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

Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#591

Post by UK-Al05 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #251
refurb wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the downvotes this post has a point - if you want to protect your religion/ethnicity you have to do it yourself. Rise of anti-semitism in Europe - nothing is done Jews seek safety in other countries - immigration denied Holocaust happens - world sympathizes and moves on Israel is under no illusions as to what happens if they don’t have a home and defend it. I kind of don’t blame them for ignoring the worlds c…

> if you want to protect your religion/ethnicity you have to do it yourself. What should white people be doing if they want to protect their race? Why the hell does all this tribalist & essentialist nonsense become acceptable when discussion turns to Israel?

??? I don't agree with him. But western & majority white countries have the strongest militaries in the world and project power all around the world.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#592

Post by xdennis »

bitcharmer wrote: post #13
ostenning wrote: post #6

Here is a classic case of someone conflating the state of Israel and Jewish people and lumping it all together. Plenty of Jewish people that live both inside and outside of Israel are critical of the state. People can be critical of the state of Israel, but they should not be antisemitic. His comments are offensive for this reason.

> People can be critical of the state of Israel Sadly the moment you call out Israel's human rights violations and ethnic cleansing you get automatically branded as antisemitic on all major social media and by most mainstream outlets too.

Let's hear a sample so we can judge.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#593

Post by edoceo »

honkycat wrote: post #530
JPKab wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are diverse as a side effect of hiring for competence. They aren't competent as a side effect of hiring with diversity as a goal. The statistically illiterate HR minions who preach the correlation between diversity and performance don't get this, because they aren't even educated enough to understand correlation/causation fallacy.

So are you claiming opportunity is equally distributed? I feel if you "hire for competence", you are going to end up with a highly concentrated group of wealthy people who went to the best schools. Also, what is your metric for "competence"? You can train people to be computer programmers, but there are many other traits that are impossible to train. Like seeing the world from a perspective different than a middle ag…

I think they are saying talent is equally distributed across all humans.

We know opportunity is not.

We know education is not.

Also, competence and "best" schools are not the same.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#594

Post by teachingassist »

busterarm wrote: post #479
thereare5lights wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McCammond’s 2019 “apology” was along the lines of “sorry you’re offended”, not “I’m sorry for what I said”.

She also called her comments "deeply insensitive". How bent out of shape are you going to get over what a 17 year old says? "Sorry you're offended" is much closer to accurate. I'm nothing like 17 year old me and if you asked me to take present day responsibility for that person I would tell you to toss off. How much did you do at 17 that you aren't proud of today?

> How much did you do at 17 that you aren't proud of today?

Not that much. For sure I made some mistakes, as I continue to do, but I'd stand by what I did at 17. I didn't (for example) write down plainly racist statements and then publish them on the internet. I didn't do anything comparable to that.

What were y'all doing at 17?

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#596

Post by extra88 »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #518
cheese_van wrote: post #466

I've lived in various ME countries, as well as Israel. I've tried to understand the core issue and frankly, failed. Both arguments about this historical conflict between Israel and the Palestinians seem as close to being morally equivalent as I could imagine. I have sympathies but I keep them to myself. I don't feel as though I have a right to take a particular side: I am not existentially threatened on a daily basis…

> I've tried to understand the core issue and frankly, failed It's quite straight forward. Up until WWI, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in Palestine, which it and other areas of Arabia and North Africa were under Ottoman rule. During WWI, Sykes–Picot divided up the Muslim lands into arbitrary borders to make them easier to occupy. Syria was occupied by the French, Libya by the Italians, etc. Palestine was under…

You're mixing up history. The Sykes–Picot Agreement was made in 1916. The Ottoman Empire was no more long before WWII.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#597

Post by xeonoex »

JPKab wrote: post #457
germinalphrase wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe the acknowledgement of race or racial difference to be intrinsically bigoted?

Yes. Kids don't see skin color the way these ideologues do. They look at it like hair color. My twin brother and I were literally the only white kids on our school bus, attending mostly black public schools in a mostly black county in southeastern Virginia. We were never really aware of skin color as a thing, just "this kid let's us borrow his gameboy and is nice", vs. "this kid punches us in the back of the head on…

Kids do not write laws or have political agendas. In an ideal world, skin color would be an afterthought. But that is not the world we live in. I grew up as a white person in a 99%+ mexican/hispanic area. I grew up thinking the same. I didn't think much of people's race, but other people did. I was treated differently because I was white. It took me a while to realize that I wasn't seeing the world from the minorities point of view because I wasn't a minority. If you try to ignore race completely, you ignore the issues minorities are facing.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#598

Post by tobesure »

dbingham wrote: post #572
dgb23 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My intuition from reading these quotes is that this person spent a lot of time thinking about socioeconomic differences in relation to race[0], so they see things through that lens. It can come off as hostile, but the more generous interpretation that they simply emphasize this theme. [0] I dislike the term "race" in these contexts. In biological terms there is only one human race currently alive as far as we know. E…

A racial construct has been used to shape every facet of our society and we can't make right those wrongs with out maintaining an awareness and understanding of that construct. We can't undo the historical (and current) harms of racism with out continuing to see race. This is why the colorblind approach to solving racial issues failed. All it did was make us blind to the continuing harms of racism and there for unabl…

>A racial construct has been used to shape every facet of our society and we can't make right those wrongs with out maintaining an awareness and understanding of that construct.

This is a dangerously myopic view of the development of this country and more importantly it ignores progress over the last few decades.

The fact that blacks have not achieved representational parity or wealth equity yet does not mean that that the path of race blindness was not working. By all metrics it was working, and there must be room to discuss the internal cultural issues within the black community that account for the remaining lack of progress.

Instead by silencing any such criticism we are falsely blaming whites as a demographic for cultural change that is beyond their control, and artificially forcing transfer of power and wealth from said demographic in a misguided attempt to correct past wrongs, in a manner that is fundamentally at odds with the principles of meritocracy that are critical to a functioning society. Hiring minorities for the color of their skin is no better than hiring whites for the color of their skin.

The combination of a fundamentally racist theory/policy and vicious cancellation of anyone who publicly criticizes the movement is going to lead to severe backlash. It's immoral at its core. You can't have your cake and eat it too - either racism is acceptable and we have the freedom to discuss when and where it is acceptable, or racism is unacceptable. Wordplay with euphemisms which disguise the racist nature of CRT inspired policies is intellectually dishonest and not sustainable.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#599

Post by haberman »

brianberns wrote: post #538
haberman wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore's quote says "in part" and "may explain," suggesting the possibility of multiple causes, and making clear that there is uncertainty. Your paraphrase says "the reason" and "rather than bias/descrimination", suggesting both certainty and only a single cause. How do you reconcile this difference between your paraphrase and Damore's quote?

That’s why I used the word “suggested”, which is exactly what he did, in a section prominently titled “Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech”.

He suggested that non-bias causes are possible contributing factors to the disparity, yes.

Nowhere does he suggest they are the only causes, or that bias/discrimination do not exist.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#600

Post by megous »

SrCodeMonkey wrote: post #294
ostenning wrote: post #6

Here is a classic case of someone conflating the state of Israel and Jewish people and lumping it all together. Plenty of Jewish people that live both inside and outside of Israel are critical of the state. People can be critical of the state of Israel, but they should not be antisemitic. His comments are offensive for this reason.

Internal and external criticism is important and welcome, but when the only democratic country in the hostile region, that's constantly fighting for its existence, becomes the world's punching bag, you have to wonder why it is. Does UN's human rights council obsession with Israel [1], while turning a blind eye on real atrocities in murderous regimes like Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Russia, etc., makes sense to anyone…

> It's just the desire of Jews to live in its historic homeland - Israel, in a peaceful coexistence with its neighbors.

You're doing the same thing this Googler is accused of. Assigning some characteristic/desire to the whole class of people.

Post reply on HN