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

Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#71

Post by mitchell_bisc »

angst_ridden wrote: post #59
zo1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another aspect is that a lot of non-left, or right-leaning viewpoints have been categorized into "naughty idea" territory, despite a lot of reasonable people holding them. E.g. Things such as: Being against mass-migration from 3rd world countries to the west, wanting racially homogenous societies, removing welfare, building a wall, racial profiling, there being no gender pay-gap, protesting spreads the virus, BLM are…

Wanting racially homegeneous societies is an "evil idea" because to create one, you have to remove groups of people from a society based on their race.

Isn't it what liberals want to do the other way around, when they say that there are too many whites here, too many whites there... gradually pushing for quotas, etc ?

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#72

Post by JshWright »

devalgo wrote: post #46
JshWright wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of the quotes are you disputing the accuracy of?

Where did I say I dispute the quotes? I said Molyneux is a dirtbag but SPLC is not a credible org.

The only reason to bring up their credibility in this context is to call into question the accuracy of the quotes.

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#73

Post by MajorBee »

pb7 wrote: post #20
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #7

It is mildly off-topic, but it is not intended to derail this conversation. Did anyone else notice that Buzzfeednews and Yahoo news gotten somewhat decent ( as in, Yahoo actually had an in-depth analysis that wasn't all talking points ).

From my basic understanding is that Buzzfeed != Buzzfeed News. News is apparently a well run organization and it’s a shame that it uses the same brand for this very reason.

I'm sure they must have had a conversation on the trade-off of having a "known name" attached to their investigative journalism wing and that very "known name" causing them to be negatively associated with vacuous listicles. Maybe once Buzzfeed News becomes a brand strong enough to stand on its own it'll be spun off as a separate organization altogether.

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#74

Post by devalgo »

devalgo wrote: post #64
jtr1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore's evidence was by turns cherry picked, misinterpreted, and unrepresentative of mainstream understanding in the fields it came from. You can read plenty of those researchers complaining about his use of their work. His synthesis is about as scientific as phrenology.

>articles that were both cherry picked and misinterpreted Which ones? Your edit is even more misleading and incoherent than your original comment.

Just for fun let's try a few:

Memo line: "Women, on average, have more Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men"

Research summary: "I summarize data from two meta‐analyses and three cross‐cultural studies on gender differences in personality and interests. Results show that gender differences in Big Five personality traits are ‘small’ to ‘moderate,’ with the largest differences occurring for agreeableness and neuroticism (respective d s = 0.40 and 0.34; women higher than men). In contrast, gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d = 1.18), with women more people‐oriented and less thing‐oriented than men." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1751-9004...

Wow.. totally misrepresented the research there...

Memo: "Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average"

Research: "There are no sex differences in cognitive ability but enduring sex differences in competitiveness, life goals, the relative emphasis on agency versus "connection." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0306988060076911...

Omg how misogynistic...

Memo: "Women, on average, have more Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)."

Research: "Secondary analyses of Revised NEO Personality inventory data from 26 cultures (N =23,031) suggest that gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas" https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.81.2....

Omg he totally misrepresented the research there...

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#75

Post by devalgo »

JshWright wrote: post #72
devalgo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I say I dispute the quotes? I said Molyneux is a dirtbag but SPLC is not a credible org.

The only reason to bring up their credibility in this context is to call into question the accuracy of the quotes.

No... It's to point out that the particular claim to authority that SPLC is the adjudicator on who is racist or not is stupid. OP could have easily posted the quote directly from Molyneux's twitter or wherever he rants at without invoking SPLC.

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#76

Post by devalgo »

kapnobatairza wrote: post #69
devalgo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stefan Molyneux is a pig but your characterization of Damore is low effort and more or less completely wrong. If you read the memo it is a relatively straightforward review of standard Biology and Psychology research. There's virtually nothing controversial in it. If you have issues with it you have issues with science. Which given the "decolonize" science lunacy recently isn't surprising. China is laughing all the w…

"your characterization of Damore is low effort and more or less completely wrong". Your characterization of Damore is equally low effort. The memo is not simply a "relatively straightfoward review of standard Biology and Psychology research". Even if I were to agree that those parts of it were non-controversial, those parts of it are not the point or intention of the memo. You are completely ignoring the arguments Da…

Nice strawman you've built there. Enjoy beating it up.

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#77

Post by xenocyon »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #7

It is mildly off-topic, but it is not intended to derail this conversation. Did anyone else notice that Buzzfeednews and Yahoo news gotten somewhat decent ( as in, Yahoo actually had an in-depth analysis that wasn't all talking points ).

When was Buzzfeednews not decent? (Perhaps you are thinking of Buzzfeed?)

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#78

Post by VerminOctopus1 »

BTinfinity wrote: post #65
zo1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another aspect is that a lot of non-left, or right-leaning viewpoints have been categorized into "naughty idea" territory, despite a lot of reasonable people holding them. E.g. Things such as: Being against mass-migration from 3rd world countries to the west, wanting racially homogenous societies, removing welfare, building a wall, racial profiling, there being no gender pay-gap, protesting spreads the virus, BLM are…

Baffled that you’re being downvoted; there’s plenty of arguments for and against those ideas. It’s difficult to come a consensus when the debates surrounding them increasingly turn to shouting matches, Internet rumours and “cancellation”

You're baffled that the person suggesting that creating a racially pure ethnostate is a reasonable idea worthy of discussion is being downvoted? Really? This was literally, not in any sense being hyperbolic, the goal of Hitler and the Nazis. What baffles me is how this talking point has apparently become normalized enough not to be immediately shouted down by every user on this website.

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#79

Post by [deleted] »

ryneandal wrote: post #25
zo1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're honest, a lot of that is less extreme than a lot of what happens on the "crazy", "woke", "left" these days that we're all kinda accepting and in a lot of cases promoting. The difference is one is "kinda" accepted and promoted under the guise of "justice", whilst the other is shunned as "extremist" and "far right".

This is not "less extreme" than what you're referencing: “You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible wi…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook fired an employee who posted evidence of preferential treatment

#80

Post by enumjorge »

iagovar wrote: post #68
site-packages1 wrote: post #4

I saw this yesterday. There were a shocking number of people bringing up and defending people like James Damore, the misogynist Google memo guy who guest starred on white power podcasts like Stefan Molyneux's. I don't like to be an an echo chamber, but I feel like praising that sort of thing is definitely in the relm of "far right" and makes me wonder if that's the sort of people HN is attracting?

It wasn't a mysoginist memo, don't be so low effort. He isn't a scientist but he actually bring up stuff that was already being discussed when I studied sociology and AFAIK it's far from being settled.

Toward the beginning of the memo, Damore lists personality differences, on average, between men and women. The third item is that women have more “ Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)”. I don’t know Damore so I can’t tell you whether he is a mysoginist or not, but he certainly uses arguments and language that mysogonists do. This is just one example of problematic areas of his memo. I realize there’s more to his memo, but I wanted to bring up a concrete example.

Here’s the thing. I get that our current research says men and women are in some ways different, and I don’t think stating that is controversial. But to use that as an argument for why some degree of inequality in the workplace is ok, just doesn’t pass muster. To your point, there’s a lot we still don’t understand about how our biology works, so if you’re going to use research as a reason to limit people, that’s a whole other bar to clear.

Post reply on HN