Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worse than that, only the purest of the pure can be employed. Look at Apple's recent mob firing of Antonio García Martínez. Who made the mistake of writing a best selling and critically acclaimed book just 5 years ago. Featured as one of NPR's best books of the year, recommended by NYT, Washington Post, etc. But now it's suddenly a fireable offense. “An irresistible and indispensable 360-degree guide to the new…
“Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.” “PMMess,…
Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
951–960 of 1001 posts
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#952Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very true. It is a vague and meaningless concept. It has never been defined except by referring to antiquated notions of “race” stemming primarily from 18th and 19th century ideas. In modern times, we’ve apparently added biological sex, sexual preference and a vague (and meaningless) concept of self-identity that can, apparently, cross all other definitions with impunity - even changing fluidly throughout the day. To…
The fact that categories are often fuzzy does not make them useless as a general heuristic for finding people who are more likely to share similar experiences with each other. Almost every kind of categorization system shares the problems you talk about: people can call themselves "programmers" for a variety of different reasons, even though they're working in wildly different environments and might be totally unsuit…
I would say this to you: if you believe a diverse set of skills, experience and personality are important (I believe they can be) then use categories for that.
Skills categories are judged from education and practical work tests.
Experience is judged from CV and references from earlier employments.
Personality can be assessed from tests and judged during interviews.
These aren’t perfect either, but they are far more relevant than: “oh, you seem brownish, how nice”
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#953Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why anonymity is so important on the internet.
More like a proper social response to bad behavior. We can't keep hiding from the truth, especially when we live in an interconnected world where other people don't have to agree to forget.
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#954Live 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…
“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…
Unfortunately, as we've seen from the many instances where utterers of comments have suffered the consequences, Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote has turned out to be truer than it ought to be—especially so in this internet age where ancient dirt is seemingly dragged up from anywhere. (This quote also tells us much about Richelieu's devious mind and I'd suggest that with this one line of his that he's told us more about himself than most six lines of many others!)
One of the problems with the internet is being heard amongst the many voices so there's a tendency for people to use hyperbole and or exaggerate for the point of emphasis and yours truly is no exception (there are some comments of mine on the net that, in hindsight, I'd like to rephrase with more eloquence). :-) Expressing one's view is especially problematic with the net, as one has to be succinct and to the point if one's to be heard at all. Thus, more often than not, expediency wins out and only the raw message is heard sans nuances and without qualifications.
That said, whether any of those scenarios is relevant in instance seems moot but I will say that generalizations of that sort aren't helpful as they're both dangerous to oneself and unfair to those about whom one has made comment. One cannot generalize as a whole about a nation, society etc. as within any group of people one will find a remarkably diverse range of views and beliefs. I have many Jewish friends and acquaintances and I can only say that I do not know of a more diverse group of people. If I were to generalize at all then the only reasonable comment I could make would be that they're all remarkably interesting individuals but each in different ways.
The matter of whether some ancient and possibly intemperate remark is used against someone many years later is a troubling and vexed matter, especially so in this internet age. For starters, that person may have changed his or her mind in the intervening time. Then there's the issue of why someone has raised this matter after all that time not to mention the fact that once it's been raised and has gone viral across the net then the individual will have essentially no reasonable chance of ever defending himself or herself—whether his or her opinion is now right or wrong. Then there's the matter of Google protecting its corporate image so it's little wonder that he was dismissed (irrespective of his current beliefs or convictions). Unfortunately, that's the way things are.
There is no easy answer to this matter. Fear of speaking out stifles free speech and we're seeing more and more self-censorship on the net day by day and it's truly worrying. Moreover, if one speaks out or expresses an opinion on any controversial matter then woes betide the consequences.
In the days before the net and the sensational tabloid press there was a chance that a long-past dubious event from one's past may have gotten lost in the noise of old newspaper reports but the net has put a stop to that. Perhaps it's time to restate the age-old adage, which is to:
'Never discuss one's views on politics and religion as emotions run high and you'll surely make enemies.'
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#955Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the best solution is to simply never use a social media account attached to your real identity. Innocent comments taken out of context or a general changing of accepted speech can turn a decade old bit of text into damning evidence of bigotry, racism, or any other ism.
Or social media could implement automatic autodelete, like Snapchat but after a longer time.
Once something is on the internet, it is always on the internet.
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#956A major reason why today's politicians are so bland and uninspiring is because they have been groomed to never say anything controversial or contentious. Trawling through adults adolescence photos and shaming/blaming them for some youthful indiscretion is another aspect of this societal disaster. The anti war candidate Tulsi Gabbard in the recent US election is an example of someone relentlessly ridiculed and destroy…
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#957Only the purest of the pure can lead a diversity effort. And it doesn’t count unless you were pure from the beginning. Growing to overcome past problems is not sufficient.
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#958Earlier quoted context omitted.
why would they use an engineer for such a role anyways. Should have gotten someone with a degree in gender studies
>why would they use an engineer for such a role anyways. So that the engineers who have to comply with the policies and orders this guy sets or sets in motion feel better about it.
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#959Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#960Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Exactly. I'm a Jew (by heritage, though not by belief). I oppose Israel's actions WRT Palestine and related issues. The Israeli government seems to have that "insatiable appetite for war", but that's a pretty small subset of all Jews. Even the entire Israeli population is a small subset of all Jews.
I never understood that concept. The idea that Judaism is transmitted from lineage is itself only a belief of Judaism. If you don't believe in Judaism there is no reason to believe in this particular fiction. This specific feature is obviously a hack on the reproductivity of the meme. There is no Judaism gene, it's not transmittable, it's not an ethnicity.