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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by Rebelgecko »

theossuary wrote: post #392
donatj wrote: post #55

What I have learned in recent years is how shockingly accepting of antisemitism people apparently are on both sides of aisle. Growing up in a prominently Jewish neighborhood in Minnesota I never really encountered it until maybe ten years ago. The fact that he was just shifted rather than fired in this political environment speaks volumes.

I'm trying to understand what he did that was so wrong? He (correctly imo) called out Israel for its violent tendencies. The only mistake he made that I can see is he conflated Israel with the Jewish people generally. But Israel has a massive propaganda campaign leading people to do exactly that (an attack on Israel the country is an attack on Jewish people in general). If that blogpost was the same, but said Israel,…

>If that blogpost was the same, but said Israel, instead of the Jewish people; would there be any issue with it today?

The whole problem with the blog post is that he did was stereotyping millions of people (the majority of whom don't even live in Israel) as being bloodthirsty killers based on the actions of the Israeli government. Imagine how wrong it would be to write a blog post about Idi Amin and coming to the conclusion that African-Americans are inherently violent.

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

#932

Post by Rebelgecko »

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?

The fact that he ends the essay with "If I were a Jew..." and not "If I were an Israeli..." makes it pretty clear to me which group he is referring to. Especially considering the author's other comments praising bigots like Louis Farrakhan

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

#933

Post by thereare5lights »

cloverich wrote: post #876
thereare5lights wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 offende…

I see. I don't agree, but to make sure I understand -- she should have said "racist" tweets instead of "insensitive tweets" right? I think that is a reasonable ask. However how should she have worded the appology? It sounds like you take issue with "sorry to anyone I offended"? I am familiar with "sorry you were offended" but would not have interpreted her wording in that way -- e.g. the former is a direct apology an…

> she should have said "racist" tweets instead of "insensitive tweets" right? I think that is a reasonable ask.

yes

> However how should she have worded the appology?

"I am deeply sorry" would have been good. Or, "I am deeply sorry for ".

I'm don't agree with

> the former is a direct apology and admittance of wrongdoing towards another on her part

When I read "sorry to anyone I offended", it is not an unconditional apology. She is not apologizing for what she did. She is apologizing *to those she offended*.

Which is to say she is apologizing not for what she did but for the offense she caused.

There is a crucial difference there. The former is taking responsibility for what she said. The latter, at best, makes no comment on whether or not what she said was wrong; at worst, makes a comment that what she did was not wrong but that she is only sorry because people took umbrage with it. From her words alone, we know she thinks what she said was "insensitive" and that she is apologizing to those that are "offended". If she's only acknowledging that her words are insensitive, it makes that sense she's apologizing directly to and only to those that she offended, which is why she would qualify her apology as such. This is not a statement that acknowledges that her words, in and of themselves, were wrong.

In that regard, she may not be avoiding an apology in the absolute terms, but more importantly, as in all other cases where people only apologize for the offense, she is not (at the very least directly) acknowledging that what she did was intrinsically wrong, she is merely responding to the outrage.

So you might say

> I would guess she was genuinely sorry

and you could be right, but when I read what she wrote, that does not come across.

This

> the former is a direct apology and admittance of wrongdoing towards another on her part

does not come across at all when I read

> I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended.

To get that kind of interpretation, I would have to do some mind reading instead of taking her words for what they are.

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

#934

Post by mieses »

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…

Arguing that there is equivalence between Damore's politically incorrect but truthful statements and antisemitism is "repugnant". They may have offended in equal amounts, judging by reactions. But if you find Damore distasteful then you've already been radicalized and your taste ruined.

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

#935

Post by allarm »

thereare5lights wrote: post #873
busterarm wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is what she originally said 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. So yes > "Sorry you're offended" is much closer to accurate. is correct. Only when her plum new editor job was threatened did she offer something mor…

>> 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. > So yes >> "Sorry you're offended" is much closer to accurate. > is correct.

It is not though. In her twit she actually admitted that she was offensive, while “Sorry you’re offended” should be read as “I am sorry to hurt your feelings but I stand my ground”

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

#936

Post by gaws »

busterarm wrote: post #414
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.

Sarah Silverman's blackface sketch that lost her movie roles in 2019 was from 2007. Alexi McCammond's tweets as a 17 year old were made in 2011. She had already publicly apologized for them in 2019. James Gunn's old tweets were from 2011. Josh Hader's social media posts were from 2012, while in high school. Hartley Sawyer's tweets were from 2014. Where is that line?

> Where is that line?

The only line is to scrub everything you have ever written with your real name off the internet. Someone will get offended by your writing and, eventually, you will lose your job and be exiled.

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

#938

Post by distribot »

old_fart_dev wrote: post #239
distribot wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t political though, it’s social. Unless political to you means anything related to the way society is structured and people relate to each other.

This is absolutely political, in that any conversation about Israel's foreign or domestic policy ends up an argument falling along political lines. There's several posts already excusing the blog post because it aligns politically with the poster's own views (in this case, that all Jews have collective guilt for Israel's policy.)

I guess I just disagree with the idea that things which are polarized across party lines are political.

Want to note that I’m pro Israel, think the OP said an awful thing, and I am a progressive.

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

#940

Post by dariusj18 »

thereare5lights wrote: post #873
busterarm wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is what she originally said 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. So yes > "Sorry you're offended" is much closer to accurate. is correct. Only when her plum new editor job was threatened did she offer something mor…

You're twisting "I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended" into "Sorry you're offended".

Those are obviously different phrases with different meanings and intents. You might want to reevaluate your beliefs, because this is a glaring mistake with troubling implications.

Post reply on HN