New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity • Hacker News Board

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#711

Post by wpietri » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #677

wpietri wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes. Ad hominems without any substance at all. As I expected. What you are experiencing is white fragility. You can read more about the phenomenon here: https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249 The truth is that when discussing societal power in the US, both race and socioeconomic status are hugely relevant. And have been since the founding of this country, when by law only well-off white men could vote.…

The idea that there is a well-off white-male way of looking at the world ("To me it looks like a couple of well-off white guys...") is the idea that humans are concrete beings whose consciousnesses are determined by certain identity categories (socio-economic status, skin color, sex). You apparently don't think that your consciousness is determined by those categories. Just those of other well-off white-males. I have…

If you have feelings in response to my views, that's fine. Good, even. But I think it's hilarious that out of one side of your mouth you argue for respecting individuals and their views while at the same time trying to shut me up about my views because of your white fragility.

I don't think anybody's consciousness is "determined" by anything. But there are strong correlations. The language people speak, their religion, their customs, and many of their views are usually taken from the people around them growing up. That's the whole point of culture, after all: inter-generational transmission of non-genetic adaptation.

Some of that cultural heritages is good, some bad. All of it should be consciously examined. But conscious thought is small and slow compared to our vast cultural inheritance, so it's inevitable that many of people's beliefs and behaviors will be unexamined. More so if they are "frankly embarrassed" by anybody doing that examination in their presence.

I am not only a well-off white male. But I'm definitely those things, and they have had an influence. That's especially true in a society where well-off white men drew strong legal and cultural divisions between well-off white men and everybody else. Your unwillingness to examine whiteness is part of that culture.

So if you are seriously concerned about crimes against humanity (hint: you probably aren't) you should really take some time to look at the cultural and ideological factors behind America's wide array of those. A good place to start: Who were the perpetrators of those crimes? If you can sit with that question for as long as 30 seconds, you might be ready to read Kendi's "Stamped from the Beginning" or Loewen's "Sundown Towns".

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#712

Post by concordDance » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

Draken93 wrote: post #699

concordDance wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone considers people inferior only because of their gender, their race or their religion? Would something like the Danmore memo[1] count? [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...

Due to an high amount of work I have to do I was only able to skim through the memo. It seams as if the memo was written in a good intention. What I took away from the text is that he mostly considers people different, not inferior, because of their gender. It would be dumb to completly disagree with that. I think rational and follow science, therefore I agree on some off his points. I disagree with the extend of his…

Google considered that memo an unacceptable thing to post internally and fired him.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#713

Post by slibhb » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #711

slibhb wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that there is a well-off white-male way of looking at the world ("To me it looks like a couple of well-off white guys...") is the idea that humans are concrete beings whose consciousnesses are determined by certain identity categories (socio-economic status, skin color, sex). You apparently don't think that your consciousness is determined by those categories. Just those of other well-off white-males. I have…

If you have feelings in response to my views, that's fine. Good, even. But I think it's hilarious that out of one side of your mouth you argue for respecting individuals and their views while at the same time trying to shut me up about my views because of your white fragility. I don't think anybody's consciousness is "determined" by anything. But there are strong correlations. The language people speak, their religio…

It's a slip of the mask that your argument, again and again, is "you're white". Are you analyzing my prose to determine my skin color?

I didn't say a thing about "respecting views". I support your right to spit your venom but I can criticize your racialist nonsense, which is all I'm doing. I never said you shouldn't be able to speak, only that you should be ashamed of what you've chosen to say.

> I don't think anybody's consciousness is "determined" by anything. But there are strong correlations. The language people speak, their religion, their customs, and many of their views are usually taken from the people around them growing up. That's the whole point of culture, after all: inter-generational transmission of non-genetic adaptation.

Yes, of course it's just a strong correlation. We've established that. As you said, it's all those other white males, not you.

Of course this is all nonsense. There is no theory of culture. Culture exists, it affects behavior, but there is no theory that describes how, just garden-variety bigotry. You shift between banalities ("culture affects behavior") and clear statements about what constitutes a "white male mentality" as if you had a theory of culture or a theory of mentality. How else could you claim to know my skin color based on what I've written? Of course you have no theories, it's all bullshit.

The fact that you cite pseudo-intellectual hucksters (Kendi, DiAngelo) is all that needs to be said about the trough you've been drinking from. If you want to find a better religion read the Bible.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#714

Post by Draken93 » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #712

Draken93 wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to an high amount of work I have to do I was only able to skim through the memo. It seams as if the memo was written in a good intention. What I took away from the text is that he mostly considers people different, not inferior, because of their gender. It would be dumb to completly disagree with that. I think rational and follow science, therefore I agree on some off his points. I disagree with the extend of his…

Google considered that memo an unacceptable thing to post internally and fired him.

Rereading the memo, I definetly missed some points earlier.

Things like:

- "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism."

- Followed by him arguing that the attemp to reduce the gender gap (Which is imo clearly a result of sexism) is discriminating the poor white man.

- On Top the strange "Woman on average" part connected to "Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination"

My view on the tone of the whole memo changed. One could interpret it, as a "white guy whining about people taking his century old priviledges away".

BUT: I would need to talk with him about it, to really know what his intention was. Again, ignoring his short reference to the IQ tests, I did not have the feeling that he was openly considering certain people inferior. I would still be open to talk to him.

If Google fired him, just for this memo and not because of a combination of other things he said and did, it would be exeggerated. And it would support at least his points on "alienating conservatives"

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#715

Post by yerwhat01010 » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 8:44 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #672

yerwhat01010 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense. This is so true. I've seen polling showing that large numbers of people believe that the number of unarmed black men fatally shot by American police every year is in the "thousands" or even "tens of thousands". And the further to the left the media people consume, the higher they're likely to believe the number is. The ac…

If this was really a fact, surely you have a source for it? Because if you are the one out of a group who comes up with a number drastically out of what other people estimate, it seems reasonable to assume you are the one who are in the wrong. And of course unarmed doesn't mean innocent anymore than being armed means being in the wrong. I am challenging you to a source for two reasons: to make sure you are not just m…

The Washington Post keeps a database of all reported police killings in the US. I can't see it myself without a subscription to the WP, but USA Today cites the WP database for the claim that 13 unarmed black men (and one unarmed black woman) were fatally shot by US police in 2019: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/23/fact...

That's only the number who were shot dead by the police, not all police killings (George Floyd wasn't shot.) Also, as the USA Today article says, this data isn't 100% reliable, because the WP can only track reported police killings, and some might be unreported. But dude, I could be off by an order of magnitude and still not be close to "thousands". American police kill about 1000 people per year of all races (armed and unarmed, justified and unjustifiable); anyone who thinks that thousands of unarmed black men are killed by the police every year has no idea what they're talking about.

> And of course unarmed doesn't mean innocent anymore than being armed means being in the wrong.

Yep, and I already said the same in another comment. Not all shootings of an "armed" man are justified. I'll give a name: Philando Castile had a gun in his possession when he was shot dead by police officer Jeronimo Yanez. But, in my non-expert opinion, Castile did not do anything that warranted deadly force, and this shooting was absolutely unjustified.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#716

Post by klyrs » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 8:52 PM UTC

bmmayer1 wrote: post #702

zxzax wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're just illustrating the point. It's okay to address issues with racial bias in SAT questions. Those things can still be racist (maybe not even intentionally so) and worth addressing despite there being worse racism somewhere else. We don't have to ignore that, it's not getting diluted because there are neo nazis that exist somewhere else.

Using loaded terms like "racism" or "white supremacy" to describe major incidents as well as minor "not even intentionally so" infractions is pretty much the definition of dilution.

This conversation shows up on pretty much every HN story that ends up discussing racism. This fear of "dilution" is a textbook "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#717

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 01, 2021, 12:29 AM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #713

wpietri wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have feelings in response to my views, that's fine. Good, even. But I think it's hilarious that out of one side of your mouth you argue for respecting individuals and their views while at the same time trying to shut me up about my views because of your white fragility. I don't think anybody's consciousness is "determined" by anything. But there are strong correlations. The language people speak, their religio…

It's a slip of the mask that your argument, again and again, is "you're white". Are you analyzing my prose to determine my skin color? I didn't say a thing about "respecting views". I support your right to spit your venom but I can criticize your racialist nonsense, which is all I'm doing. I never said you shouldn't be able to speak, only that you should be ashamed of what you've chosen to say. > I don't think anybod…

Was there an actual argument in any of that? It seems like you're just back to ad homs, albeit wordier ones. Given that, I think we're done here. I have better ways to spend my time, and surely you must have other people to attempt to suppress so you can avoid thinking about anything that makes you uncomfortable.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#718

Post by marrs » Sat, May 01, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

livinginfear wrote: post #80

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

I still speak my mind openly in the work place and invariably I find that most people are actually delighted when they realise they can have open conversations with me without fear of judgement. The vast majority of people are still entirely reasonable.

Of course you never know if you’re going to say the wrong thing to the wrong person, but I don’t go to work to make friends and I certainly don’t go there to be intimidated by bullies.

I can count the number of unreasonable people I’ve had to deal with on the knuckles of one finger and they all skulked away pretty quickly when they realised I was standing up to them.

I’m not trying to downplay what you’re saying. I think there is a culture of fear and I think it’s been stoked deliberately to a certain extent, but I also think it’s a lie. Most of the people you work with are probably like you. That may also explain why you don’t notice them ;)

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#719

Post by lazyasciiart » Sat, May 01, 2021, 2:03 AM UTC

mr_toad wrote: post #676

lazyasciiart wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a tremendous difference between "never discussed" and "not brought up in public". Examples of topics that are discussed but not brought up in public are your child's struggle with potty training, whether you will provide them with birth control, whether anal sex is safe, when you and your partner like to have sex, when you intend to conceive, that weird discharge that sometimes comes out your nose, and what…

Funny that you should make a leap from gay to sex and bodily functions. I’m pretty sure that being gay is not just about sex. What about dating, relationships, marriage, and having a family? These things are commonly discussed at work. Fifty or sixty years ago being known to be in a gay relationship could be very professionally damaging.

Yes, and?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#720

Post by nickalaso » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:17 AM UTC

marrs wrote: post #718

livinginfear wrote: post #80

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

I still speak my mind openly in the work place and invariably I find that most people are actually delighted when they realise they can have open conversations with me without fear of judgement. The vast majority of people are still entirely reasonable. Of course you never know if you’re going to say the wrong thing to the wrong person, but I don’t go to work to make friends and I certainly don’t go there to be intim…

And, let me guess, your political opinion could be largely quantified as being left of center?