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

On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 443 posts

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#161

Post by pnathan »

s73ver wrote: post #19
pnathan wrote: post #12

What happens when the lone voice is in the right, and the mass of people are in the wrong, and all of the preponderance of current science and wisdom is against the lone voice? It's no great stretch to find examples through history of this in different social contexts.

If the preponderance of current science is against the lone voice, then it's highly likely that the lone voice is not in the right.

I think you're right. There are a lot of cranks out there. But history suggests a lot of lone voices who got ruthlessly suppressed while actually being right.

The important bit - to me, at least - is we don't run a witch hunt against the lone voices. If they are right, they should be heard out - if they are wrong, they can ignored. And, if dangerous, they can be no-platformed, etc.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#162

Post by rcoveson »

mnm1 wrote: post #159
rcoveson wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but I would add to what you're saying by noting that this very thread and the opinions expressed in it, along with those expressed by the media, will influence Google's decision in a huge way. If a sufficient percentage of the general public considers this memo toxic and irredeemable, this guy could get fired (and I agree, that is absolutely Google's prerogative). On the other hand, if the pervasive…

I agree that the opinions of the general public will influence that decision. To some extent, they should as they have always done. This is part of living in a society and sharing things electronically. One needs to be aware of this before sharing opinions, especially when they are specifically related to one's employment. This isn't a case of making a joke on Twitter and getting fired for it. His opinions also have…

Yeah, but here it is again: "rant." You're using your voice, which we have agreed will, in however small a way, influence an important decision, not to disagree with the content of the email, but to (IMO) misrepresent the tone of the author. Again, I would request an example from the text that supports the "rant" or "toxic" descriptors.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#163

Post by pnathan »

wutbrodo wrote: post #61
pnathan wrote: post #12

What happens when the lone voice is in the right, and the mass of people are in the wrong, and all of the preponderance of current science and wisdom is against the lone voice? It's no great stretch to find examples through history of this in different social contexts.

This is what's so insane to me about how willing people are to throw away the foundations of civilized society for short-term political victories. Especially for those who claim to be fighting for the marginalized, it should be obvious to anyone who's not a complete idiot that the marginalized are those who suffer in the long run when dissenting speech is punished. Not to get nakedly political, but for someone who be…

> Every dirty rhetorical trick to twist their words is fair game, and attempts from decent people to even point out that the other side is being misrepresented is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I avoid a lot of liberal "popular" sites because of this BS. It's not right.

It's become a moral situation for many people. in fairness, some of the social politics are literal life and death for certain subcommunities, so that is as deeply moral a question as it gets.

I think a lot of the reason for this is there's been a strong drift into separate parties by certain communities. so there's no diverse viewpoint in each (US) party and a consensus in-party that they can present...

E.g., if you believe trans people shouldn't be able to choose a restroom, you're probably Republican or affiliated. And if you're trans, you're probably Democrat. That's kind of a big deal in terms of public health to the transperson! Very much a moral question to them!

And that should be considered in why it's so hardcore of an issue.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#164

Post by shaftoe »

s73ver wrote: post #100
shaftoe wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't rail against diversity, he railed against what are effectively affirmative action policies. Several times he went to pains to point out he wasn't against diversity of people, just the initiatives at Google. He railed against the idea that pay and hiring gaps must be caused by biases and, once you rule out bias, what you're left with must be some combination of cultural, biological, and personal factors. Bet…

I am discussing real issues. He was using junk science and pseudoscience to justify his claims. That means he's not doing it in good faith, and is more likely than not using those things to justify his bigotry. His post was filled with dog whistles. His part about castration and feminimity is an example. If you want to address real issues, then you need to address how a team can cope with one of their members, a memb…

In that scenario, I don't know anyone who would defend the prejudiced team member.

Can I give you another that I've experienced? "You rejected this interviewee? Can you give them another look? We need more diversity."

What is the proper way to proceed in this situation?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#165

Post by jblow »

mnm1 wrote: post #152
jblow wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find pretty unconscionable this line of rhetoric, which I see a lot lately from people on the left: "this isn't a free speech issue, because it's not the government doing the censoring". I want to live in a society that embraces liberal values like freedom of expression. Preventing the government from encroaching on those values is a good idea. But if we then go and clamp down on those freedoms everywhere else, the…

So then the government should step in and provide protections against his firing? Should they tell Google, no you can't fire this guy even though you don't like him and he's bringing down the morale of your whole workforce? Should that apply to someone who might actually be a neo-Nazi or become one during an employment term? Should Google be forced to hire / unable to fire people tattooed with swastikas or ones that…

No, I didn't say anything of the kind.

I am saying that this kind of mob shaming-and-silencing mentality is deplorable. And if you choose to engage in that, then you will alienate a lot of people, including many of the best people.

I am not saying anything about government, and as I said in my previous posting, I find it weird that people keep jumping to this. We're talking about ethics, not law.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#166

Post by Atheros »

mnm1 wrote: post #155
rcoveson wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not implying that I agree with anything the author said, but could you give an example of a "toxic" quote from the original memo? I'm confused because your comment makes it sound like we're talking about some vitriolic diatribe, which isn't the case at all. Honestly, this whole thread could use more quotes from the original text. It's disturbing to me how much meta-conversation is being had about the author and his e…

That's really up to Google to decide in this case. My personal opinion on whether his writings are toxic is irrelevant. It seems a lot of people are outraged by it, both in and out of Google. If Google does decide that this is toxic, even if just from a PR point of view, they should have no problem firing the guy. That's my point. Expressing opinions is not an action without consequences.

Silencing future opinion is not an action without consequences either. I predict that Google will let him stay. If they fired him, no one would speak out on any sensitive subject in the future even with careful moderation.

"When people are not comfortable with an oppressive regime they keep their moderate opinions to themselves. Voicing any opinion contrary to the Party line is dangerous no matter how extreme or moderate it is. So all dissenting opinions you are going to hear in public will be coming from extremists (e.g. 'Have a Nuremberg-type tribunal for the Party's chiefs, lustrate the rest and their progeny for 7 generations!') because only the people who hold these opinions will be fed up enough to disregard consequences of their dissent. And there won't be many of them, since it's the definition of extremism to be in small minority.

However, for every single dissident there were tens or hundreds of thousands of silent supporters who would openly express their disgust and outrage over such horrific person but, when talking with their buddies in private, repeat and spread these ideas thus radicalizing themselves. Eventually everybody but a minority of "true believers" shifted from 'well, life kinda sucks right now but at least there is no war' to 'burn it down and salt the earth!'. When this happened the whole mighty Communist empire collapsed within a year. A 'Preference cascade'. https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-preference-cascade "

I'm not sure what that would look like in Silicon Valley but I'm sure it would be described as a pendulum swinging far to the right.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#167

Post by sillysaurus3 »

hncens0rship wrote: post #52
Meekro wrote: post #39

"If Galileo had said that people in Padua were ten feet tall, he would have been regarded as a harmless eccentric. Saying the earth orbited the sun was another matter. The church knew this would set people thinking." -- Paul Graham, What You Can't Say [1] "And worse than simply thinking these things or saying them in private, you’ve said them in a way that’s tried to legitimize this kind of thing across the company,…

SV/YC culture is extremely toxic, and people hate having that pointed out to their faces. edit: sv/yc are toxic for how they actively shame outsider opinions, then headhunt the individuals who put said opinions forward. from sama's what i heard from trump supporters, "Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried a…

I don't think it's fair to lump YC culture in with SV culture. YC is based in SV, but it seems to be an island of reasonableness.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#168

Post by toxiccwm »

nancye wrote: post #132
kristianc wrote: post #27

The major elephant in the room here, which the memo doesn't seem to address, is that as late as the 1960's, computer programming was seen as a natural career for young women. Has biology changed that much in the last fifty years?

The chart from this article is worth looking at: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-... It wasn't just in the sixties - women's participation in computer science was growing until the mid eighties. As a woman who's helped other women learn to code, all I can say is that the interest is certainly still out there.

No one who is serious about this doubts that there are women who are interested in tech and able to acquire the skills. The key question is how many women have this interest, absent any worries about matching the number to men perfectly. Even asking that question apparently causes a very interesting reaction.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#169

Post by arnioxux »

grey-area wrote: post #130
EddieRingle wrote: post #43

One of my first exposures to this "manifesto" was on Twitter with someone starting a thread with "Google has a Nazi problem." The majority of the other responses I read either attacked the author, dismissed the entire text in whole, and/or refused to actually argue the paper's points because they saw them as so ridiculous or "obviously" wrong. I read the paper. I don't see at all how it relates to fascism, Trumpism,…

Since most of these threads are pretty content free, and you asked for it, here's a rebuttal, by a woman who's good at math. https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3... Of course men and women are different on average, but are they different enough to justify the massive disparity in tech? No.

Rather than looking at the math ability distribution as a proxy, why not look at coding competition ability? They are pretty objective since an autograder doesn't know your gender and they are predictive of whether you can pass a tech interview since it's the same format.

In that case, even at the IOI level (high school, so 14-18 year old kids) women are already severely underrepresented: https://www.quora.com/How-has-female-students-participation-...

You see the same thing at the college level too (for example topcoder where they isn't even any possibility for a sexist team selection bias since anyone can just register and compete).

In some sense, it makes it not tech industry's fault. It's a failure of our education/training pipeline where we are not training competitive women even from an early age.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#170

Post by sillysaurus3 »

toxiccwm wrote: post #168
nancye wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chart from this article is worth looking at: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-... It wasn't just in the sixties - women's participation in computer science was growing until the mid eighties. As a woman who's helped other women learn to code, all I can say is that the interest is certainly still out there.

No one who is serious about this doubts that there are women who are interested in tech and able to acquire the skills. The key question is how many women have this interest, absent any worries about matching the number to men perfectly. Even asking that question apparently causes a very interesting reaction.

One possibility is that a massive number of men picked up coding in the 80's.

Anyone have a graph that shows absolute numbers rather than percentage points?

Post reply on HN