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

#911

Post by rpenm » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

lalaland1125 wrote: post #403

The main thing I find odd about that person's blog post ( https://web.archive.org/web/20210601160519/https://www.kamau... ) is that it also doesn't really make any sense mechanically. The first five paragraphs are all comments on how it must be difficult for a progressive Jew to simultaneously support progressive values and Israel > If I were a Jew today, my sensibilities would be tormented. I would find it increasin…

The reason it doesn't make sense is that I think everyone (even his defenders) are misreading the offending sentence.

"If I were a Jew" is meant to inform his "concern" not his "appetite".

The insatiable appetite for violent self-defense is obviously universal (he mentions Palestinian animus). What is unique to Jewish identity are the lessons of the Holocaust, which he thinks would make him more afraid of allowing instincts of self-defense to overwhelm sensitivity to the suffering of others. It's perfectly consonant with his previous paragraphs.

Right-wing media isolated the sentence from context and framed it as saying Jewish people have an insatiable appetite for violence. The phrasing was ambiguous enough to plausibly support that interpretation, and people saw what they were primed to detect. Helps that he chose not to publicly defend himself, and media generally don't like to scrutinize claims of bigotry/racism. Reminds me a bit of the Shirley Sherrod firing.

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

#912

Post by flippinburgers » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:19 PM UTC

frockington1 wrote: post #195

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.

And that is why I stopped calling myself a progressive years ago. In my youth I thought progressive meant trying to continually better yourself and your community. Now the focus seems to be on cancelling any viewpoint that conflicts with yours. The new trend of digging further and further back in the past makes it even more counter to my previous beliefs of the word

The hard left is religious in mentality and approach.

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

#913

Post by bjourne » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:29 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…

It's so incredibly wrong to pick lines from a text out of context like that to attack someone. It's exactly how some people tried to sink Bernie Sander 2020 presidential campaign by referring to his "rape fantasy" essay from the 1970s. Read Kamau Bobb's blog post in full (it's only six paragraphs or so). It s about how he imagines how a progressive Jew has to struggle with reconciling his commitment to Israel with his humanist views. His thought may have been misguided, and he may not fully have understood how Jewishness and Judaism works, but they are certainly not hateful towards Jews.

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

#914

Post by akarma » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:32 PM UTC

Being reassigned as opposed to fired is quite the privilege.

Everyone in the comments is viewing it as completely different than the Damore fiasco because this racist blog post was written in 2007, but are we forgetting that Antonio Martinez wrote Chaos Monkeys 5 years ago and was fired for it now? [1]

What's the difference between:

1) Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naïve despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit

2) If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing

I think it's absurd that the former is worth firing and the latter isn't. Google has a reputation to be a more 'progressive' company than Apple; is that just code for undertones of anti-semitism?

[1] https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/employee-fired-for-s...

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

#915

Post by rootsudo » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:33 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #839

ipaddr wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wise enough to not use their real name will survive. The culling of the real name begins. This is the literal killing of the 'you have nothing to hide' meme that goes to show you have something to hide.

I am still baffled by the use of Real Names online.. As a late 70's child that got the internet when I was in my late teens it was unthinkable at that time to give anyone any personal info about you online. "Stranger Danger" and everyone online should be thought of as an axe murder was the dominant position I am not sure when or why this shift happen to where it was common for people to not only post their full perso…

Past twenty years, using your own name is authoritative and great for marketers to verify and validate you. With the rise of social media, no longer do you have to know basic html, or hosting.. or be in the community of random IRC people not trusting one another.

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

#916

Post by fleshdaddy » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:34 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #759

grumple wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even then... do we accuse every American of bloodlust for our nation's warmongering? Or every Chinese person for their governments treatment of the Uighur/Tibet/etc? Governments != people of a nation people often / usually don't approve of governmental actions.

Yes? Think of it as the downside of the Enlightenment idea that governments acquire their legitimacy solely from the support of the governed. If the people of a nation do not approve of the actions of their government, they have both the right and the responsibility to change those actions. Or, think of it as basic ethics: no one who eats meat can be more saintly than a butcher. Everyone who benefits from citizenship…

Following that logic it sounds like we would need to blame German Jews for the holocaust committed against them.

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

#917

Post by fwip » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:37 PM UTC

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #871

fwip wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry! Somehow I managed to paste completely the wrong link, and now it is too late for me to edit my previous comment. I realise now that scrolling down on that website automatically loads new articles and updates the address bar. Here[0] is the article I had meant to link to. Ah man… I really feel bad that you read the wrong article a few times after I unwittingly mislead you. I'm genuinely sorry about that. [0]: h…

Ah, thanks for the corrected link, I appreciate it. I hate when websites do that, it's super confusing.

I actually agree with her here, but I don't think that's the same as saying that racist people can't get better:

> While citizens can work on addressing racism, they can never be free of it, she said. “We don’t arrive and now we are not racist,” DiAngelo said.

In her view (and mine), becoming "not racist" isn't really a thing that happens and then you're done, and you don't have to worry about not being racist anymore. Rather, it's an ongoing effort, the same way being a kind person or a hard worker is. In this understanding, "all white people are racist" is not a condemnation of white people or an attempt to cast white people as inherently bad or irredeemable. Rather, it's meant as a wake-up call - "Yes, all white people, even you, believe racist things and sometimes act in racist ways." If you want to be anti-racist, it is important to recognize these things within yourself and improve them, in the same way that you work to improve the world outside you.

Since this is a different definitional understanding (semantics?) than the person who says "I'm not racist," it can be a tricky point to communicate properly without being misunderstood or taken out of context.

I don't agree with all of DiAngelo's points or writing, but on this core one, I think she's not too far off the mark.

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

#918

Post by TMWNN » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:39 PM UTC

ant6n wrote: post #879

TMWNN wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself" is a straight quote from the last paragaraph of the post in question, not a paraphrase or elided excerpt. https://web.archive.org/web/20210602000424/https://www.kamau...

It’s not a straight quote if you delete the last four words of the sentence without an ellipsis.

The only thing I deleted is the period. "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself." is the entire first sentence of the last paragraph. Again, people can read the linked original post and see for themselves.

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

#919

Post by hollasch » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:42 PM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #781

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…

The wise enough to not use their real name will survive. The culling of the real name begins. This is the literal killing of the 'you have nothing to hide' meme that goes to show you have something to hide.

I use my real name precisely _because_ everything I say is being recorded. It's a guard against the foolish belief that any "anonymity" is real and can be relied on.

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

#920

Post by grumple » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 11:43 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #707

grumple wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even then... do we accuse every American of bloodlust for our nation's warmongering? Or every Chinese person for their governments treatment of the Uighur/Tibet/etc? Governments != people of a nation people often / usually don't approve of governmental actions.

> do we accuse every American of bloodlust for our nation's warmongering? Not bloodlust, but partial responsibility. 'Tis the nature of democracy.

Many people can't vote, or explicitly don't vote to avoid supporting these parties. Many more are poorly educated (intentionally). How are they responsible?

Are they expected to single-handedly (or collectively) organize and engage in a bloody civil war, thereby gaining culpability for that? Blaming people for the actions of their nation / elected officials is absurd. All a person can do is vote for the best candidate in front of them and vote at face value.

Representative democracy takes power away from people. If it were a direct democracy, then yes, I'd say sure, people bear responsibility. But it's not. It's a system designed to be manipulative and serve wealthy and powerful interests, and the only way to change it is either very, very slow, or very, very bloody.