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

#861

Post by loveistheanswer » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:40 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #397

loveistheanswer wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Growing to overcome past problems is not sufficient. Their assumption is moreso that we cant grow to overcome past problems. So the only way to build themselves up is to tear others down. Thats why the popular "anti-racism" philosophy is so antithetical to and ignorant of the lives and philosophies of many of the greatest civil rights leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, and MLK.

"Their" Who are they? The people who believe racism exists?

The people who judge and define others primarily by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

Those who fight racism with racism and call it anti-racism or reverse-racism.

Those who use hate, blame, and punishment as their tools of power, rather than love, forgiveness, and self/community empowerment.

Those who focus on division rather than unity.

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

#862

Post by refenestrator » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:47 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #856

throwkeep wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of context excerpts from a 500 page book written in the style of Hunter S. Thompson is not compelling evidence to anyone but the mob and those seeking to be offended. People who have actually read the book don't find them to be so problematic, including the reviewers at New York Times, NPR, Washington Post, Techcrunch and others who gave the book a big thumbs up.

I don't think that Hunter S. Thompson represents what you want out of a FAANG engineering manager either.

Would have made a hell of a Sheriff.

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

#863

Post by ilaksh » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:49 PM UTC

lgleason wrote: post #247

Live by the sword, die by the sword. That said, firing him, like they did with Damore would have been more consistent. Because everyone is under arbitration agreements that always benefit the company, vs the courts where you might have a shot at justice, they have no incentive to do that. As repugnant as his past anti-semitic rant was, people change and sometimes say and do stupid things. In a sane world this guy wou…

I agree that the scalp collecting is horrible, but at the same time I am not sure a simple conversation can make prejudice go away that easily.

You're also right that we don't want to drive people "underground". But the head of diversity needs to have a perspective on diversity that is actually.. diverse and inclusive.

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

#864

Post by andrei_says_ » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:51 PM UTC

FridayoLeary wrote: post #710

andrei_says_ wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” And hey, great news, now we have every line written by every man, woman and child automatically captured and archived forever in an easy to search dossier. Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding and to a more compassionate worldview…

>Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

There exist former KKK members. Former neonazis. Former Trump supporters.

People learn.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...

Maybe this person didn’t, and it is not appropriate to hold the head of diversity title.

But if they’re doing everything right, and do represent diverse workforce, then is “not having had anti-Semitic views 14 years ago” a job requirement?

What do the Jewish/POC colleagues have to say about the quality of their workplace?

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

#865

Post by andrei_says_ » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:55 PM UTC

FridayoLeary wrote: post #757

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt. 14 years is a long time really, there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years.

I wouldn't touch a murderer with a 10 foot pole.

How about a veteran?

How do you know if the veteran you’re thanking on Memorial Day did not commit murder, rape, or other war crimes?

Or is it OK if done in uniform, with 21st Century weapons, or following orders?

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

#866

Post by olivermarks » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #855

olivermarks wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting 'political correctness' - a relatively new term and phenomenon largely enabled by the internet - was something installed by society and is a good thing, and that a vote to 'dismantle' it would be a bad thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness It's an old term, and has been used in it's current form since the 1970's. I remember it's usage in media in the 80s, before the commercial internet.

Looks like mid eighties when term took off

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=politically+co...

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

#867

Post by olivermarks » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

sm4rk0 wrote: post #845

olivermarks wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting 'political correctness' - a relatively new term and phenomenon largely enabled by the internet - was something installed by society and is a good thing, and that a vote to 'dismantle' it would be a bad thing?

No, quite the oposite.

Still not clear what your point is?

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

#868

Post by david38 » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:57 PM UTC

chadash wrote: post #633

nashashmi wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how his words based on the article were anti Semitic. They were anti Israel. And I find that you and everyone here and at google are having a hard time distinguishing between the two. Further based on the other comment to this post he was quite an activist. Fighting for rights of the racially oppressed and in minority. He went against white people and Israel? He is not racist. He is just anti majority dom…

The quote was: "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself" Yes, the sentiment is (possibly) anti-israel, not anti-semetic, but the wording itself implies that Jews have insatiable appetites for war. I'm not saying it wasn't an honest mistake, but someone who is chief diversity officer at a major corporation should certainly be attuned to the difference…

He’s clearly referring to Israel, and since it’s a Jewish date, it’s reasonable to assume many / most Jews feel somewhat represented by Israel, voluntarily or not. Or at least that Israel’s actions reflect well or poorly on them in regards to non-Jews.

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

#869

Post by fwip » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #809

fwip wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-racism doesn't say that people cannot grow.

Some self-described anti-racists do indeed hold that idea[0]. [0]: https://www.ocpathink.org/post/does-race-massacre-silence-sh...

Could you point me to the paragraph in question? I've read the article a few times now, and I don't see A) anyone described as anti-racist or B) anything saying people who do racist things cannot grow.

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

#870

Post by thereare5lights » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 9:02 PM UTC

cloverich wrote: post #722

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”.

The top few articles I googled quoted her as saying: “I’ve apologised for my past racist and homophobic tweets and will reiterate that there’s no excuse for perpetuating those awful stereotypes in any way. “I am so sorry to have used such hurtful and inexcusable language. At any point in my life, it’s totally unacceptable.” Backlash against her initial comments seem to be that she characterized her tweets as insensit…

That's what she said in 2021.

What she said in 2019 when it first came out was

https://twitter.com/alexi/status/1197290613701513217

> Today I was reminded of some past insensitive tweets, and I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended. I have since deleted those tweets as they do not reflect my views or who I am today.

"some past insensitive tweets" as a euphemism for racist tweets

"I am deeply sorry *to anyone I offended.*" (my emphasis with asterisks) => sorry if you were offended

So when it first came out, she gave the least amount of effort necessary to make it go away. Only when it threatened her plum new job did she offer anything simulating genuine remorse.