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

10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 158 posts

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#121

Post by mrchicity »

runamok wrote: post #104
hw wrote: post #67

Let's take gender, race, food preference out of the equation. Say a person with qualities A and another person with qualities B both interview at a company. Turns out that at the company (and in the industry in general, type Bs are a minority), and there's a movement to hire more of type Bs. If type A did better in an interview than type B, but the company ended up hiring a type B because of the whole diversity thing…

I think another reason we want to hire B is because if we have only As we are more susceptible to group think. It is good to have people of many different types to prevent that.

Is that really true though? Where I've worked, almost everyone was from an upper class or upper middle class background, grew up in a handful of superzip suburbs like Atherton/Scarsdale or high COL cities like NY, stable family life, attended a top tier university, had similar cultural interests or hobbies, read the same news sources, even had similar vices. They looked like a Benetton ad, but all acted exactly the same.

Is hiring Bs who are exactly like your As, except in superficial characteristics like appearance, really bringing in diverse points of view?

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#123

Post by wpietri »

chippy wrote: post #116
wpietri wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some speech is action. That's why we have crimes like incitement to riot, fraud, harrassment, criminal threat, and conspiracy to commit murder. If somebody has an, honest reasonably considered question that they would like to raise after having done at least a modest amount of work to answer themselves, sure, let's talk about it. But most speech isn't like that. It's persuasion, advocacy, negoiation, action. Indeed,…

So, are you saying the manifesto writer should be censored, shunned, fired? Should Gizmodo and Google censor all such similar writings and videos from internal and external applications? Is this article violence? Is this article publishing hate speech? Should the manifesto writer be locked up? Do you see what I'm asking here?

Such drama!

I am saying that manigandham's total separation between speech and action is incorrect.

I think Gizmodo and Google and this guy are all welcome to keep publishing whatever they want to. I think everybody else should also feel free to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of association in response to that speech and publication.

I'll be interested to see how Google handles it, but there's a good case to be made for them firing him. See, e.g., this post from a senior recent ex-Googler: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#124

Post by wpietri »

manigandham wrote: post #120
wpietri wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some speech is action. That's why we have crimes like incitement to riot, fraud, harrassment, criminal threat, and conspiracy to commit murder. If somebody has an, honest reasonably considered question that they would like to raise after having done at least a modest amount of work to answer themselves, sure, let's talk about it. But most speech isn't like that. It's persuasion, advocacy, negoiation, action. Indeed,…

Inciting violence and making criminal threats would not be "civil discussion" then, which is what we're talking about... so I'm not sure what point you're making.

That part was responding to your erroneous notion that speech and action are totally distinct. Some speech is action.

If you aren't clear on some other point, feel free to ask.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#125

Post by wpietri »

jorgemf wrote: post #118
wpietri wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically a long exercise in missing the point. That I think one skill is good does not mean all other skills are bad. Your basic notion seems to be that even though most historical bias has turned out to be totally unjustifiable, maybe the exact amount of bias we have today is perfectly justifiable by facts that we just don't know yet. I can't say that's impossible, but I can say that a) it's not a smart or…

I am against any bias, I want to asses people by their skills. What I am saying is that some skills are in our genes and we cannot/shouldn't change that (not even with positive discrimination). And you, instead of taking a look to the video I put in my previous comment, you decided to call me stupid. Great, do you know how I try to cure my stupidness? Reading and watching videos of people who knows more than me. Food…

Yes, I will not be watching any videos. I don't like videos. If you have a point, feel free to make it.

I also didn't call you stupid. Sorry if I was unclear. I am suggesting you are a bigot.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#126

Post by sattoshi »

jorgemf wrote: post #102
sattoshi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are those less clear discriminators? I am sure I could find a study showing that attractive people have a better shot at getting the job. Height is attractive.

When I said clear discriminator I mean they are binary: either make or female, either black or white. Height or attractiveness are more diffuse for some people you can be tall/attractive but not for others. Gender and race are clear. In my opinion height or attractiveness play a role in the society (a big role), but it is easier to talk about gender or race because the clear distinction, bigger represented groups and…

>but it is easier to talk about gender or race

It's intellectual laziness.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#127

Post by wpietri »

jorgemf wrote: post #117
wpietri wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the discussion. If you would like to civilly promote your notion that black people aren't really human and are only fit to be slaves, then no, we can't do that. If you bring it up I will tell you are an asshole, and if you persist, I will shun you and tell everybody else to shun you. You are free to say terrible things. I am free to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of association in response. Your…

So... In this article we have a person talking about the positive discrimination in a company and how it can harm the company. This topic can harm some people even when the author doesn't want to. You can think he is saying terrible things (like some people thinks indeed), so you are not open to discuss with him about the topic? > then maybe take some time to think about the opinions you're so excited to share I am n…

> so you are not open to discuss with him about the topic?

Am I personally interested in discussing this guy's bad ideas with him? No, I have better things to do than try to get him to examine the prejudices that he's so energetically hiding under a mountain of justification. History suggests that most bigots will literally die before they'll change their opinion. And from what I've seen, those who do change don't do it because of reasoned discussion; they instead have an emotional epiphany of the impact of bigotry.

> I am not going to shut up if I think I am right and it is the best for everybody even if my opinion hurts some people. I shouldn't do it indeed.

How brave! If you look at the US's historical record, you can find a great number of (white) people arguing that the institution of slavery is the best for everybody even if it hurts some people. Try the Conerstone Speech, for example, or the Texas Declaration of Secession.

Of course, you aren't that brave. Like most pro-discrimination people you comment from the shadows.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#128

Post by mempko »

manigandham wrote: post #98
mempko wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only response to his post that matters are from the women in tech. Do they appreciate it? What's your guess?

What does that even mean? You have to be a women in tech to have your opinion valued? Your statement is far worse than anything written in this manifesto.

What I'm saying is either this rant will put women off to tech or bring more in. Their decision to pursue this industry is what matters. Do you think this will be looked at positively by women currently outside tech?

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#129

Post by jorgemf »

wpietri wrote: post #125
jorgemf wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am against any bias, I want to asses people by their skills. What I am saying is that some skills are in our genes and we cannot/shouldn't change that (not even with positive discrimination). And you, instead of taking a look to the video I put in my previous comment, you decided to call me stupid. Great, do you know how I try to cure my stupidness? Reading and watching videos of people who knows more than me. Food…

Yes, I will not be watching any videos. I don't like videos. If you have a point, feel free to make it. I also didn't call you stupid. Sorry if I was unclear. I am suggesting you are a bigot.

The video is called Hjernevask [1] and it is a Norwegian documentary. Norwegian is one of the highly gender equal countries [2], for your information. The reporter is interviewing Norwegian social scientists about their theories of gender and social constructionism. The documentary generated much public debate in the country.

I knew you weren't calling me stupid. I called you stupid because you weren't able to spend 1 minute to check a reference and decided to throw up all your speech without even knowing what I was talking about.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

[2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#130

Post by cprayingmantis »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #99
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The white kids with single mothers in the trailer park who have fought for a chance to apply for these jobs might like a word with you.

Yes and luckily for them, they don't have to additionally suffer from systemic racial discrimination, which the equivalent member of a minority group frequently would have. Nowhere does it proclaim "If your X your life is hard, if you're Y your life is easy." What is said (roughly) is that for two people otherwise equivalent, if one is X and the other is Y, that in general , in current society life is additionally ha…

I'm not sure your observation of of "white trash", "redneck", and "trailer rats" not suffering from systemic racial discrimination is an accurate one. I for one can assure you that people know how to suss out the difference and it starts at a young age.
Post reply on HN