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

151–158 of 158 posts

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

#151

Post by manigandham »

wpietri wrote: post #124
manigandham wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Speech is not action.

Free speech means most speech is protected, however there are specific instances of unprotected speech, such as inciting lawlessness or libel/slander. This speech can and is prosecuted, but it is still not action.

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

#152

Post by Zarath »

wpietri wrote: post #147
Zarath wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that will literally always be a confounding variable.

I and many others are working for that not to be the case.

I get that, but when can you possibly say that centuries of sexism no longer have any effect, or centuries of trying to shift back to center have swung the pendulum in the opposite direction? Equality of outcome?

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

#153

Post by Zarath »

DanBC wrote: post #89
Zarath wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of sounding sexist, I will say that conflating race and sex as being roughly the same level of difference is a little bit intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to sit here and argue about what those differences are, but sex hormones most certainly affect behavior and emotions far more than skin pigments. I also appreciate you sharing your story, but I personally find it a bit uncomfortable that these so…

> because I imagine that the anger and "otherness" that oppressed or minority groups feel is not unlike what the author of such a rant is feeling. No one is going to kill OP for his opinion, or try to rape his opinion out of him, which is something that still happens to gay people.

Fair point. Job loss is non-trivial, albeit nowhere near as bad as rape or murder.

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

#154

Post by eneveu »

gopz wrote: post #143
ElmntOfSurprise wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note however that Gizmodo say > Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted The links that were removed are probably relevant. Some passages in the text even have quotation marks around them where I assume that links to sources were removed.

Yeah, what was up with that? I was really disappointed that stuff was omitted and assumed it was why some of the author's claims seemed so bold. Is there a link to something closer to the original around?

I think it's this one, but the links don't seem to work: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...

Edit: Here is the PDF with working links: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

ElmntOfSurprise wrote: post #94
habitue wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the gender differences he talks about are very obviously coming from this meta-study: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x He uses a lot of the same terminology as the paper, references big-5 personality traits etc, as well as the same personality dimensions like people-object axis. The left vs. right stuff is clearly coming from Jonathan Haidt's Moral foundations theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

Note however that Gizmodo say > Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted The links that were removed are probably relevant. Some passages in the text even have quotation marks around them where I assume that links to sources were removed.

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by wpietri »

manigandham wrote: post #151
wpietri wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Speech is not action. Free speech means most speech is protected, however there are specific instances of unprotected speech, such as inciting lawlessness or libel/slander. This speech can and is prosecuted, but it is still not action.

Keep asserting that buddy. But I'm telling you now, each essay I write is intended to change something in the world. If I didn't intend it as an action, I wouldn't bother writing it.

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

#157

Post by wpietri »

Zarath wrote: post #152
wpietri wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I and many others are working for that not to be the case.

I get that, but when can you possibly say that centuries of sexism no longer have any effect, or centuries of trying to shift back to center have swung the pendulum in the opposite direction? Equality of outcome?

When people treat the topic with the same sort of dry, academic interest that is now used for discussions like, "What was the most popular card game in 1850?"

Things change. E.g., there were many "important" theological and political questions in the middle ages that now seem impossibly distant, almost meaningless.

Gender is already becoming less meaningful. Maybe it will never become meaningless, but at the very least we can take it from "primary determinant of social status, acceptable behavior, allowed work, and economic outcome" to "about like eye color".

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

#158

Post by wpietri »

honestoHeminway wrote: post #150
wpietri wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans aren't computers. Words and actions are not always distinct. Indeed, they mostly aren't distinct. If words didn't have an effect on the world, we wouldn't have evolved language.

Sorry, i violently reject your opinion. I found it to be the source of some of the utmost terror in totalitatiran regimes, where "Words" are equal to "Traitorous actions" and thus punnished. And i found that behind this kind of thought, usually a anti-democratic yearning for a opion dictatorship lurks. Still, violently rejecting does not include preventing you from uttering it.

My opinion is one that is also shared by American law. There are many crimes of speech. E.g., fraud, conspiracy to commit murder, and harassment.

But sure, anonymous coward. You can read my mind, and it's just what you always hated! Funny coincidence, there.

Post reply on HN