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

371–380 of 443 posts

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#371

Post by orlytoss9 »

ameister14 wrote: post #361
RangerScience wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're using different notation systems. I'm thinking "modifier to the dice roll", you're thinking "score". This is making it real hard to understand what you're saying. What is your understanding of how AA works?

Ah, I see. As I understand it, AA usually comes into play when there is little separating two candidates. Most other qualities are the same or the historically advantaged candidate is only slightly better than the disadvantaged one. To counter this historical disadvantage, the candidate possessing it is given additional 'points' which push them beyond the other. All other things being equal or close to equal, this be…

At what point does someone given these AA boosts at every step in their life (high school, SAT, college admission, job interview) no longer qualify to be called disadvantaged?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#372

Post by lawnchair_larry »

Udik wrote: post #261
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that you said "compete". Testosterone has effects on competition, so there could still be bias there. Competitions are overrepresented by people who think they can win. We are taught that confidence and overconfidence skews male.

> Testosterone has effects on competition, so there could still be bias there Oh. And that would be a biological, innate difference in behaviour between men and women, wouldn't it? And even if women are as good as men at maths or computer programming- which wouldn't surprise me much- can't they be just less interested in it, just in the same way they're less interested (as you seem to imply) in competition? And could…

I don't know why those are directed at me. I didn't say otherwise!

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#373

Post by poohblahoyamo »

snerbles wrote: post #11
Quarrelsome wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it okay to campaign towards the goal of firing someone for expressing an opinion they feel outraged about?

To some, the mere expression of an outrageous opinion is a form of violence in and of itself. Following this logic, any who express such ideas to others should be sanctioned as if they committed physical violence.

Ohhhh, I see.. nobody ever showed me this linear line.. (I am a minority, immigrant.woman...) The social justice warrior reasoning were.never very clear today.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#374

Post by poohblahoyamo »

s73ver wrote: post #176
shaftoe wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, th…

Like my husband? "I ask every person this question, she had no idea after so much hinting. People who can't answer these questions cannot operate our code base without significant help from others. The last few times I let this slide they all turned into huge disasters. So, absolutely no. " .... HR makes someone interview this girl again to that person. This girl truly is too inexperienced to fly, but no, lets reject all these c.s degree guys with projects on their github and let's make a third person interview them again. .....God, I am a doctor, I am a minority female immigrant doctor, I don't exactly get this kind of benefit of the doubt when I look for a job, okay?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#375

Post by poohblahoyamo »

Impossible wrote: post #315
geggam wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet with constant and proactive pushes to increase women in tech and men in nursing it doesn't happen. Ever think maybe men generally dont want to be a nurse and women generally dont want to be a nerd ?

In both cases there are gendered cultural associations built into the profession. Nursing is definitely viewed as feminine and software engineering is is still considered a masculine profession, although that perception is slowly changing as software becomes a more important part of everyone's life. Even if you get past that, the active shaming and harassment of people that enter or attempt to enter the respective fi…

I would highly encourage men to go into nursing while discounting women. You don't get the hazing and the shit if you are a man and mostly the good parts, okay you get called to lift more shit... There is that.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#376

Post by generic_user »

warcher wrote: post #303
generic_user wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. If leftists/liberals wanted everyone to be treated fairly without prejudice of their race or sex…

I think if you take a population that has been the subject of generations of systemic government oppression, remove it (allegedly), and then declare "fairness accomplished! You are free to complete on a level playing field! Pay no attention to the effects of generational poverty!" you are on real dubious ground. This would also presuppose that we have successfully eliminated systemic racism from our society, which is…

>> I think if you take a population that has been the subject of generations of systemic government oppression, remove it (allegedly), and then declare "fairness accomplished! You are free to complete on a level playing field! Pay no attention to the effects of generational poverty!" you are on real dubious ground.

Equality of outcomes enforced by excluding certain racial groups creates intergenerational systemic government oppression of the excluded groups. Again the goal and the means are contradictory.

The socially acceptable way to increase participation by a perceived underrepresented group is to target that group with sustained improvement programs with measurable outcomes. This is the only serious way to address the problem. The opportunities are there but talent with proper skills is not.

>> This would also presuppose that we have successfully eliminated systemic racism from our society, which is... an argument that would require substantial supporting evidence.

The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that 'society' is in fact guilty of 'systemic racism'. The presumption of Innocence until proven guilty is a cornerstone of western law. Whey you have an indictment of 'society' in a court of law then we can have a fruitful discussion of 'societal systemic racism'.

>> And with respect to the whole "taking of jobs", I will add a more comprehensively researched rebuttal to my own anecdotal experience: if you're good, you're in no danger of getting caught up in a quota system. Competent white folks are doing just fine. The less-competent.... probably should cowboy up. As my exploited millennials would say: "git gud".

Once again your presenting a contradiction. You want to argue that 'systemic racism', for instance against blacks is a horrible injustice. But also claim that other racial groups such as whites are being excluded because there is a racially discriminatory quota system, but you have no problem with that.

So what I gather from your post is that you support racism as long as its against Whites and Asians.

And you also think that its perfectly fine to remove 'less-competent' people as long as they are White or Asian and replace then with presumably even 'less-competent' black people?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#377

Post by schimmy_changa »

schimmy_changa wrote: post #298
asciicircum wrote: post #189

Could someone opposed to the arguments the manifesto makes explain to me what quotes caused them to strongly dislike it? Reading the reactions to the manifesto I'm left feeling like I'm taking crazy pills. I must have read a different manifesto. AFAICT the main idea of the manifesto is that biological differences between men and women account for part of the representation gap. This seems to be perfectly logical and…

The issue is that he is trying to solve an social problem via engineering, and in trying to simplify the problem, not spending enough time researching, and by "de emphasizing empathy" he takes a step backwards. Basically, he sets forward incorrect assertions about biological differences without the self-awareness about why he takes those differences as truth. For instance "Women on average show a higher interest in p…

... and now I'm getting downvotes after answering the OP's question earnestly trying to provide the opposing viewpoint ...

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#378

Post by mcappleton »

Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #312
mcappleton wrote: post #301

Women don't go into tech because they don't like it. Boys like legos, girls like dolls. Sure there are occasional tomboys but the fact is most girls just don't like engineering.

Don't try to gaslight people. Posting terrible arguments for sides you disagree with is lame epistemic pollution.

Lol denying reality to support your fantasy is pretty lame too

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#379

Post by currymj »

smsm42 wrote: post #355
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He seems to be claiming that black people, gay people, women, trans folk and the poor were in no way oppressed and it was all made up by Communists to take down capitalism. You can probably find some people who agree with individual parts of that but if you get a full bingo then you're basically dealing with a Nazi. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Ma...

> He seems to be claiming that black people, gay people, women, trans folk and the poor were in no way oppressed and it was all made up by Communists to take down capitalism. No he doesn't. He says Marxists participated in gender/race politics, and the ultimate goal of Marxists was destruction of capitalism. Which, btw, if you read any of real Marxists - who aren't exactly hiding, thanks (not ironically, they shouldn…

I mean at the end of the day the story about “Marxist intellectuals” making an enemy out of “straight, cis white males” after “class warfare” failed to overthrow society sounds almost exactly like the Frankfurt School/“cultural Marxism” conspiracy theory. (Its a specific conspiracy theory btw, not just the general and true observation that the left is more concerned with race and gender than it used to be.)

Maybe it’s not deliberate but given the context it raised a major eyebrow for me.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#380

Post by int_19h »

drngdds wrote: post #235
splintercell wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am against discrimination, and that includes positive discrimination. Because all positive discrimination is negative discrimination to someone else, so obviously when you are against discrimination you should be against positive discrimination too.

That's overly simplistic. If you know with good certainty that negative discrimination against a group is pervasive and manifests itself in a certain way (say, hiring bias (though I'm not arguing that this is the case in a particular instance; that's a separate debate)) it makes sense to have positive discrimination to counteract that.

It depends on whether your ethic emphasizes fairness in average, or fairness in individual cases.

Those who do the former, point at decreasing gaps between population groups as evidence that their approach is more fair. Those who do the latter point at specific cases where a person was ipso facto denied something that they would otherwise be a better fit for, because they were positively discriminated on the basis of some factor.

The catch is that conceptualization of fairness is driven by empathy ("I wouldn't like being treated like that if it were me!") - and empathy in humans works towards individuals, not large populations. A guy who couldn't get a job because his race made him rank lower is easier to empathize with, because the injustice is done to him personally and explicitly, as opposed to another guy from a historically discriminated group who is suffering from an accumulation of subtle but systemic biases throughout society.

Thus, too much or too visible positive discrimination triggers a significant social pushback, which may well swing the pendulum far in the opposite direction.

Post reply on HN