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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by wutbrodo »

whimsicalism wrote: post #110
underseacables wrote: post #52

The left’s obsession with cancel culture and conducting archeological digs on past comments, tweets, etc is coming back to bite them. I think removing this guy was the right thing to do, BUT I also think a major company like Google needs to set an example: Something someone tweeted more than ten years ago should no longer be relevant and should be ignored. However until that standard is set as example by a major comp…

Sorry, but if you think it was the right thing to do to remove him, then you agree with the methods, you're just showing your hand at not liking the things that most people are "cancelled" over. Your entire comment is a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction in the slightest. It's possible to disagree with a belief/norm system while still respecting those that adhere to it as reasonable moral entities. This is the foundation of Enlightenment pluralism: you can coexist peacefully with those that have different worldviews, managing the behavior of each group only when it affects others (eg, you can pray to whomever you want, but you can't burn witches at the stake). But if they don't adhere to their own belief system when inconvenient, then absolute normative judgments about their behavior become appropriate (like the one you're making in the quote below).

> you're just showing your hand at not liking the things that most people are "cancelled" over.

Honestly, it feels like you're projecting here a little. Seeing a demand for consistency as hypocrisy only makes sense if moral consistency isn't a term in your moral calculus.

Given this, perhaps an example that's coded in the opposite direction politically will make it clearer. Imagine a critic of legacy admissions in prestigious universities that pay lip service to meritocracy and equal opportunity. Now imagine that critic getting even more incensed when a university decides to reverse their usual racial preferences and refuses to admit black legacy candidates. Would this critic be a hypocrite? Does it make any sense to say, "it's a contradiction to complain about legacy admissions and also complain about avoiding specific legacy admissions"?

Obviously not. They set the rules, and they're refusing to play by them. This is a different, and stronger, complaint than simply not liking the stated rules.

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

#233

Post by politician »

NateEag wrote: post #154
ranman wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it was published 14 years ago. He was probably in college or something when he wrote it. Not giving him a pass or anything, just pointing out he didn’t write in while in his current role.

If he had ever changed that view you'd really hope he would have gone back and updated that essay.

If he even remembered writing it. I have no idea what I wrote 14 years ago, whether its online, or where online it might be.

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

#234

Post by cool_dude85 »

myfavoritedog wrote: post #210
door101 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wa…

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

Isn't choice 1 called being a settler? As far as I know they make up 10% or so of the Jewish population in the region, a far cry from suicide.

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

#235

Post by whimsicalism »

stinos wrote: post #198
whimsicalism wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way? Most people here seem to agree that it is perfectly possible to criticize Israel without being anti-semitic.

Most but not all apparently, though I don't think it's as bad as the one you reply to seems to imply. E.g. there's already some 'a lot of anti-Israel is also antisemitism' sentiment creeping in in some comments, without data to back that up.

> Most but not all

Sorry, why is it a "social media" problem if there isn't unanimous agreement on a certain issue in the comments?

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

#236

Post by devtul »

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…

> how the one tiny country in the whole world

This tactic of saying "oh try to find Israel on the map, it's so tiny, oh poor state of Israel" is often pushed by Zionists, also often trying to link anti-zionism with anti-semitism.

I saw a talk with Ruth Wisse, a professor at Harvard University pushing this narrative.

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

bern4444 wrote: post #167
kmonsen wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I believe you, but too many people use the line, I'm not antisemitic, I'm just criticizing the government as a scapegoat to excuse obvious antisemitic behavior.

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by wonderwonder »

bagacrap wrote: post #220
wonderwonder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is Anti-Semitic in that he is lumping all jews in with Israel. I am a Jew, America is my homeland. I live here and am an American. I am not an Israeli. I give almost zero thought to Israel in my day to day. Jews are consistently labeled with an "other" tag, we are not Americans, we are Jews and Israel is our country. Also "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in def…

the group that called him out on Twitter are clearly Zionists, though, not Jews who want nothing to do with Israel. I think a Jew who never thinks about Israel is likely to read that essay and think it doesn't apply to them. If someone wrote "man, people in Colorado like to go on shooting rampages" I would think to myself, "yeah, that's right, we should not sell ar15s to folks; also, what is it about this place that…

He called out Jews, not Israelis. Can you think of any other race that is expected to ignore comments that specifically insults their race and think "doesn't apply to me".

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

#239

Post by old_fart_dev »

distribot wrote: post #143
Dah00n wrote: post #97

One of the reasons I use HN is because of the No Political or Ideological fights rule (because I know I can't stop commenting from time to time even though I'd rather live a life without this crap). I wish rules were here to be enforced, not as guidelines hardly anyone follow.

This isn’t political though, it’s social. Unless political to you means anything related to the way society is structured and people relate to each other.

This is absolutely political, in that any conversation about Israel's foreign or domestic policy ends up an argument falling along political lines.

There's several posts already excusing the blog post because it aligns politically with the poster's own views (in this case, that all Jews have collective guilt for Israel's policy.)

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

#240

Post by asidiali »

The Information War has truly taken its toll.

We are no longer able to discern truth from falsehood, and as a result are scared into polarization by the nature of our surroundings. We no longer morally stand strong against the pull of power as we may have once did.

The ensuing discussions are more often than not, nothing more than desperate attempts of talking past one another.

Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Palestinian, Israeli, human. We all deserve peace and love.

I want Palestinians to have a home. I want Israelis to have a home as well. It’s a complex issue. And because there is not necessarily an easy answer, we more easily fall victim to the tide of fear and frustration on a global scale.

Existence is suffering. May we all find a way to survive.

Post reply on HN