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

Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 352 posts

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#231

Post by jorgemf »

tevonsb wrote: post #215

I find it rather sad that, before writing this comment I had to reconsider what I wanted to say , because, as a young engineer, I am worried how my opinions will effect my job prospects. When I am afraid to say what I believe, for fear or ramifications, it flies directly in the face of what Google and others profess to trying to do: 'create a work environment in which all people, regardless of political affliation, o…

Too late. I already took an screen shot of your comment and will post it public tomorrow and they will fire you. (so sad this can be true for some of the people commenting here, I am even scared that my comments in this topic here can have consequences in the future).

young engineer, women, white, black,... we are all worried because of this event. The people who was scared to talk before now are not going to talk for sure.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#232

Post by brighteyes »

nowo wrote: post #227
brighteyes wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This guy told a very large amount of his co-workers that they're inferior to him That would be very disturbing, but that's not what's written in the document. Saying that there are average differences between groups, and that therefore people should be treated as individuals, is not at all like saying that all individuals in one group are inferior to another.

Everyone is saying that they are open to discuss this, but as soon as someone says what they think about the paper they are met with dismissal. People interpret his large focus on the biological traits of women, by presenting those traits as the primary cause of the gender gap and without showing causality between those traits and the gender gap as disrespectful. Because it suggests that women are primarily at fault.…

Yeah, I agree. He went too far in that direction.

I think he was wrong on some facts, and also didn't explain things in the best way.

But I think it was wrong of many people to misrepresent what he said (as "women are inferior"), and it was wrong of Google to fire him.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#233

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jshevek wrote: post #224
slg wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue it is the opposite of authoritarian, it is mob rule. No one person or centralized authority deemed this person's actions as unacceptable. It was the majority of the community as a whole that deemed his actions as unacceptable. That is certainly a scary thing to see in action, but I think it is a different thing entirely than an authoritarian regime.

True, but this mob rule rests on the authoritarian mindset of the individuals, and their ability to coerce centralized authorities to use/abuse their power.

I'd put it slightly differently: People with an authoritarian mindset stir up this mob rule as a path for the authoritarians to exercise power.

But maybe I'm saying the same thing as you are...

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#234

Post by [deleted] »

canoebuilder wrote: post #152
ithilglin909 wrote: post #52

Here, here. I’m a software engineer who happens to be a woman. Mr. Damore's piece didn’t offend me at all. There were parts I agreed with and parts I didn’t agree with. I’m more bothered by Google’s response(s) which seemed to reveal an incredible lack of critical reading ability, and far more disturbed by the levels of harshly enforced group-think that seem to increasingly dominate supposedly intelligent circles.

incredible lack of critical reading ability When factoring in all the egregiously false headlines, news stories, tweets, etc. about this I think what is really going on is not lack of critical reading ability, but rather some people's willingness to tell outright lies and willful misrepresentations when someone points out aspects of reality that these falsehood peddlers would prefer didn't exist for whatever reason.

[deleted]

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#235

Post by rbanffy »

macspoofing wrote: post #157
amyjess wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a woman, I could not work with an outspoken misogynist. As a lesbian, I could not work with an outspoken homophobe. As a Jew, I could not work with an outspoken antisemite. Forcing minorities and women to work with people who are bigoted against them is a recipe for a lawsuit.

This guy isn't a racist or a misogynist. A better example is an atheist working with an evangelical. Both the atheist and the evangelical will have very strong opinions on each others' belief systems.

Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in his profession because their biology makes the inherently less interested in it?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#236

Post by AnimalMuppet »

eco wrote: post #150
pseudalopex wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several very active threads about this incident, the conversation has been mostly people talking past each other, the headline is inflammatory, and the article adds nothing new to the discussion.

If people want to talk about it, let them talk about it. If you don't want to read them talking about it, don't read them talking about it. It's weird hearing anyone claim we need less discussion and communication about anything. An unproductive conversation won't hurt anyone. If anything it'll teach everyone we are further apart on an issue than anyone thought and that maybe we need to step back and think about the…

> An unproductive conversation won't hurt anyone.

An unproductive conversation, becoming more hostile, can hurt the HN community. This is supposed to be a place for reasoned conversation. It's already difficult to maintain that. A raging flamewar won't help in that direction.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#237

Post by rbanffy »

oskbor wrote: post #131
rifung wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your point so please correct me if I misunderstand, but the person wasn't fired for having a different opinion. He was fired for saying things which were deeply hurtful for a large number of employees.

Have you even read his text? Please quote the "deeply hurtful" passages

We can start from the implication that it's natural there are less women in the profession because most of them are biologically unsuited to it.

Now replace woman with black (or Jew) and see what happens.

Do you still think it's OK?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#238

Post by MBCook »

macspoofing wrote: post #216
MBCook wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what the GP meant is that if you're a young white guy this all seems a bit accedemic because your job isn't in direct question. Perhaps it would be harder to get hired in the future. If you're in a minority being questioned (women here, could be a racial group, age range, etc) people are directly questioning your ability and implying you aren't fit for your job. It looks like a much more personal attack. So t…

>I think what the GP meant is that if you're a young white guy I know what he meant. I know what you mean as well. This isn't a substantive conversation on the issue. You and OP are not putting forward a cogent argument to support a position. You're making an appeal to emotion and valuing an opinion based on the skin color and gender of the person that argued it - not on its own merits. >It looks like a much more per…

I wasn't trying to put a position forward, only explain why some people felt so strongly about it being discussed/shared.

> And what does what you are doing look like to you?

From your comment I thought you didn't understand the parent so I tried to help by trying to explain it differently. I was trying to help clear up possible confusion.

Does what I posted look like advocacy to you? I honestly didn't mean it that way.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#239

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jorgemf wrote: post #213
noncoml wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article? I think that a quick dismissal is not appropriate, that it is the right basis for a discussion and would definitely like to take some time and look at the citations and how they tie up and support the arguments.

Now I can reply: I apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.

For hot-button issues (or maybe just for heavily-commented articles?), HN sometimes limits the reply rate.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#240

Post by stagbeetle »

amyjess wrote: post #138
paapi__gudiya wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole episode has been so disgusting and shows how regressive and authoritarian the mainstream tech community is. People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view? If you can resort to violence against someone and get away wi…

As a woman, I could not work with an outspoken misogynist. As a lesbian, I could not work with an outspoken homophobe. As a Jew, I could not work with an outspoken antisemite. Forcing minorities and women to work with people who are bigoted against them is a recipe for a lawsuit.

Forewarning, the following isn't an opinion that I hold:

To play devil's advocate, what makes it right for certain groups to be able to be preferred over others? How come perceived racists, homophobes, and anti-semites are pushed out and the subjects of their hate allowed to stay?

What if we flipped your statement around. "As a misogynist, I could not work with a woman. As a homophobe, I could not work with an out homosexual. As a an outspoken anti-semite, I could not work with a reverent jew."

Let's say for the sake of this example both parties are the same in efficiency. But, come due time one party starts to openly resent the other and demand they be fired from the company because they cannot work with [insert group here]. Now, I didn't say this was the anti-semite or the jew. It could be either, so let's not shut down here.

Group A says they cannot work with Group B, because Group B holds X idea. Group B can work with Group A, even though Group A holds Y idea.

Is management really right in, in this isolated fairy tale example, in firing Group B because Group A cannot work with them?

Let's reverse the roles in the Google fiasco. Let's say it was the detractors who were fired instead of Damore. Do you think this would have been unfair?

If so, why do you believe it's okay for the original situation to happen? I'm aware there are other variables, but this is what it boils down to.

Post reply on HN