https://news.ycombinator.com/active
Discussions of "Google Manifesto" (two of them are still listed among "active"):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14934581 (146 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14937778 (132 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14937895 (556 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14939636 (344 comments)
Shows articles which have ever hit the front page, even if they have since fallen (or been flagged) off.
Good luck.
The only I could find any of the threads was by doing a google search for "google manifesto" & "hacker news".
The debate in a few of the threads were quite diplomatic. However, the social media universe reacted as expected. Liberals condemned the author for the typical "racist, bigot, homophobe" diatribe while the conservatives argument was, "Guy speaks out about not being able to speak out, and then gets carpet bombed by SJW's back into silence."
It really sucks this is where the country is. When EVERY topic is off limits and you cannot hold a rational discourse over something, it should be clear evidence the decline of Western Civilization is at hand.
I suspect that some people flagged because they don't find rhetorical debates intellectually interesting. Speaking of the decline of civilization, neither did Socrates now that I think about it.
For all it's faults, it did have one good suggestion - that programming may be more attractive to a lot of folks if we make it more collaborative in nature. That's an area where some otherwise really talented engineers suffer, and if we expand the discipline I think it would be a meaningful improvement for all.
I'd also add to that the notion of the Overton Window. There are many views we as a society decide are not debateable, and debating them would normalize those viewpoints.
I'm also seeing a lot of legitimate grievances too.
But because of some boneheaded things, other areas with much more substantive proof and claims are being completely ignored.
And the narrative is being sold as "Your gender means that you’re biologically incapable of doing this job and should never have been hired". Of course, paraphrasing into a inflammatory tidbit is easy to burn that strawman.
Again, I go back to my initial comment of "What use is there to discuss it, since each side demonizes the other?"
> Chosen fathers of the Senate, all men who decide on difficult issues ought to free themselves from the influence of hatred, friendship, anger and pity. For when these intervene the mind cannot readily judge the truth, and no one has ever served his emotions and his best interests simultaneously. When you set your mind to a task, it prevails; if passion holds sway, it consumes you, and the mind can do nothing.
A rebuttal that says: I disagree, whomever supports this is {a pig} supports the author's ideas around suppression of discussion while doing nothing to dissuade less passionate readers. I call this "The Trump Problem": people should be able to present their opinions and discuss them toward perhaps a better conclusion. Right now, dissenters of the popular opinion seem to either choose to be silent or get "backed into a corner and strive to justify themselves" (As Dale Carnegie has mentioned). A deeper analysis of the Manifesto on junk-v-decent arguments would be useful for everyone, even if you think the entire document is crap.
On HN, a story is scored both on the number of upvotes and on the number of comments. When a story has a lot of comments (in proportion to the number of votes), that story is punished based on the idea that it's probably only a few people talking to each other very agitatedly without producing many novel insights.
I have not followed the Google Manifesto discussion, but it's easy to imagine that this prediction holds true in that case.
Perhaps you're right, but a topic could spark an agitated yet wholly positive discussion. Pushing it down the list just because a few people are commenting a lot wouldn't make much sense in some discussions.
Whether you want to call that censorship is up to you, but there are a few projects which attempted reverse engineering of the HN sort order and the features were primarily automatic. What I'm trying to say is: what influences the positions is usually the nature of the discussion rather than the content. Can't prove it for every case though.
Doesn't give Zunger much credibility. And he asked for the guy to be fired or punched. That's a mob mentality, hardly rational.
Zunger is exactly what's wrong with the tech world right now.
(SPOILER: Poll answers and results copied below.)
Votes: 450
Answers in order from most disagreement to most agreement:
1. 114 votes - "I disagree with it. It should be lit on fire."
2. 142 votes - "I generally disagree with it, but it has some valid points that should be discussed."
3. 100 votes - "I generally agree with it, but it's a little rough around the edges."
4. 69 votes - "I agree with it. Author is a hero."
5. 25 votes - "I don't care about these issues."
The issue with "Tech + Workplace + Women" is a discussion topic flameworthy of abortion, gun rights, and the like. To the opposition, you are evil. Nothing good came come of this.
There will be people who bulletpoint everything wrong. There'll be others that call for fallacious statements. There will be others that claim that they're not getting proper discussion because of being screamed out. There'll be others that just will be blatantly sexist (and removed/hellbanned).
What good does discussing this do? Ive seen various combinations of these same discussions, and devolve to a textural screaming match.
Tl;Dr. Boring, no answers, everyone's "wrong" some way and some how. How about nice mathematics or programming puzzles?
edit: seriously, modded down? I'd much prefer why you think I'm wrong. I've seen 300+ comment threads about "sexism in the tech workplace" more than a few times. They devolve to screaming matches and dry commentary nobody responds to.
If anyone dares discuss it, it's because they are on the "Wrong Side", and thus blackballed, punished, or fired. In my case, silenced.
This paragraph in the 10 page document says the following:
"De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”"
It also ignores a lot of good which has come out of these discussions. I've seen a number of colleagues become far more thoughtful about interaction patterns, social structure, etc. in response to this discussion and they've uniformly reported that this has improved the quality of work, too.
That should not be surprising: after all, do problems in your applications go away if you don't monitor or discuss them? You may similarly have to deal with the guy who's really defensive to protect his perceived status but … he's not going to cause fewer problems if you don't.
You know nothing about me.
I work in academia. We have one of the largest "Gender Studies" (Read womens' studies, men need not apply). Yet our IT in my group is 100% sausagefest.
I know of women who've applied. I'm not privy to the interviews at my time and tenure... but it's completely bullshit to say that every woman is not competent to do my job.
What can I do? I'm sure I could do an email campaign like this. But I'm 1 person, and I'm looking to work elsewhere due to managerial "issues". It's not MY problem to solve ineffectual and bad management. But my solution is to leave.
> It also ignores a lot of good which has come out of these discussions. I've seen a number of colleagues become far more thoughtful about interaction patterns, social structure, etc. in response to this discussion and they've uniformly reported that this has improved the quality of work, too.
If one of the most "Liberal" universities can't get it right, why would I expect most anywhere to?
> That should not be surprising: after all, do problems in your applications go away if you don't monitor or discuss them? You may similarly have to deal with the guy who's really defensive to protect his perceived status but … he's not going to cause fewer problems if you don't.
The nail that sticks out gets the hammer.
Also, having spent a fair amount of time in academia, describing it as liberal utopia is simplistic to the point of being wrong. Right-wing media loves to describe it that way but it's not example hard to find examples of universities fighting against fair wages, unionization, etc. — just watch what happens if someone suggests grad students or adjuncts should have financial security — and there are no shortage of examples of men who might even make a pretense of being feminist while ignoring or even stymieing support for working mothers, fair hiring or promotional practices, etc.
The only thing I've seen make any of this improve is sunlight.
Thank you. I do try the fight, when I see a potential gain. I also see a great deal of flailing around, just because. Maybe they're trying to find their area they can change things. Who knows.
I do know I'm a white guy. Tall one.I know Ive never bought into the victimhood culture of SJWs, but yes, bad shit does indeed happen to women and minorities. I've seen it.
> Also, having spent a fair amount of time in academia, describing it as liberal utopia is simplistic to the point of being wrong. Right-wing media loves to describe it that way but it's not example hard to find examples of universities fighting against fair wages, unionization, etc. — just watch what happens if someone suggests grad students or adjuncts should have financial security — and there are no shortage of examples of men who might even make a pretense of being feminist while ignoring or even stymieing support for working mothers, fair hiring or promotional practices, etc.
Err, not quite. Yes, the University is still subject to capitalist forces. So they're against graduate student rights, uses a great deal of temp and "part timers" to skirt around full time employment benefits. I know there's a few profs in Labor Studies that rattle the Communism banner. But they can, because they are tenured.
Me? Since I'm IT/professional, I don't qualify for the union. So, no protections. That means anonymous commentary. Cause just like this (presumed) guy, I nor any of my co-workers can speak out.
Look at how upper management is already responding to this? "If he reported to me, I'd fire him myself"... Literally anyone who shares even partial agreement with his email is being blackballed.
Some of my friends called it the Liberal Circular Firing Squad. If we all don't get in line, exactly as others have, we're wrong. Blammo. The Republicans don't seem to do that, although they do have their spats.
But his reasoning for that is pretty legit though. If someone is willing to call a third of your colleagues incompetent to their face, I'm not sure how they'll be able to work together in that team and hope to actually make things happen. It's hard to expect the women on his team to continue working with him after he calls their competence into question after they've proved themselves by climbing to the same position he holds.
I feel like the reasons for the firing were not that he had different views, it was that he did not have the tact to approach this problem properly, and handled it really badly. There are much better ways to have a discussion around this than this manifesto, and those are discussions worth having. But not this one, this is just inciting a flame war.
"To answer the question, what good does discussing this do?"