Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces • Hacker News Board

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

#601

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

rsj_hn wrote: post #388

JansjoFromIkea wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Damore emailed his memo to the organisers of Google’s diversity meetings in early July. When there was no response, he started sending the document to Google’s internal mailing lists and forums, eager for a reaction." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-dam...

This is the Guardian telescoping and generalizing with it's usual rigor. There were two diversity trainings, both requesting feedback. There was no email there was a google doc, a link to which was sent as part of a feedback form in the trainings and then shared with a larger group called "skeptics" created for these types of discussions at the request of Damore's manager. You can read the timeline here: https://www.…

> called "skeptics" created for these types of discussions at the request of Damore's manager.

No, at the suggestion of a random person who was a manager. Not damores manager.

And the skeptics group has nothing to do with diversity, is open to anyone, and by sharing with the group, functionally meant that the doc was emailed to hundreds or thousands of people.

The guardian is correct.

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

#602

Post by zuminator » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #124

zuminator wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples of people getting reassigned and not fired: https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2018/12/20/orlando-officer... https://www.wtxl.com/news/local-news/assistant-principal-at-... https://www.wgvunews.org/post/black-detroit-police-officer-r... https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Waco-ISD-hires-teacher-who... https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/16/sheriffs-chief-of-sta...

Notice a pattern here? I wasn't talking about cops and teachers who have unions with political clout. Cops have done a hell of a lot worse then go on racist rants just to be reassigned. It's not apples to apples. But just to be over the top obnoxiously clear. I'm talking about the private sector.

The reason a disproportionate number of these articles are regarding public sector employees is because public institutions are publicly accountable, and therefore generally must respond to a controversy. A private sector firm is under no obligation to state how it is resolving a matter with an employee and may find it advantageous in terms of public image and legal liability to simply not comment if the employee has not been terminated. Having said that, here are a couple of private individuals.

Jerry Saltz got away with just an apology after homophobic tweets: https://twitter.com/jerrysaltz/status/1024338014871474176

Chris Pratt apologizes after making offensive Instagram post, no major further repurcussions:

https://www.sammichespsychmeds.com/chris-pratt-signs-apology...

Feel free to additionally move the goalposts as you wish, but the point remains that the insinuation that some HN'ers are making that the only possible reason he isn't facing forthwith termination is his race doesn't seem inarguably the case.

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

#603

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #580

ehsankia wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a post from 14 years he's apologized for. I'm sure everyone has plenty of beliefs from 14 years ago that no longer fits their current beliefs.

But if Google thought he was now benign, wouldn't he just remain at the post? Moving him to a different department seems to indicate that Google think he did wrong, but not that much wrong as to fire him. I'm not sure how to reconcile that.

[deleted]

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

#604

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

droopyEyelids wrote: post #183

foolfoolz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

still not fired from google. if this post was “if i were black” and anyone not black wrote it they would be fired

If I understand what you're saying, you're setting aside the context that [the state of Israel exists and has a controversial military doctrine], and reading the Google guy's post as specifically targeted at people who share the Jewish faith?

Would you accept blanket statements about black people being violent war-craving psychopaths if the context is the Ugandan expulsion of Asians?

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

#605

Post by dalbasal » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #501

dalbasal wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ashkenazi is just an old hebrew word for German. If you strip away both Germany (the HRE, more specifically), and Judaism then the term doesn't have much meaning. At least, not as an identity that people have assumed historically. Ashkenazi Jews before the war just called themselves Jews, with secular emancipationists often appending nationality.

The etymology of the word "Ashkenazi" is irrelevant (argument from etymology is a fallacy), as for a long time now the word has been used in a different, wider meaning. And Ashkenazi is a valid distinction versus e.g. Sephardi Jews: Ashkenazi Jews used a different reading for Hebrew, adopted different codes of dress, employed different structures of doctrinal authority and hermeneutics of Scripture, etc. Naturally un…

I'm not arguing the etymology. I'm just saying that "Ashkenazi, as a demonym would be a new idea historically. I have no problem with people forming new identities.

It's also not about accent. There are distinct Sephardic reading styles. It's not technically doctrinally different either, at least formally. In religious terms, distinctions are termed is "customary/minhagim" which are lower on the hierarchy.

In any case, etymology is not far off the mark. Ashkenazi judaism isn't just named after germany, it originated in the HRE and Ashkenazim spoke a German dialect.

My grandmother was a native polish speaker, secular, and would not have identified as "askenazi" before the war. She identified as polish, strongly, and was as comfortable in a sephardic synagogue as an ashkenazi one. My grandfather, a Yiddish speaker, was more comfortable in an ashkenazi synagogue. Most are mixed, these days, whatever the majority is.

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

#606

Post by ackfoobar » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

kbelder wrote: post #374

austhrow743 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Women, on average, have more: Neuroticism" was a big one I remember people having issue with back when this story was news.

Is it false? Doesn't seem like something he would assert without a cite.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

Male: 2.68 SD: 0.65

Female: 2.94 SD:0.67

d: 0.39

Non-native English user here, it seems the word "neurotic" has some connotation that the trait "neuroticism" doesn't? And that's why it's received so poorly?

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

#607

Post by gher-shyu3i » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #540

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

…and how exactly are they supposed to “get back their rightful land”?

Same way the Zionists stole it.

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

#608

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

secondo wrote: post #62

Who did he upset for this to blow up _now_, 14 years after the fact and almost 3 years in his role at Google?

Because no one googled for his old blog posts?

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

#609

Post by gher-shyu3i » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

extra88 wrote: post #596

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I meant WWI. I'll edit my post. The point remains however.

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

#610

Post by munificent » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #481

germinalphrase wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you believe white people kill black people with impunity in America?

One of the failure modes I see often in today's discourse is that using a group term as a subject makes the associated verb profoundly semantically ambiguous. If I say:

"Brunettes like smooth jazz."

It can mean any of:

* There is at least one brunette who likes smooth jazz.

* Some brunettes like smooth jazz.

* Most brunettes like smooth jazz.

* All brunettes like smooth jazz.

* Brunettes are more likely to like smooth jazz than people with other hair colors.

* Brunettes are more likely to like smooth jazz than people as a whole.

* Liking smooth jazz is a defining characteristic of brunettes.

* Liking smooth jazz is a defining characteristic of people who identify themselves as "brunettes".

* Disliking smooth jazz is a defining characteristic of non-brunettes.

* Liking smooth jazz causes (some|most|all) people to dye their hair brown.

* Having brown hair causes (some|most|all) people to like smooth jazz.

When the group term has a long history of power imbalance (unlike brunettes for the most part) and when the verb has deep moral implications (like "murder"), then obviously these different interpretations connote wildly different things.

When you take that ambiguity and place it in the context of the Internet where context is stripped and nothing is known about the audience who will be interpreting it, you are setting yourself up for misinterpretation.

When you do that in a political environment where people are seeking power and stand to benefit from willful misinterpretation, you get, well, much of what US online culture looks like today.

There are obviously many deep systemic problems, but one technique to try to improve the quality of discourse is to simply avoid using groups as subjects in sentences. It almost never conveys anything that can't be better expressed in some other form.