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

Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#371

Post by ZeroGravitas »

sheepmullet wrote: post #308
michaelchisari wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be important I clarify that I'm not talking about the right, I'm talking about the far right (re-branded as the "alt-right"). This does not include most people who vote Republican or consider themselves traditional conservatives. The traditional conservative movement is dying out. Quite literally, it has a demographic problem that it is not sure how to resolve. In it's place, you have the alt-right, which do…

I don't think so. The alt-right is not constantly infighting. The left are more likely to devolve into infighting. This google guy was moderate left wing and the hard line social justice response from Google and the media will alienate a lot more of the intellectual left. Hispanics and African Americans often lean socially conservative. Gay men are a lot more fiscally conservative than you might think. None of those…

"This google guy" was a self-declared conservative, and mentioned cultural marxism, an alt-right touchstone, in the very memo that is being discussed.

His first interviews were with alt-right Youtube channels.

I agree with your points about lots of minority groups being socially (and/or fiscally) conservative. It's lucky for the left that the white social conservatives have been driving them away consistently for decades.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#372

Post by virtualized »

minipci1321 wrote: post #243
Const-me wrote: post #113

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…

Didn't read his memo, am not interested in the debate, and am not saying he should be fired or kept. That said, I'd think that he was fired not because of his opinions, but because he seems to have done an irreparable damage to Google's image: for good or bad reasons, people will react strongly and negatively to the publication of his memo, and whatever Google does -- keeps him or lets him go -- this negative impact…

Google could have published a letter that addresses the issues mentioned in the leaked memo in a diplomatic way without firing anyone. Google's immature reaction damaged the perception of the diversity ideology instead of defending it.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#373

Post by supremesaboteur »

michaelchisari wrote: post #239
generic_user wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this this is the talking points for the Democrats but its not very convincing. > The way the swings on the special elections are going, which are all violently swinging away from the Republicans. The Republicans won all 6 special elections. > Take Ossoff's challenge in Georgia. He lost by 4 points > the Republicans were required to spend $25 million He lost. And it was the Democrats who spent $23 Million (the…

> The Republicans won all 6 special elections. By slim margins in what should have been extremely safe districts. Then they lost the next 2, one of which by way a 30 point swing. The swing is not something you can hand-wave away. It's one of the best metrics we have as a predictor for 2018. > The republicans spent like $3 Million dollars. Estimates on how much was spent on the election range from $40-$60 million. $23…

Democrats spent a lot more money on these races and were still not able to win. This is clearly a problem for them. The swing in margins can be explained by the fact that the President's party mostly always loses some points

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#374

Post by TeMPOraL »

jancsika wrote: post #121

> And let us be clear that, yes, such policies mean every once in a while you will not hire the most skilled person for a job. Therefore, a value judgement must be made here, not a logical deduction from data. Is diversity important enough for you to temporarily tolerate an increased risk of not hiring the most qualified person? That’s the trade-off nobody seems willing to spell out. Perhaps because it's not a necess…

The equivalent of your example in tech industry leads to number of men in software growing - which is precisely what diversity policies try to counter.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#375

Post by occultist_throw »

reitanqild wrote: post #19
jorgemf wrote: post #9

Completely right. I hope this is not banned because it is worth the read.

Whichever side you are on this is probably the most important topic discussed in this forum this week. It is also very interesting to a large number of the audience. Yet sadly there seems to be a number of people here who think they have a right to overrule everyone who upvote (and no, I'm not talking about the mods but about the flaggers.)

I attributed it to Googlers that had accounts here, and were running a flag-campaign to keep these articles off of HN.

perhaps some of the mods could chime in as to whom was doing the bulk of the flags.

Reasoning: its a political hot-potato, with their DoL lawsuit accused of paying women substantially less for the same job. Last thing they needed was more 300+ HN posts every day for a week. Rage-media has mostly moved on to N Korea, or whatever other special cringe-worthy topic.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#376

Post by ordu »

manicdee wrote: post #201
Const-me wrote: post #113

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…

That's a gross oversimplification of the issue. Would the same outcome have happened if this guy had posted his manifesto on a blog outside the office, rather than distributing it to colleagues at work? Would the same outcome have happened if the various arguments in the manifesto had been individual articles on a personal blog over a period of time? Would the same outcome have happened if the manifesto hadn't been e…

> That's a gross oversimplification of the issue.

It is the way most people think. The only way of thinking available for them. So this conclusions is exactly what they draw from the story.

> the lesson you choose to take from it is "don't express your opinion in public"? That's what really explains Trump.

I'm not sure that Const-me took _this_ lesson, but the point is: the most people took this lesson. The reality works this way. Therefore this lesson is the true one, it is like self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people belive in it, than it is true.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#377

Post by Chris2048 »

KirinDave wrote: post #142
Const-me wrote: post #113

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…

It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing. Mad someone for touching your bum? Speak up. You spoke up? Now you're…

> You spoke up?

There's more than one way to "speak up", so there's isn't just two options. In any case, who's opinion are you talking about? A specific subset of HN that sticks in your mind?

> pretty basic corporate policy

by basic, do you mean "vague and unevenly applied"?

> is taken without a critical eye

It isn't, but the conversation was cut short, suggesting that the opposite happened; it was assumed to be false/incorrect.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#378

Post by nowo »

_b8r0 wrote: post #183
Const-me wrote: post #113

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…

I made the grave mistake of trying to express that point on Twitter. Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time, but it's a dumpster fire right now full of raging people who don't understand what you've just said. I was in SV last year for a couple of months during the election, and everyone I met were all paid up members of the church of political correctness up front, but when you spo…

You realize his paper was posted to a list at google called "pc-considered-harmful"?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#380

Post by aninhumer »

mpweiher wrote: post #218
manicdee wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that men and women typically present themselves differently on CVs and in selection criteria, with men typically giving themselves credit for work done in teams while women typically talk about the teams they were part of. This would easily explain why blind resumes resulted in a larger proportion of men being selected. edit: to contrast with the orchestra scenario, a resume is not a skill test, while an auditio…

Interesting hypothesis, but apparently not what happened: "The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door." http://abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to...

It's an interesting result, but is it accurate to call this "blinding"?

I feel like hiding demographics and actively deceiving people about demographics are different processes and should have different names?

Post reply on HN