fit the definition of discrimination. For example, saying men are on average more violent than women is not discrimination either - it's fact.

Yes: the claims James Damore makes are cold, hard facts based on the many, many studies and statistics available on, for example, women's assertiveness (which is genetically and biologically quantifiable), that he carefully reviewed and contrasted in order to form an opinion. As such, they are facts, which do not fit the definition of discriminatory.

In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory.

Now that you've explained to me what facts are, I finally understand James' logic, so please consider this argument won.

What happened to James, who simply circulated a fact-based memo telling half of his coworkers that they need special rules to make things fair since they're at least partly genetically inferior when it comes to the job, was yet another gratuitous act of SJW, PC, fact-censoring repression against one of society's most silenced and powerless collectives: top-salaried, Ivy League educated young white males working at the top companies of male-dominated high growth industries in the largest economy on the planet, like so many others we sadly see so often here on HN.

It's time we finally took a stand on these issues.

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

#524

Post by downerending »

Konnstann wrote: post #367
bregma wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> due to the rise of teleworking. No longer do people grab a drink after work. I spent 7 years teleworking and had no problem grabbing a drink after work. Now that I have to physically co-locate with cow orkers I can't do that because (a) I'm driving and (2) they want to join me. Drinking alone is the best kind of drinking.

Drinking alone is one of the tell-tale signs of alcoholism.

That's the common saying, yes. For an introvert like me, that always seemed like a cruel generalization. I don't have a lot of friends, so I don't get to drink?

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

#525

Post by sys_64738 »

perl4ever wrote: post #106
V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it was don't be evil and no they didn't drop it. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ it's at the bottom.

They moved it to the basement with Milton.

Bobs?

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

#526

Post by manfredo »

flatb wrote: post #523
manfredo wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it does not fit the definition of discrimination. For example, saying men are on average more violent than women is not discrimination either - it's fact.

Yes: the claims James Damore makes are cold, hard facts based on the many, many studies and statistics available on, for example, women's assertiveness (which is genetically and biologically quantifiable), that he carefully reviewed and contrasted in order to form an opinion. As such, they are facts, which do not fit the definition of discriminatory. In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignoran…

> In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory.

If you think that there is no difference between saying people who belong to a certain group are more or less X on average, and saying that individual members of that group are X then I really cannot help you. This is just patently wrong. There's nothing sexist about saying "men on average commit rape 50 times more than women". That's fact. If you told a man, "you're a rapist" because of mere fact that he is a man, then yes that is prejudice.

He didn't just add the word "on average" at the end. He explicitly pointed out that conflating population wide averages and individual characteristics is wrong:

> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

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

#527

Post by stale2002 »

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.

> If you feel like you're doing something because someone "deserves" it, you're doing it wrong;

I was giving a description of how "intolerance of intolerance" works out in practice.

It doesn't matter if you think these people are doing it wrong.

I do not believe that humans can be trusted to be given such an easy to abuse loophole, that gives them carte-blanche moral authority to act terrible to other human beings (because the the target of the abuse is "intolerant", and therefore deserve it).

It is safer to just say "no. You should not treat people poorly, even if you believe that they are intolerant, or deserve it because of some other quality".

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

#528

Post by downerending »

auiya wrote: post #464
Hitton wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing is, that although Google boasts about its racial and gender diversity, there is preciously little ideological diversity. And once people stray, they must be purged.

> Google boasts about its racial and gender diversity Does it? Because the metrics it reported just this year says it's made up of mostly still white males. https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2019/04/07/googles...

Everyone should read their annual diversity report. Publishing their data is commendable, though they don't break it down far enough to be able to fully determine the intersectional proportions.

As an example of what is in there, for their tech workforce, whites have declined from 57.8% to 43.5% in four years. (see page 33) You can decide for yourself whether this suggests racial bias in hiring.

Download the PDF here: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/diversity.google/...

edit: I was mistaken about the intersectional part. The corresponding stat for white males is a decline from 47.5% to 33.3% in four years. Stunning.

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

#529

Post by stale2002 »

RangerScience wrote: post #499
username90 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Stopped at all costs means "do not engage in certain behavior, yourself, even if you think you have a good reason for it".

Even if you think the other person deserves it, because of whatever excuse that you can think of, you still shouldn't act horribly, no matter the nice sounding justification that you can trick yourself into believing.

Humans are really good at tricking themselves into believing that their horrible behavior is justified.

In this specific situation, calling someone else intolerant is just an excuse that people will use to justify their horrible behavior to others.

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

#530

Post by RangerScience »

username90 wrote: post #501
RangerScience wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So we should start twitter mobs to stop the twitter mobs that target people currently? Or what do you mean? The only way to stop it is to teach acceptance and temperance. We didn't stop lynchings by attacking them, we stopped it by teaching people the value of tolerance for even the worst of criminals and giving them due process. It is when you refuse to tolerate criminals that lynchings occur.

This is a pretty good point. Tolerance-as-peace-treaty doesn't apply nearly as reasonably between groups as it does within a group; although that makes sense. Do not abide by the peace treaty, conflict arises; and then it's about how you resolve conflicts between groups.
Post reply on HN