Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces • Hacker News Board

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

#871

Post by yakshaving_jgt » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

fwip wrote: post #869

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some self-described anti-racists do indeed hold that idea[0]. [0]: https://www.ocpathink.org/post/does-race-massacre-silence-sh...

Could you point me to the paragraph in question? I've read the article a few times now, and I don't see A) anyone described as anti-racist or B) anything saying people who do racist things cannot grow.

Sorry! Somehow I managed to paste completely the wrong link, and now it is too late for me to edit my previous comment. I realise now that scrolling down on that website automatically loads new articles and updates the address bar.

Here[0] is the article I had meant to link to.

Ah man… I really feel bad that you read the wrong article a few times after I unwittingly mislead you. I'm genuinely sorry about that.

[0]: https://www.ocpathink.org/post/whites-will-always-be-racist-...

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

#872

Post by fruityrudy » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

lgleason wrote: post #247

Live by the sword, die by the sword. That said, firing him, like they did with Damore would have been more consistent. Because everyone is under arbitration agreements that always benefit the company, vs the courts where you might have a shot at justice, they have no incentive to do that. As repugnant as his past anti-semitic rant was, people change and sometimes say and do stupid things. In a sane world this guy wou…

In a sane world, his job wouldn’t even need to exist.

Most people interested in diversity thrive on creating drama and conflict. Embarking on witch hunts. Arbitrating blame.

What comes around goes around.

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

#873

Post by thereare5lights » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #479

thereare5lights wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McCammond’s 2019 “apology” was along the lines of “sorry you’re offended”, not “I’m sorry for what I said”.

She also called her comments "deeply insensitive". How bent out of shape are you going to get over what a 17 year old says? "Sorry you're offended" is much closer to accurate. I'm nothing like 17 year old me and if you asked me to take present day responsibility for that person I would tell you to toss off. How much did you do at 17 that you aren't proud of today?

This is what she originally said

https://twitter.com/alexi/status/1197290613701513217

> Today I was reminded of some past insensitive tweets, and I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended. I have since deleted those tweets as they do not reflect my views or who I am today.

So yes

> "Sorry you're offended" is much closer to accurate.

is correct.

Only when her plum new editor job was threatened did she offer something more than "sorry you're offended".

> How bent out of shape are you going to get over what a 17 year old says?

Quite bent out of shape actually. Someone that harbors those kinds of views and has no history of having confronted it nor examples to the contrary should not be a position to influence the minds of millions of young children. You might argue that she's worked in anti racist/diversity efforts, but that's not good enough. People are often racist against specific races and not others. She has no examples of having shown growth in her racism specifically towards Asians.

> I'm nothing like 17 year old me and if you asked me to take present day responsibility for that person I would tell you to toss off.

Good thing you don't decide who gets to be editor in chief of an influential publication.

> How much did you do at 17 that you aren't proud of today?

Nothing actually. I was quite the goody two shoes.

That argument makes no sense to me either. We should excuse racism from 1 year prior to the age of majority absent any evidence of growth? Nah, I don't agree with that.

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

#874

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #382

wutbrodo wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> far left employees, which don’t like insensitivity to the Jews, The far left doesn't like insensivity to Jews? Which far left are you thinking of? In the US, the far left is the most reliable source of public anti-Semitism. (Note specifically that I said public. I'm not going to try and divine whether rightwing anti-Semitism is worse in private, which it very well may be.)

Not everyone agrees. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/far-right-extremists-blam... https://www.bendthearc.us/announcing_howtofightantisemitism_...

The first link is about Germany. I specifically mentioned the US. It's also about anti-Semitic _violence_, not public statements, another thing that I made sure to clarify. I'd be pretty comfortable guessing that anti-Semitic violence is more right-skewed, incl in the US.

Your second link is interesting, thank you. Caputo in particular is a good example of anti-semitism among rightwing public figures. It doesn't dispute my impression that anti-Semitism (and other racism) on the left is much more acceptable in public statements than rightwing public anti-Semitism; it just claims that the media disproportionately focuses on leftwing anti-Semitism (possibly true).

I don't think complaining about Internet votes is particularly constructive, but this is more of an insight than a complaint: the downvotes on my original comment are a perfect reflection of how inanely most people engage with topics like these. There are "good guys" and "bad guys", and the "good guys" don't do any of the bad things. I don't use the phrase anti-Semitism reflexively, and think it's often wielded as a bludgeon, particularly in the context of criticism of the Israeli government. But the idea that one would be surprised at anti-semitism on the far left, like the comment I responded to, is ridiculous.

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

#875

Post by yyyk » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

theossuary wrote: post #392

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.

I'm trying to understand what he did that was so wrong? He (correctly imo) called out Israel for its violent tendencies. The only mistake he made that I can see is he conflated Israel with the Jewish people generally. But Israel has a massive propaganda campaign leading people to do exactly that (an attack on Israel the country is an attack on Jewish people in general). If that blogpost was the same, but said Israel,…

>called out Israel for its violent tendencies.

Compare Israel to its close neighbourhood, the US or even France and the UK. Israel exists in the ME, what's the West's excuse for fighting in different continents? And his text goes much further than that.

>If that blogpost was the same, but said Israel, instead of the Jewish people; would there be any issue with it today?

It would be grossly inaccurate, but saying dumb stuff wouldn't be enough to get people to call for his removal.

>Israel themselves have fostered the narrative that Israel represents the Jewish people by constantly conflating an attack on Israel as an attack on the Jewish people.

It's not a particular surprise that people who are drawn to attack Jews attack Israel too. Maybe if critics of Israel took pains to separate themselves from the antisemites rather than excusing them, more people would see a difference between critics and actual antisemites. If instead their only resort would be to argue bad faith, well, people would see that too.

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

#876

Post by cloverich » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

thereare5lights wrote: post #870

cloverich wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top few articles I googled quoted her as saying: “I’ve apologised for my past racist and homophobic tweets and will reiterate that there’s no excuse for perpetuating those awful stereotypes in any way. “I am so sorry to have used such hurtful and inexcusable language. At any point in my life, it’s totally unacceptable.” Backlash against her initial comments seem to be that she characterized her tweets as insensit…

That's what she said in 2021. What she said in 2019 when it first came out was https://twitter.com/alexi/status/1197290613701513217 > Today I was reminded of some past insensitive tweets, and I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended. I have since deleted those tweets as they do not reflect my views or who I am today. "some past insensitive tweets" as a euphemism for racist tweets "I am deeply sorry *to anyone I offende…

I see. I don't agree, but to make sure I understand -- she should have said "racist" tweets instead of "insensitive tweets" right? I think that is a reasonable ask. However how should she have worded the appology? It sounds like you take issue with "sorry to anyone I offended"? I am familiar with "sorry you were offended" but would not have interpreted her wording in that way -- e.g. the former is a direct apology and admittance of wrongdoing towards another on her part, while "sorry you were offended" is a typical avoidance of apology. Genuinely I would like to understand. To fully state my interpretation, I would guess she was genuinely sorry but was unaware of the most suitable way to appologize for it.

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

#877

Post by SrCodeMonkey » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

megous wrote: post #600

SrCodeMonkey wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internal and external criticism is important and welcome, but when the only democratic country in the hostile region, that's constantly fighting for its existence, becomes the world's punching bag, you have to wonder why it is. Does UN's human rights council obsession with Israel [1], while turning a blind eye on real atrocities in murderous regimes like Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Russia, etc., makes sense to anyone…

> It's just the desire of Jews to live in its historic homeland - Israel, in a peaceful coexistence with its neighbors. You're doing the same thing this Googler is accused of. Assigning some characteristic/desire to the whole class of people.

How so? I just gave the gist of the term Zionism, as described by Theodore Herzl, the father of the movement. The demonization of this innocent ideology is by itself a form of anti-Semitism, a modern one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

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

#878

Post by yosefjaved1 » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

Here is the original post he wrote if anybody wants to read it (it's a quick read. 5 min): http://web.archive.org/web/20210602000424/https://www.kamaub...

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

#879

Post by ant6n » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

TMWNN wrote: post #838

ant6n wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it was also quoted worse in the tweets. "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself," (…) "If I were a Jew today, my sensibilities would be tormented. I would find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the long cycles of oppression that Jewish people have endured and the insatiable appetite for vengeful violence that Israel, my homeland, has now acq…

"If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself" is a straight quote from the last paragaraph of the post in question, not a paraphrase or elided excerpt. https://web.archive.org/web/20210602000424/https://www.kamau...

It’s not a straight quote if you delete the last four words of the sentence without an ellipsis.

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

#880

Post by nullc » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #770

nullc wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My blog is no longer up and running, and maybe that's now a good thing. Instead they can just troll you over some random wikipedia edit war you were in 13 years ago... you can take your blog offline but not Wikipedia. :-/

Now that is so inside baseball I'm struggling to imagine how you'd ever get anyone to care about it. First you'd have to spend an hour explaining what userboxes are, by which point everyone would already be bored to tears.

I'm subject to pretty regular trolling because I got blocked once for being overly aggressive and editwarry about removing some rule violating images.

Actually the inside baseball plays in the trolls favor because they go dig up some quotes and false accusations from some histrionic commenter calling me a malicious vandal and what not, which anyone on WP at the time took in the context of the speaker (e.g. not worth much), and then try passing it off as some kind of official finding.

It's pretty nuts. Basically the only thing that protect anyone is either having something more substantive to whine about when targeted, to have no online history, or to just never be targeted.