On managing outrage in Silicon Valley • Hacker News Board

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#171

Post by toxiccwm » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #105

TallGuyShort wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's using a biological justification to openly discuss different ways to foster diversity. This is one of his points: the most common argument against him is just that you think he's a sexist, not because you don't think his ideas will actually foster any kind of diversity. And I don't understand that. The reaction here is the opposite of tolerance and diversity. edit: I'm going to give a personal example: I str…

But we're back to discussing the reaction again. Which is a neat way of avoiding the content of the article itself. I have no particular need to apply the label of "sexist" to this guy. I have no opinion, nor enough information, to say whether he should be fired or not. I do think he's profoundly wrong though, and think his arguments about biological differences bear at least a passing resemblance to some wholly disc…

What does "bear at least a passing resemblance to some wholly discredited arguments" mean? Is this the same sort of thinking that has people rabidly ferreting out "dogwhistles" in normal speech?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#172

Post by hncens0rship » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #167

hncens0rship wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do, and provided a direct example of their culture of censorship - how they limit the ability of minority opinions to speak on their own site, and manipulate the front page to control perception. YC leadership and rank and file effectively never express opinions that are significantly different from the rest of SF tech, because in many ways they define its culture. Why is it a "bastion of reasonableness?"

The only reason I even talk at all here is because I think it's important to break up the ideological uniformity, because people who talk here have enormous amounts of control over how people are able to communicate with one another in the modern world. I don't want to be here, I fucking hate this community.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#173

Post by seppin » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #92

JoshTriplett wrote: post #21

> He is one individual in a company that employs more than 72,000 people. Why has Silicon Valley spent the weekend talking about him Because we're not talking about a memo posted by one random engineer that got the reaction it deserved for declaring a large fraction of his co-workers sub-standard engineers (among the myriad broken things in that memo). That would have been a story for all of five minutes. Instead, we…

"for declaring a large fraction of his co-workers sub-standard engineers" Are you blatantly lying about the content of the memo? Like, I wouldn't think so. I think you're hallucinating your own meaning to it. Would you mind explaining the thought process that lead you form this representation?

> I think you're hallucinating your own meaning to it.

Welcome to politics. A single event merely kicks off a discussion that people want to have, not actually debating what was said/done.

It's a boring game to play over and over.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#174

Post by tptacek » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:20 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #10

sbierwagen wrote: post #8

It's interesting to note that the only reason this is a news story is because "a Google engineer" wrote it. If the essay had been published entirely anonymously, then it would have attracted no attention at all, like a dozen similar essays. The story is the source, not the content.

The story is not "a Google engineer wrote it". The story is "a large fraction of Google circulated and endorsed it". That's what makes this news.

A large fraction of Google circulated it. Is there evidence that a large fraction endorsed it? That's not remotely the impression I get.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#175

Post by gjjrfcbugxbhf » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:21 PM UTC

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…

It is interesting how the grandchild responses to the responses to this post have been flag killed...

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#176

Post by s73ver » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:21 PM UTC

shaftoe wrote: post #164

s73ver wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To re-examine why you rejected them, and see if other candidates were rejected for similar reasons or not. There are several studies that show that women and minorities are simply judged harsher than their peers despite having similar levels of talent and ability[1]. Examine if perhaps you fell into that trap. Obviously if someone couldn't do fizzbuzz, they shouldn't be hired. But I would wager that in many cases, there are those candidates that are very close, and they end up getting picked or rejected based on these unconscious factors.

And, also, to look at why diverse candidates are not applying to work at your company is decent numbers.

[1]One such article: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias...

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#177

Post by peacetreefrog » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:23 PM UTC

toxiccwm wrote: post #103

JoshTriplett wrote: post #21

> He is one individual in a company that employs more than 72,000 people. Why has Silicon Valley spent the weekend talking about him Because we're not talking about a memo posted by one random engineer that got the reaction it deserved for declaring a large fraction of his co-workers sub-standard engineers (among the myriad broken things in that memo). That would have been a story for all of five minutes. Instead, we…

It seems pretty clear that you either didn't read the memo, or you had a preconceived reaction that prevented you from absorbing what it actually said. It's a shame, I normally enjoy your posts because you are conscientious and even-handed about technical matters. It's very important to remember that statistics reify to probabilities, so that statistical statements about groups can be true while individuals don't mat…

Definitely, I think your 2nd paragraph is the thing most everyone is missing. He basically says exactly this in the memo.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#178

Post by warcher » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:23 PM UTC

fnovd wrote: post #150

I read the memo, and compared to the stuff I read from the real "deplorables" (on 4chan, The_Donald, etc.), it was pretty tame. Yes, many of his ideas are backwards and unjustified. At the same time, many of his arguments were perfectly sane (e.g. silencing all dissenting opinions leads to an increasingly toxic and divided culture). If you want people like him to actually change their minds, you have to be willing to…

This is increasingly my concern-- There really seems to be a prevailing opinion that racism and sexism are just fine when directed towards white men. You can drag a white guy for pretty much any societal ill you like on the internet these days, and while there are some pretty great points to be made with respect to blaming a lot of modern society's problems on its principal architects (old white dudes), this is no way to win hearts and minds.

We're currently suffering through four years of self-imposed punishment as a result of being a bunch of judgmental assholes in pursuit of a goal that any reasonable human would accept as self-evident-- that people deserve to be treated fairly and without prejudice, no matter their race, sex, gender identity, et cetera. That the American Dream is available equally to all Americans.

I spend a lot of time offering feedback to people in a professional capacity and I am frankly shocked at the level of discourse I see on the internet from progressives. If I pulled this kind of shit at work I'd be finished, because I don't see any way I could possibly be effective communicating an idea to anybody in this fashion.

Almost as if the media doesn't really give a shit about justice or equality, but rather generating rage-clicks and internet lynch mobs to move advertising inventory. :-\

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#179

Post by rhapsodic » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

No matter what side of this debate you're on, I don't think you can argue against the notion that there is only one side of it whose adherents can feel completely free to express their opinions or argue their case without fear of retaliation. Many stupid, unsupportable statements have been made by people on the left side, but I've yet to see much in the way of internet rage mobs formed against them.

I think if google tries to punish the manifesto's author, there needs to be a massive backlash. Perhaps a grassroots effort to lobby the federal government to bust them up as a monopoly. It doesn't matter what, just cause them pain and suffering through whatever legal means are available.

Suppose, for example, once Yonatan Zunger's current employer becomes public knowledge, that company was inundated with phone calls and nasty tweets until they decide that keeping on the payroll is not worth the trouble. Would that be fair? I don't think so, but it would no different than if the manifesto author is outed and fired for expressing his opinions.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#180

Post by CodeCube » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

EddieRingle wrote: post #114

bbctol wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you were on Twitter? The most annoying thing about this back-and-forth ping-ponging of increasing outrage is that everyone, on both sides, only reacts to the silliest arguments. Sturgeon's Law holds up pretty well for hot takes, and the majority of anything written on an issue is likely to be bad. If most of the responses you read struck you as irrational, that's a function of the infrastructure that sends yo…

There were quite a few Medium posts as well. But no, I completely agree with you. I've discussed with others recently about how I'd love to have a tool or place where I can search for a given assertion and see the (scientific) evidence for and against it, as well as related assertions and opposing assertions. And I'm not just talking about being able to "Google it". If I use Google or a general search engine then I h…

If such a repository existed ... it would simply be dismissed as biased by whatever side of the argument it "debunked" ;)