Not an argument
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14939770 and marked it off-topic.
About This Googler's Manifesto
281–290 of 404 posts
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#282I'd seriously like to know if the author meant this literally: > a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face If that's indeed the case, isn't that on itself a huge problem we should deal with? If someone is risking being a victim of physical violence on the workplace over disagreements on political positions we should be seriously concerned.
Oh come on, it's obvious hyperbole. I wouldn't actually punch this guy in the face if I had to work with him, but I would certainly would silently wish I could.
I also secretly wish you would punch him in the face.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All that Google would have to do is admit 50/50 isn't based on anything hard, and commit to finding out what the real number should be. It is based on something hard—the gender distribution in the population.
But not the gender distribution of people who are qualified to work in the field. If we want gender parity in employment, we need gender parity in graduating classes. Trying to have one without the other is a ridiculous endeavor.
Not to mention, gender parity in willingness to immigrate or move across the country.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#284So basically Yonatan Zunger is saying that the fact the women are underrepresented among Google engineers depends entirely from the misogynistic attitude of the company, and that its interviewers are maschilist assholes. So, he says, it took him "half of the past day" to try to fix the mess caused by a guy that dared to suggest that maybe the company and its employees are not such misogynistic assholes after all. Excellent job!
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Asians are generally shorter than me. But if a 6'2 Asian is standing next to me, I don't think that particular person is shorter than me. It's perfectly reasonable for him to say the 50/50 ratio might not be ideal, and maybe biology plays a role, while still believing his colleagues are competent.
The trouble is that, whilst it's easy to determine whether or not the person stood next to you is shorter than you, competence is something far harder to assess. If your opinion is 'women are, on average, less competant', it would seem more likely than not that your default position would assume the woman stood next to you is less competent.
This does not seem as much of a trouble as having a preferential hiring policy for some classes of people and then having the ability of these people doubted not just at the hiring time but through their entire career.
To wit: I am a foreigner living and working as a software engineer in the USA. My English is far from perfect and a lot of people assume I am dumb just because of my thick accent. I failed few interviews because of this. I have absolutely no problem with that and am happy with my career. My achievements speak for me. I would not be as happy if this had been made a "diversity" issue and people with heavy accent were given advantages in hiring. This would forever invalidate my achievements as a proof of my competence. I would actively oppose any moves to establish such policies and would not approach any company that had them in place.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? I read the manifesto and thought it was stupid in most of its claims. But it's not hard to feel like thoughtcrime has become a real thing nowadays.
> Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? Am I seriously stating that abusing people verbally and emotionally is equal in moral gravity to abusing them verbally? Yes.
Writing some manifesto can be at most offensive, but is nowhere near "abuse". And it's under no circumstance as grave as physical assault.
Try your tough guy act in real life and you'll have a very serious discussion with the police.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
I came across a lot of socially maladjusted geniuses. If you try to put them in the wrong environment with the wrong assignments, bad stuff happens. If you are able to manage them well, and let them do low level technical stuff, you can get amazing things out of them.
It seems like a disservice to society to isolate and protect antisocial software geniuses just because you might be able to get good work out of them.
[deleted]
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell me about it. Reading that made me sick. I don't necessarily agree with the original manifesto, but the idea that "a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face" is an acceptable thing to say is ridiculous. If this "manifesto" was actually racist and bigoted, it still doesn't excuse violence, or the suggestion of violence. That is FAR worse. It's un-American. We tolerate…
> We tolerate groups like the KKK or Black Panthers or Westboro Baptist because even if they are vehemently WRONG, they have a right to speak freely. We also don't hire the KKK. Those of us who run companies or manage people respect our employees more than to have a gay employee pair program with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Free speech does not mean immunity from the consequences of your actions.
It's inhuman to attempt to destroy someone's life for having politically incorrect opinions, no matter what those opinions are.
The employee should instead give them a warning and educate them. Writing a manifesto is not a capital crime.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#289I posted this in another thread where the entire thread got flagged. This response on medium is scary and demonstrates what I’m concerned about. At this point the left has gotten to a point where witch hunts, blacklisting, exclusion, and suggesting that people could acceptably be subject to violence, for thought crime are accepted and encouraged tactics.
I’m a closeted conservative in tech, hence the throwaway account. Some of what the manifesto said is overly broad or wrong headed, in particular at least from my perspective generalizing views held by conservatives on climate change and similar issues, but one thing in particular stood out: The left and by extension Google do not tolerate diversity of viewpoint or worldview. Diversity of race or sex is viewed as critical but real diversity, that of the lens through which people view the world is to be stomped out with prejudice. If you don’t agree with the leftist secular view you are a bigot. If you are religious you must apologize for your bigotry and convince others it is only a social activity or something private that won’t affect how you behave or what you believe in other spheres. As a conservative orthodox Catholic and a devotee of Saint Josemariá Escrivá, I feel like I have to hide my faith and my views. If people understood that my devotion to doing my work as perfectly and as generously as I can is driven by my desire to serve God and mankind they would be shocked and disappointed. Even worse, my views on the existence of an absolute unchanging morality would be viewed as bigotry even though I don’t advocate discrimination and am willing to happily work beside those who believe and practice differently. It is not enough that we work side by side and treat each other with respect, I must believe and accept leftist dogma in my heart or I am a bigot and I am unfit to write code, work with others, or function in a management role. From my perspective the exclusion, demonization and intolerance from the left for those who dare to merely believe and live their own lives differently is terrifying. I don’t know how we come back from the current state of things to a liberal, open society where diversity of belief and viewpoint is prized.
Re: About This Googler's Manifesto
#290The irony is that one of the touted business case reasons for diversity is that it gives a diversity of perspectives and ideas, which can be useful to solving a problem. I agree with this analysis. If we listen to Yontan though, any team that has a member with a different perspective will be punched in the face. That's a very clear argument for homogenous teams, at least as long as you don't want a workplace with con…
> The irony is that one of the touted business case reasons for diversity is that it gives a diversity of perspectives and ideas, which can be useful to solving a problem. I agree with this analysis. If we listen to Yontan though, any team that has a member with a different perspective will be punched in the face. That's a very clear argument for homogenous teams, at least as long as you don't want a workplace with constant fistfights
Excluding people who have prejudices towards men and women does not mean you have "homogenous teams". It may mean you have fewer conservatives.
Also, some folks' ideas are so extreme that they exclude others' rights. We've seen this throughout history with conservatives. Working rights, voting rights, and marriage rights.
The woman who denied gay marriage licenses did it on the basis that her right to express her religion was being infringed upon. Who's being exclusive there? The woman, or the gay men who wanted to get married?