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

Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#201

Post by Ozzie_osman »

kmonsen wrote: post #157
myfavoritedog wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can be critical of the state of Israel, but they should not be antisemitic. Theoretically, I guess, but it's really strange how the one tiny country in the whole world that has a Jewish-dominated society is so often a target for complete destruction. Many of the same countries that have all but eliminated their own Jewish populations somehow find Israel's very existence to be unpalatable, going after them in t…

That’s a huge straw man. I am critical of some of Israel’s behavior, but by no means calling for its complete destruction.

This. You can be critical of Israel's actions. You can also be critical of Israel's existence specifically as a nation that discriminates against non-Jewish citizens. None of this means you are an anti-semite who wants the destruction of Israel, let alone Jews.

By and large, for example, the UN security council resolutions that the US keeps single-handedly vetoing are not calling for any destruction. They simply condemn Israel's violent behavior.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#202

Post by dalbasal »

whimsicalism wrote: post #153
siculars wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were your ancestors who were "run out of town on a rail" you would care very, very deeply about your familial bond to Israel. Like yours, my family was run out of town. Unlike yours, many in my family did not run fast enough. If only there was a place they could run to either as first resort or when quota had been reached in other places. If only there was a place that could make running a specific people out…

There are plenty of non-zionist people who survived the Holocaust, it is disingenuous to paint caring about Israel as the natural, inevitable reaction to the Holocaust. The whole concept of having a natural "homeland" because of your DNA/ethnicity/race is bullshit, land doesn't care what color your skin is or what religion you practice.

The majority were not zionist, including my family. The Holocaust changed that.

The premise of zionism was never "having a natural "homeland" because of your DNA." The premise of Zionism was that Jews could not stay in Europe, particularly in the age of nation states. Most commonly, this was referred to as "The Jewish Question."

The majority of secular Jews believed in emancipation. The majority of religious jews believed that only god could create the Jewish state. They were also skeptical of Zionism's desire for secular Jewish identity.

That said, my grandparents never referred to themselves as zionists. Before the war, zionism just meant "want a jewish state to exist." Foreign politicians (eg Churchill) were referred to as zionist for this reason. After the war, it generally meant exuberance about zionists political ideologies of the time. Founding Kibbutz, farming, hebrew language revival, etc. "Zionists" wanted to take hebrew names, for example. Today, "zionist" just means Israeli patriotism.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#203

Post by generj »

unanswered wrote: post #74

Let's see here... If you suggest there might be biological differences between men and women, you get fired. If you advocate for the "elimination of the Jewish problem", you get, uh, 'reassigned'.

That’s an...incredibly poor and uncharitable reading of his argument.

It’s not a good essay but he definitively isn’t advocating for a genocide - and indeed is arguing against Israel committing a genocide in slow motion. At worst he is conflating Zionists with Jews, an unfortunate generalization which is anti Semitic but nowhere near the mental image most people have of anti Semitic behavior.

Additionally he made these comments 13 years ago and not on company property. Assuming the offenses were equal performing one more than a decade ago vs. last week on a company system is always going to have a different response. Your comparison isn’t a fair one.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#204

Post by randompwd »

londons_explore wrote: post #38

I really wish we could seperate people's private and professional lives. This guy in his private life wrote some nasty blog posts. That shouldn't impact his professional life. Nor vice versa. This blog post isn't sufficiently against the law to end up with him in prison. Yet this is a case of extrajudicial punishment. Unless there is any evidence of him bringing that thinking into his work, he shouldn't be punished.

7 billion people in the world. I don't think the global lead on diversity strategy role should be going to someone who wrote an elaborate essay in which he was clearly anti-Semitic. He graduated university in 1994 - it's not like he was a kid when he was writing these words.

Who else has he helped discriminate against based on their ethnicity or views?

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#205

Post by chevill »

myfavoritedog wrote: post #113
ostenning wrote: post #6

Here is a classic case of someone conflating the state of Israel and Jewish people and lumping it all together. Plenty of Jewish people that live both inside and outside of Israel are critical of the state. People can be critical of the state of Israel, but they should not be antisemitic. His comments are offensive for this reason.

People can be critical of the state of Israel, but they should not be antisemitic. Theoretically, I guess, but it's really strange how the one tiny country in the whole world that has a Jewish-dominated society is so often a target for complete destruction. Many of the same countries that have all but eliminated their own Jewish populations somehow find Israel's very existence to be unpalatable, going after them in t…

>But as a matter of probability, a lot of people who criticize Israel are also antisemitic.

This is a meaningless statement though. We can expect that nearly anyone that's antisemitic would be critical of a country run and mostly inhabited by Jewish people.

It becomes a problem when people try to extrapolate that fact to dismiss every criticism of Israel as "this guy's probably just antisemitic."

Its only true as a matter of probability throughout the entire world because its true in a particular region that has an enormous population padding those statistics.

There is antisemitism everywhere in some amounts and it is wrong like all forms of bigotry. However, in many countries, such as the US, you are just as likely to run into a person that criticizes Israel for reasons that have nothing to do with the religion of its inhabitants. You are still free to think that they are wrong, but people should stop using accusations of bigotry as a weapon to silence people simply for disagreeing with them. If you want to call someone a bigot, its pretty important to make sure you are right about it.

And for the record when it comes to that Israel/Palestine conflict I think neither side is even close to being innocent. I don't give a shit about their religions I just want families to stop being murdered by the actions of two shitty governments.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#206

Post by mooseburger »

wonderwonder wrote: post #35

Will be interesting to see how Google handles other old examples of people writing things perceived to be offensive. Apple clearly has taken the opposite approach, with the firing of Antonio Garcia Martinez. While the google employee's comments are clearly anti Semitic, one can hope he has changed since then and give him another chance. We are too quick to condemn people for life due to their past mistakes. With that…

Regarding Garcia Martinez, I am still surprised "straight male" is such a disadvantage that being POC doesn't buy enough oppression points to allow you to criticize white women. Then again, maybe it's more that being Hispanic specifically isn't enough. I have a hard time imagining a black man getting fired for the same comments.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#207

Post by door101 »

logicchains wrote: post #70
KittenInABox wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

South Africa's Apartheid was condemned as human injustice, so should Israel's Apartheid, no?

In what way are Israeli arabs treated differently under Israel law than Israeli Jews?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nat...

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#208

Post by droopyEyelids »

commandlinefan wrote: post #50
Gunax wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the role is to be able to show that you have a diversity officer. Whether or not that actually helps diversity, or helps at all--is secondary.

> Whether or not that actually helps diversity, or helps at all Or even hurts.

Diversity training may help change people's attitudes, but you're right on the nose about actually hurting.

The real reason enterprises spend money on Diversity Training is because it provides Faragher-Ellerth protection from damage claims— even if racist conduct within the company has been accepted by the court.

By having diversity training, corporations ensure that victims of racism do not receive financial restitution.

https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/I0f9fbe84ef0811e28...

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#209

Post by lacksconfidence »

wonderwonder wrote: post #196
lacksconfidence wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace jew with 'israeli' in every occurance. Who's fault is it that israel intentionally tried to muddy the water and make the word confusing? I don't see any anti-semitism here. I see here concern that israel does not care about the humanity of their neighbors.

He said Jew, not Israeli. He is intentional in the use as the entire article is about Jews and Israel. Also the person in question is not an idiot, he is a mature adult smart enough to work in stem at Google. Your argument essentially absolves any anti semitic statements / actions by blaming the Jews for it. This is exactly the definition of anti-semitism, and now I am speaking about your words, not his.

I'm being as clear as i can, when I read the document I don't see anything about "the jewish race". What i see is commentary on the jewish nation of israel. I can only blame israel for bluring that distinction as much as possible.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#210

Post by myfavoritedog »

door101 wrote: post #164
myfavoritedog wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can be critical of the state of Israel, but they should not be antisemitic. Theoretically, I guess, but it's really strange how the one tiny country in the whole world that has a Jewish-dominated society is so often a target for complete destruction. Many of the same countries that have all but eliminated their own Jewish populations somehow find Israel's very existence to be unpalatable, going after them in t…

> Theoretically, I guess, but it's really strange how the one tiny country in the whole world that has a Jewish-dominated society is so often a target for complete destruction. Because it’s a colonial ethnostate, with massive support from the United States. Israel (the colonial ethnostate) should not exist. Palestine is not an ethnostate, it is the name for the multicultural, multi-ethnic state who rightfully control…

it’s a colonial ethnostate Palestine is not an ethnostate

That's a strange view on the situation. Let's say I give you a choice. 1. Be a practicing Jew living in Palestinian-controlled territory. 2. Be a practicing Muslim living in Israel.

I'd definitely choose 2, choosing 1 would be suicide.

who rightfully controls the area occupied by Israel

The Jewish people were the indigenous people of that territory. In what way do they not rightfully control and occupy Israel?

Post reply on HN