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

Google’s caste-bias problem

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 291 posts

Re: Google’s caste-bias problem

#241

Post by fleddr »

rdtsc wrote: post #194
fleddr wrote: post #172

The simplest solution from a company perspective is to not hire activist type employees. It just never ends well. You may very well find the activist's point valid and just, but it still won't end well in most cases. Other than the fact that perhaps they should spend time on actually working, the typical activist method cannot ever succeed. It starts with some sweeping assertion affecting a large group: men oppress w…

Consequently, to filter out the potential troublemakers, for short a period of time encourage “bring your whole self to work”, “open and honest conversations” etc. See who starts to raise issues and then put them on PIP for purely “technical” reasons.

If anybody would say "bring yourself to work" my first response would be "are you really sure"?

They're collective lies. Things we tell each other to make us feel better about ourselves. Same for "open and honest conversations" which really means a tiny subset of allowed conversations fitting ideology.

Re: Google’s caste-bias problem

#242

Post by fleddr »

jrsj wrote: post #213
fleddr wrote: post #172

The simplest solution from a company perspective is to not hire activist type employees. It just never ends well. You may very well find the activist's point valid and just, but it still won't end well in most cases. Other than the fact that perhaps they should spend time on actually working, the typical activist method cannot ever succeed. It starts with some sweeping assertion affecting a large group: men oppress w…

If the system for reporting and handling these cases on an individual basis actually worked then there wouldn't be a problem. The entire point of discussing this is to make those systems work better. Presenting counter arguments is fine, but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo.

I agree that you need a solid reporting structure and complaint handling. Likewise you need a solid case. It's a two way street.

Preventing counter arguments is NOT fine, that's the issue with generic claims. You can read in the article itself the extreme annoyance the activist experienced when there was a pushback.

Think of it this way, would it be fine in this situation if an additional speaker was brought in, one projecting the exact opposite of her claims? Absolutely no way that would happen, which means it's not a discussion. It's an accusation with a fixed outcome.

"but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo."

I know this language is normalized but saying that people benefit from some status quo is a wild claim. You need extraordinary evidence. And even then it means nothing to the individual. People will keep throwing around demeaning stuff to generalize entire demographics like it's nothing, but it will never ever work.

This is why progressive politics is so broken. It builds enemies instead of allies. It burns bridges instead of making new ones.

Re: Google’s caste-bias problem

#243

Post by fleddr »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #211
fleddr wrote: post #172

The simplest solution from a company perspective is to not hire activist type employees. It just never ends well. You may very well find the activist's point valid and just, but it still won't end well in most cases. Other than the fact that perhaps they should spend time on actually working, the typical activist method cannot ever succeed. It starts with some sweeping assertion affecting a large group: men oppress w…

It's wild to me how much of right wing rhetoric on Hacker News is portrayed as "simply how it is" and "activist logic" is portrayed as always wrong, a failure, and counter-productive. None of the situations described in the parent has ever happened. Nor do any of the scientific studies agree with the positions above that are implied to be facts. However, because it is written dispassionately (even condescendingly) th…

Even wilder to call it right-wing, given that I'm a moderate leftist in a social democracy (western Europe). Makes me pretty close to a "commie".

Pushing back against government overreach is now also right-wing, as is defending free speech.

But hey, hard to argue with California logic where the top 1% earners of the world working for harmful neoliberal companies spend their time telling themselves they are victims and oppressed, and doing the "right" thing.

Re: Google’s caste-bias problem

#244

Post by Ferrotin »

jquery wrote: post #180
lotsofpulp wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nepotism is a failure, and working against it is definitely a worthwhile effort. But I have also seen non Indian nephews/nieces get hired into internships because their relative knows someone in the decision making process, etc. We very openly have universities in the US that favor admitting children and relatives of alumni. Hell, we just had a US President that installed his own kids and son in law in various govern…

No, what Indians are doing is not unique to them. Americans discriminate against black people, notoriously so. I’m sure the Indians who support these caste systems would merely say it’s meritocracy in action, same as all the whites/asians opposing any governmental rule that tries to level the playing field for black people in America. (This comment will of course be downvoted heavily and/or flagged)

No post body was provided.

Re: Google’s caste-bias problem

#245

Post by inglor_cz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #195
lotsofpulp wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can all be abstracted into “tribalism”.

When someone can look at a pair of parents and tell you their kid’s “tribe,” the difference between tribe and race becomes purely semantic.

Not really, there are a lot of non-racially based "tribes" out there that can be told apart by clothing and other attributes. Quakers, Muslims, hippies, the Amish etc. come to mind.

Re: Google’s caste-bias problem

#246

Post by inglor_cz »

dekhn wrote: post #203
jimmywetnips wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend once showed me the internal Google meme page and it was so safe and PG that it was unintentionally funny as hell in how lame it was. But I understand it has to be this way in any large company Just like I can't blast my music tastes on others, not everyone should be subjected to insane Eric Andre humor

There is a team called Community Policing at Google that sends requests to take down memes. If you don't comply they complain to your manager and HR. The folks running this team are super-woke and totally unaware of things like historical racism (like in Europe) while bending over backward to accomodate their favored groups. It was much better when memegen was a force for positive google culture, such as when somebod…

How do they cope with the current memes regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war? Some of them are (quite literally) fairly visceral.

I would expect Google to have a non-negligible Russian and Ukrainian community.

Re: Google’s caste-bias problem

#247

Post by jrsj »

fleddr wrote: post #242
jrsj wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the system for reporting and handling these cases on an individual basis actually worked then there wouldn't be a problem. The entire point of discussing this is to make those systems work better. Presenting counter arguments is fine, but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo.

I agree that you need a solid reporting structure and complaint handling. Likewise you need a solid case. It's a two way street. Preventing counter arguments is NOT fine, that's the issue with generic claims. You can read in the article itself the extreme annoyance the activist experienced when there was a pushback. Think of it this way, would it be fine in this situation if an additional speaker was brought in, one…

These are all good & fair points. I think in this case "but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo." would also apply equally to someone trying to silence any dissent or criticism of the ideas they themselves were putting forwards. Either a fair and open discussion needs to happen about these things or they shouldn't be part of a workplace at all. And any standards that are created need to be applied universally too -- you can't just label some as protected groups and tell everyone else to go fuck themselves if they're experiencing a problem, which is basically how things work today.

And that's where my complaint about silencing this topic at Google stems from. If others have been able to do it and get special privileges for themselves than preventing further discussion along these lines only further cements those advantages and the disadvantage of others. It either needs to be eliminated entirely or allowed to continue to evolve.

Re: Google’s caste-bias problem

#248

Post by kyawzazaw »

woweoe wrote: post #234
sreevisakh wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't even right because almost every single victim of caste discrimination is an Indian themselves. If there are caste allegations outside India, then it can only be from Indians themselves. Covering it under the wide umbrella of anti-India smear campaign is disingenuous at best.

Yes and no. Casteism is virtually a non-existent concept among the Indian diaspora in the West, who are mostly in the second generation or further, though the US is possibly an exception. If you asked an Indian person in Australia about casteism then they would look at you as if you were asking something about India history and implied they weren't Australian. Furthermore casteism in the Indian American circles or ev…

> Casteism is virtually a non-existent concept among the Indian diaspora in the West

Doesn't Cisco case deny this statement?

Re: Google’s caste-bias problem

#249

Post by fleddr »

jrsj wrote: post #247
fleddr wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that you need a solid reporting structure and complaint handling. Likewise you need a solid case. It's a two way street. Preventing counter arguments is NOT fine, that's the issue with generic claims. You can read in the article itself the extreme annoyance the activist experienced when there was a pushback. Think of it this way, would it be fine in this situation if an additional speaker was brought in, one…

These are all good & fair points. I think in this case "but trying to prevent the discussion from happening does suggest that you benefit from the status quo." would also apply equally to someone trying to silence any dissent or criticism of the ideas they themselves were putting forwards. Either a fair and open discussion needs to happen about these things or they shouldn't be part of a workplace at all. And any sta…

"Either a fair and open discussion needs to happen about these things or they shouldn't be part of a workplace at all."

Fully agree, where "these things" also include topics the typical activist may not agree with.

Personally, I think it's a myth for such truly open truth-seeking debates to be possible at all, at work even less so.

Post reply on HN