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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by 0xy »

banannaise wrote: post #391
howeyc wrote: post #76

Wow, 14 years ago. I hope the current progressive correct-thinkers realize the takes they make today have to hold up over a decade from now, otherwise the next wave is going to cancel them.

He was not canceled by progressives. Equating anti-Zionism and anti-semitism is generally an anti-progressive stance in the US. This is progressive principles being morphed into a weapon to be used against progressives.

If progressive people create a weapon known as cancellation, then they absolutely deserve it when the same weapon is used against them. They created the new normal.

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

#902

Post by megous »

SrCodeMonkey wrote: post #877
megous wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How so? I just gave the gist of the term Zionism, as described by Theodore Herzl, the father of the movement. The demonization of this innocent ideology is by itself a form of anti-Semitism, a modern one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Do all Jews want to live in their historic homeland?

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

#903

Post by world_peace42 »

8note wrote: post #824
world_peace42 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are terribly correct. It reminds me of the left claiming Islam is a peaceful religion because only a ~third (whatever the numbers they allege) support violence and a much smaller fraction perpetrate it. Unfortunately, your claim is unquantifiable, so, as evidenced by your replies, the people who hate Israel vehemently deny any anti-semitism.

If you're taking the position that the actions of some people who follow some version of a religion to be defining for it, every religion is the religion of war, including atheism. At that point, it's not a very interesting statement

I'm most certainly not "taking the position that the actions of some people who follow some version of a religion to be defining for it", and I'm perplexed as to how you reached that conclusion. That's quite a ridiculous claim and quite a ridiculous inference as well. But we agree that that particular statement is not very interesting!

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

#904

Post by refurb »

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?

Have white people been a recent focus of genocide that successfully wiped out 1/2 of all of them?

See the difference?

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

#905

Post by flippinburgers »

loveistheanswer wrote: post #861
pessimizer wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Some of the more vocal users on twitter in other words.

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

#906

Post by threatofrain »

noofen wrote: post #623
dragonwriter wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in a culture where all white people are guilty for slavery, this mindset makes sense to me Not all white people are guilty of slavery, and virtually no one thinks that they are. Essentially all American white people continue to materially benefit from a long history of systematic racism in America [0], including slavery, state-mandated and state-tolerated post-slavery subjugation and segregation. Heck, many living…

> Essentially all American white people continue to materially benefit from a long history of systematic racism in America [0], including slavery, state-mandated and state-tolerated post-slavery subjugation and segregation. Heck, many living white Americans are direct beneficiaries of overt discrimination in public programs, not to mention systematic, coordinated private discrimination. I come from a family of poor f…

> The statistics are pretty stark if you start with the incorrect assumption that "all men are created equal." This is, quite simply, not the case, and will never be the case. Of course, hell will freeze over before anyone accepts that "horrific" truth.

> I'm sure you recognize different dog breeds, and possibly know that certain dog breeds are known to act a certain way. This is due to generations and generations of artificial-selection in breeding. Herding breeds were designed for herding, German Shepherds were designed for herding and protection, Shitzus were designed for companionship.

> You probably wouldn't expect to see a Shitzu herding sheep. That does not, in any way, make Shitzu's "less than" a herding breed, they're just built for a different function. Shitzus evolved in environments where companionship was prioritized over herding, obviously.

> And yet, when it comes to humans, we choose not to acknowledge this fact: geography influences evolutionary pressures, and evolutionary pressures influence the humans that evolved there. You see this in culture too. Cultures evolve just like the humans that belong to them do, and it's a big soupy mess of genetics influencing behavior/culture, and behavior/culture influencing genetics.

> Expecting African Americans to act like neurotic white protestants is fundamentally racist, you're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. Human diversity is real, except it goes beyond skin color. On average, racial groups exhibit similar behavior, across socioeconomic spectrums. Racial groups evolved in similar geographic regions, they are optimized for survival in those regions, around those people.

> "All men are created equal" is perhaps the most harmful lie ever told.

Just to fast forward the discussion for some people so they know the conclusion noofen is leading toward.

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

#907

Post by throwkeep »

thelopa wrote: post #831
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.

Please try to contextualize those quotes. The context I’ve seen has actually only made them seem worse.

Matt Taibbi contextualized the main quote here: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-the-hypocrites-at-apple-who...

Sam Harris and his conversation with Antonio covers the whole thing in more depth: https://samharris.org/podcasts/251-corporate-cowardice/

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

#908

Post by yosito »

dalbasal wrote: post #17

Somewhat tangential, but who is the right kind of person for a diversity job? What does a job well done look like? Changes in hiring? Changes in company culture? I'm skeptical of roles with a "my job is to care about X" kind of definition. That includes, for example, "customer advocate" and similar, especially someplace as complicated as google. I don't think they can have much success beyond the surface level. EDIT:…

I can't articulate a good definition for who the right kind of person for a diversity job is, but I can give you an example: Chloé Valdary https://theoryofenchantment.com/meet-the-founder

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

#909

Post by aritmo »

It is quite evident that this person has been affected by the plight of the Lebanese and the Palestinians. As unbelievable as it may seem, many modern-day Israelis consider the Palestinians to be sub-human. That the Palestinians do not deserve their land. This attitude is indoctrinated through the military service. They make the Palestinians in Gaza really suffer.

That article is hard to understand. Makes yu think that this person witnessed somehow whats going on there.

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

#910

Post by namelessoracle »

thu2111 wrote: post #815
ehsankia wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't have a very strong opinion on Damore, but the two situations are clearly not the same. One was published 14 years ago and another was published in the same week where it blew up.

They're clearly not the same because Damore said nothing anywhere near as offensive as this. He said, paraphrased, that there are fewer women in tech than men because they are less interested in it. He backed it up with a whole pile of research showing that this obviously true claim is true. And he pointed out that women are biologically different to men, so maybe that is part of the explanation, and even if it is, t…

One is a member of a privileged group and one is not. One of those groups can do or say whatever they want and be insulated from the consequences. Thats how you know they are NOT the privileges group.

Newspeak is real and in effect btw.

Post reply on HN