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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by FridayoLeary »

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.

This guy is the head of diversity. His job description involves him ideally having a) having a certain open state of mind b)the trust of the people he is dealing with. So this blog post disqualifies him since it demonstrates he lacks trait a) and he will most likely be lacking b) in the future making him totally useless at his job. So this is not a punishment, just a consequence of past misdeeds. If this man had been born white, the consequence would have most likely been that he would have never received this role in the first place. So i don't see how this is different in any way

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

#753

Post by nojokes »

grumple wrote: post #686
nojokes wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have met Jews (Israelis to be more precise), Russians and Americans. All have been very nice people. But I think it could be said about all of them as nations to have to some degree "insatiable appetite for war and killing" considering their recent history. Naturally the Russians would label me a russophobe for saying that. Not sure what Americans would label me. I also understand the position Israelis are in and I…

Can you name a nation that doesn't have an appetite for war and killing?

Historically most (if not all?) of the nations had to have some appetite for war and killing - otherwise they would not have become nations.

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

#754

Post by geodel »

donatj wrote: post #55

What I have learned in recent years is how shockingly accepting of antisemitism people apparently are on both sides of aisle. Growing up in a prominently Jewish neighborhood in Minnesota I never really encountered it until maybe ten years ago. The fact that he was just shifted rather than fired in this political environment speaks volumes.

Yup. Just do "STEM research" and it will be fine. For others who do not even express views, forget inappropriate views "Silence is violence".

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

#755

Post by zimpenfish »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #737
FridayoLeary wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

>Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt. 14 years is a long time really, there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years.

> there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years

They tend not to get put in charge of anti-murder departments, though, like this person being made Head Of Diversity.

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

#756

Post by mikewarot »

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.

>He is intentional in the use as the entire article is about Jews and Israel.

Determining intent from a single page of text is about as solvable as the halting problem.

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

#757

Post by FridayoLeary »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #737
FridayoLeary wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

>Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt. 14 years is a long time really, there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years.

I wouldn't touch a murderer with a 10 foot pole.

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

#758

Post by insickness »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #403

The main thing I find odd about that person's blog post ( https://web.archive.org/web/20210601160519/https://www.kamau... ) is that it also doesn't really make any sense mechanically. The first five paragraphs are all comments on how it must be difficult for a progressive Jew to simultaneously support progressive values and Israel > If I were a Jew today, my sensibilities would be tormented. I would find it increasin…

> If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself.

This is the only line in the blog post that can be construed as antisemitic rather than a criticism of Israel. It would not be antisemitic if he had stated the opinion: "Israel has an insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of itself."

I used to be involved in the Palestine Liberation movement and we always complained about people conflating Jews with Israel. Just because someone criticizes Israel does not mean they are antisemitic. Those who support Israel use the conflation to further their cause. In this sentence, the author does it on his own and screwed himself.

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

#759

Post by mcguire »

grumple wrote: post #679
sirjee wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure he was not chief diversity officer 14 years ago but I agree it should have been "If I were an israeli...".

Even then... do we accuse every American of bloodlust for our nation's warmongering? Or every Chinese person for their governments treatment of the Uighur/Tibet/etc? Governments != people of a nation people often / usually don't approve of governmental actions.

Yes?

Think of it as the downside of the Enlightenment idea that governments acquire their legitimacy solely from the support of the governed. If the people of a nation do not approve of the actions of their government, they have both the right and the responsibility to change those actions.

Or, think of it as basic ethics: no one who eats meat can be more saintly than a butcher. Everyone who benefits from citizenship in a nation gets to share responsibility for the actions of the nation.

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

#760

Post by godshatter »

kevinh wrote: post #727
toeget wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has to note that he also made homophobic comments (available at https://archive.is/dp0n7 ): If I were to pretend to be gay, that isn’t something that I can just wash off and tell those who know me and saw me, that I was just pretending, it was just an experiment. Sure you’re not a homosexual. Having had that thought, I realized that within my inner emotional core, not only do I not agree with homosexuality, I sti…

A year later, California would vote to ban same-sex marriage. I won't hold their bigoted views against them, as long as they no longer hold them. If I didn't have that forgiveness, there would be half of the voting population of my state that I'd refuse to talk to.

The notion that people change and grow and sometimes learn from their mistakes and become better people seems to have gone by the wayside in recent years.
Post reply on HN