Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian.
Not the Tweeters shaking with anger and demanding for him to get fired.
Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand.
Not the diversity officer reaffirming the commitment to diversity in a dystopian way.
It is scary, it really is. We have all grown up learning about regimes like this, we are all aware, yet seemingly nobody can help themselves.
Could you give a link to that rant?
People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view?
If you can resort to violence against someone and get away with it, you're the oppressor in the society, not the oppressed.
Sundar, Yonatan and their likes are so privileged and delusional. These people have no issue with a war-criminal like Kissinger being invited to talk at Google but have such serious issues with a software engineer writing his views.
Forcing minorities and women to work with people who are bigoted against them is a recipe for a lawsuit.
A better example is an atheist working with an evangelical. Both the atheist and the evangelical will have very strong opinions on each others' belief systems.
A better statement would be: "Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in church organizations because their beliefs makes the inherently less interested in it?"
The answer would be yes. But it's not a good example.
It's kind of offensive to be judged by this hypothetical "average X person" stereotype. It more or less implies it's their fault, that they are underrepresented because they want to.
But that's not what I was responding to. OP implied this guy is a racist or a misogynist and stated she couldn't work with someone who held his kinds of beliefs.
I've read the manifesto and it's not as strong as you make it out to be. For example, I've argued that you can't expect perfect proportional demographic representation in a free society in any field. It will not happen, for a variety of reasons that may not be nefarious. If women are under-represented in programming it may not be because of sexism.
"May" is the important word here. We really don't know.
To play devil's advocate, what makes it right for certain groups to be able to be preferred over others? How come perceived racists, homophobes, and anti-semites are pushed out and the subjects of their hate allowed to stay?
What if we flipped your statement around. "As a misogynist, I could not work with a woman. As a homophobe, I could not work with an out homosexual. As a an outspoken anti-semite, I could not work with a reverent jew."
Let's say for the sake of this example both parties are the same in efficiency. But, come due time one party starts to openly resent the other and demand they be fired from the company because they cannot work with [insert group here]. Now, I didn't say this was the anti-semite or the jew. It could be either, so let's not shut down here.
Group A says they cannot work with Group B, because Group B holds X idea. Group B can work with Group A, even though Group A holds Y idea.
Is management really right in, in this isolated fairy tale example, in firing Group B because Group A cannot work with them?
Let's reverse the roles in the Google fiasco. Let's say it was the detractors who were fired instead of Damore. Do you think this would have been unfair?
If so, why do you believe it's okay for the original situation to happen? I'm aware there are other variables, but this is what it boils down to.
As long as that person isn't constantly soliciting investment advice from me or asking me to front them loans, I don't think it's unreasonable for an adult to be expected to tolerate opinions that do not affect their work.
Hell, I've worked with co-workers who consider Jews illegitimate occupiers of their country, yet we still got along just fine by avoiding talking about politics in the break room.
Avoid talking about something controversial is deemed self censoring by a lot of people here in HN.
You might be a forgiving person, but that is a gift not a necessity, and better not assuming people would return the favor. For more controversial stuff I choose to only talk with my inner circle which I assume I knew them well enough. The author makes the memo public to ALL employees, most of them he wouldn't even know their names. That is his freedom, however he should expect there will be reactions to his piece from them. And it is not really his business or within anybody's control to decide what reaction is appropriate or over the top at that point. This is internet, where things escalate proportional to the speed of light.
My understanding is that is that the guy shared this memo among a small group of friends at work using an internal forum specifically designed for this kind of discussion. If that's true, I hardly think it's fair to hold him accountable for the reactions of Googlers he never shared the text with, let alone those of the world at large once someone else leaked the memo to the internet.
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers.
That is wholly unsupported by any reading of his sentence.
He literally says he would avoid creating a situation where even the possibility of someone punching him in the face might happen. If he was siding with the face-punchers, why would he avoid that situation?
Zunger's response makes it clear that the promulgation of ideas in the memo are unacceptable, but is strangely silent on judging the actions of the hypothetical face-puncher.
And as we now know from Google, taking no action is tantamount to endorsing the opinions of those under you.
It seems like every time I make a politically controversial post on Reddit and increasingly HN, I can just CTRL-F my comment inbox and assure myself that there's some reference to punching in there.
You can try to cloak it in a longform "civil" or "facts-based" document but ultimately what this man wrote was sexist lies a.k.a a steaming pile of shit.
FWIW I don't give flat earthers the time of day or try to humor them as being scientific either. You have to go back to arguing the basic laws of kinematics with them. Sexists are one of the same.
A threat is never just an opinion in authoritarian thinking. It's outside of what constitutes an opinion, it's outside the system.
Hence, for the greater good, it must be not just be rejected, it must be destroyed as a moral necessity.
If you go down this road, there is only one destination.
I can sympathise with your view point. Of course I can. That is my whole point. It takes incredibly mental expenditure to not follow that style of thinking.
You're misinterpreting freedom here. It's not authoritarian to have rules. The existence of rules and enforcement != authoritarian. If trump makes all the rules absent of the peoples' will, that's authoritarian. If society agrees that you're a net negative and makes a choice to ostracize you, that's the level of freedom we have under democracy.
The golden rule isn't a high bar.
He was fired for saying things which were deeply hurtful for a large number of employees.
Other people were clearly hurt by it though and I don't believe I'm in a position where I should tell other people what they should or shouldn't feel.
If they are mentally unwell, it doesn't make their suffering any less real does it? I admit I am biased as someone with a mental illness, I wouldn't want someone to disregard my opinion based on knowledge of my illness.
As for dishonest people, I suppose I like to believe I can believe other Googlers, especially when there are so many of them in this case who were upset by this.
> If they are mentally unwell, it doesn't make their suffering any less real does it? I admit I am biased as someone with a mental illness, I wouldn't want someone to disregard my opinion based on knowledge of my illness.
I meant only to reference the variations in tendency towards certain mental behaviors (such as accurately assessing reality, or taking responsibility for emotional responses) that exist among people. I gave an example of the "mentally unwell" to illustrate that this spectrum exist, but all parts of the spectrum are worth considering.
As an aside, and to hopefully show I'm not brushing with too wide a brush here: people with mental disorders are, sometimes, actually far better (at, say, having an accurate view of events) than people who don't have disorders, because they have [in the course of learning to cope with their issues, have also] learned to understand and correct for flaws that we all have.
I did not mean to suggest that people with mental disorders should automatically have their opinion/experience/claims discounted!
We should evaluate each situation individually. But there are clearly cases where a person's claim of "being hurt" should not be allowed to influence certain decisions, or policy, regardless of their overall mental/emotional functioning.
This touches on another problem area of ambiguity/clarity in my statement. We should question the reasonableness of the claim of being hurt - by which I not only mean "Were they really hurt?", but also "Is it reasonable for them to have been hurt?"
I can choose to be deeply hurt and offended by almost anything. We must strike a balance between respecting peoples feelings, and not allowing manipulators to exploit that respect to unreasonably coerce our behavior.
If you take 'respect for people's feelings' to an absurd extreme, we could create a world in which I could have you jailed for posing the questions you pose above. 'They hurt me.'
The fact that some demonstrably ideologically intolerant people successfully pressured Google to fire someone for expressing reasonable opinions based on evidence - this suggests to me that our society has already crossed certain thresholds in the balance between "respect for claims of being hurt" and other societal values - such as the allowance of independent thought.
Now replace woman with black (or Jew) and see what happens.
Do you still think it's OK?
- There are fewer white men in the NBA because they are biologically unsuited to it.
- There are fewer tall fighter pilots because they are biologically unsuited to it.
- There are fewer women as pitchers in the MLB because they are biologically unsuited to it.
These are descriptive statements about reality. The world in which we find ourselves. You may not like that world, you may think we should change the rules of that world, but it is the world as it exists today. Calling it out as such can not rationally be considered offensive.
And to your point... yes?
If someone said a profession mostly working outside in the desert has less gingers in it because most of them are biologically unsuited for prolonged sun exposure, would you really take offense?
This isn't phrenology we're discussing here. If you're discussing real, tangible biological differences backed while proper scientific research, while taking care to treat people as individuals and avoid generalizing based on the distribution mean, then what's actually the problem here?
There IS well-established scientific evidence for differences IN THE DISTRIBUTION of areas of interest and specific abilities between the sexes, although even /that/ is apparently too taboo to discuss in this day and age. How big an effect this has on the gender bias in specific professions is a much harder question, although personally I find the assertion that it is "none" difficult to accept without overwhelming evidence.
Add on to that the question of how to correctly tackle this bias and you've got an even more divisive topic, as now you've layered on an ideological issue on top of a difficult-to-isolate research question on top of a scientifically well-studied but publicly controversial topic. Unfortunately, this is the issue the author of the memo tried to address.
I have heard people say he should get fired, but I haven't heard anyone saying he should be "expelled from society" or "forever vilified as an outcast."
Do I think this guy should have been fired? I dunno. Not sure. I need more context.
Am I upset he was fired? No. That's Google's choice, regardless of how good a choice it is or isn't.
It betrayed a spectacular lack of common sense and judgement for someone in a senior[1] role - which is exactly where you'd want those in spades. Also made his working position untenable since a senior role is going to need to get along and interact with many people. Also, also, his utter disregard for evidence and inability to make logical arguments would give me great pause as to his usefulness as a senior engineer.
I'd have fired him first for being an idiot, second for his bullshit "scientism", and third having reprehensible views.
[1] Disclaimer: I don't know if "senior" within Google is the same as "VP" in banks, ie just a defacto title you get after a while rather than a mark of actual competency.
And, as a consequence, the US now has an immature tantrum-throwing child as President with a GOP doing nothing but enabling his worst actions.
He opted out of his contract - making himself a free agent.
http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2/Colin-Kaepernick-Opts-Ou...
This is like quitting your job and complaining you don't have a job.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/31/john-lynch-4...
"We gave him the option, ‘You can opt out, we can release you, whatever.’ And he chose to opt out, but that was just a formality."
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/3/1/14599712/colin-kaepern...
There's a lot of other issues here - it's unfair to say he got "fired" because of what he did last year. He's been very bad lately - huge dropoff since he went to the SuperBowl.
http://review.chicagobooth.edu/magazine/winter-2014/how-gary...
Edit - backups should be technically solid and be able to execute the same plays as the starter. Not flashy and unorthodox. When your starter is injured you don't want the whole team to have to change systems.
Before, the major actor that could issue genuine consequences for speech was the state. The word "Consequences" in the statement "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", means a punch to the face or a stern shaming from townsfolk. You got on with it, kept doing your job, continued to live your life.
When the state objected to your speech, it would end your life, it would destroy you.
But fast forward to today. Suddenly loud demographics of people have the ability to destroy you in the long term, destroy your working prospects, smear your reputation, mark you as unhireable, harass you everywhere. State level consequences. It's no longer a punch to the face in a bar for obnoxious speech. It's no longer the "consequences" in "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences". Those consequences are now state level. How meaningless would this statement be if it was "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from the state."
"You're free to talk, no one will stop you, but we the state still get to destroy your life." How meaningless is that?!
You say people shouldn't be vilified as an outcast. But that's what will happen!
He published his opinion, that Google's efforts that enabled thousands of his female peers to pursue careers there, are misguided and harmful, that some of his female coworkers are biologically unsuited to their jobs. He did it to himself.
Lol. He is fine. He got fired from one job, will find another one. What you describe however does sound like the price people usually pay for not being white males. So common we don't even think about it any more.
Maybe some people are calling for stuff like that.
But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here."
Google is one of, if not the, biggest player in terms of information served over the internet. If they are willing to censor at this level, how far will they go to protect their public image and suppress discussion they don't agree with?
Worth noting: he could post this publicly on Google+, Blogspot, or any other Google platform. It's only his paycheck that's being suppressed, his views are not.
Make no mistake, it's his views that he was fired over, not the medium in which he shared them. Google made no indication otherwise.
Any more than I "censor" you if you come on to my property and refer to my daughter as the "c"-word. I mean... you can call my daughter whatever you like, I just don't allow you to do it in my house. That's not really censorship no matter how big the house is, that's just something that people should expect to happen. In fact... I think people should find it more strange if my daughter and I did NOT put you out of our house.
You can still call her whatever you like outside of our home. You're still free to do that.
I'm not saying you don't have the right to do that, or that in this example your son was right, I just think it would be an over-reaction and would create a chilling effect on your other children from asking questions or thinking about things differently.
Recall that the employee that was fired is an adult (and apparently in his 30s, at least).
Also yeah he had to bei in his 30th how else would he have gotten his phd? But like I said the age wasn't the point.
IANAL, but it is illegal for employers to use the threat of firing to compel employees to take (or avoid) a political course of action.
Furthermore, it is illegal for employers to punish employees for speaking up about issues the employee believes affect working conditions (which was largely the premise of the employees essay).
Google side-stepped the issue by firing him for statements which may (or may not) violate anti-discrimination policies that just so happened to be in his essay.
They left largely unchallenged (and it seems to me, rather reinforced) the central complaint. Namely that Google was fostering a politically stifling atmosphere.
See also: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google...
And as to "organizing for better workplace conditions" - well yeah, there's some overlap, there. But his campaign went quite a ways beyond that, as well.
Ah that makes sense. A fair point. Still, I think that "organizing around workplace conditions" and "calling attention to possible violations of anti-discrimination laws" (both of which were mentioned in the article I referenced) are possible grounds for a suit.
> But his campaign went quite a ways beyond that, as well.
Do you mean the claimed violation of Google code of conduct that was the basis for his firing? I don't know what their CoC is specifically, but if it's anything like the other CoC's I've seen, I think it's debatable whether he did actually violated it.
Many of the claims I have seen about hurtful things in the memo (such as that the women at Google don't deserve to be there) are unsubstantiated by the text of the memo itself. The topics he was trying to discuss, the topics which the CEO himself (and at least 60% of the employees) say should be discussed, are an emotional minefield. Despite claims to the contrary, Damore was very careful with his words.
Instead of answering his concerns, they fired him because they thought his suggestions were offensive (or rooted in offensive ideology).
Not only were they offensive, they had no grounding in reality and made it impossible for many people there to work with or trust him.
the idea that females and males LIKE different things and its IN PART based on biology, is completely real and valid and not offensive in the slightest.
That's what this "manifesto" was.
if you're saying men/women think identically, then there is even no reason for gender diversity because it only becomes physical differences at that point, do you realize that?
And that's probably OK and kind of expected. To me what was interesting was that even the CEO had to not only denounce it, but also cut his vacation short to hold a staff town-hall.
That is, "really read" a select paragraph or two. Enough to make a basic determination as to what he's driving at -- and to note that we've seen variants of this message from other sources, before -- and make a decision about how much of one's attention resources it merits, moving forward -- accordingly.
As one does with any rant, or other poorly thought-out screed.
Crazy.
It was an internal memo in good civil form posted internally opening to an internal debate on a subject related to work conditions.
Despite Gizmodo's obvious attempt to frame it as such, it was not posted as a revolutionary manifesto.
It was public only when leaked by someone else. Notice how that person has not been fired.
> addresses sensitive and controversial issues.
So if a company makes a sensitive and controversial issue an internal policy, nobody should be allowed to question it? Really?
Are you still confident in your judgment?
Did you ever actually read L. Ron Hubbard's seminal work, Dianetics? I mean, really read it? Cover-to-cover?
No, you say? And yet you dismiss it?
That's crazy.
I don't dismiss it because I have no idea what it's about. I don't approve of it either, for the exact same reasons.
Anyhow: You're comparing reading less than 10 pages of large text with generous spacing and numerous illustrations to end-to-end reading a full book almost 500 pages long.
You can't be serious.
The church he founded was one of the major annoyances of the latter half of the 20th century. If you're interested in the general history of Really Bad Ideas (and how they draw otherwise warm sensitive, intelligent people into their fold), you might want to look into it.
Let's just say I've considered the works of a lot cranks and crackpots, over the years - and a lot of viewpoints that, while not quite in that category, are just muddled and inflammatory and don't have a lot to offer to the discussion. Enough to develop a pretty reliable sense of "smell" as to whether a given piece of work merits further exploration beyond a few paragraphs or so.
So whether or not one thinks he should be fired for it -- his "manifesto" definitely does not pass that smell test.
That's my view. If you view his work differently, that's fine for you.
Is that like, a hobby? And by "considered", do you mean you read them, or skimmed them, or just heard about them from uptight censorious authoritarians on the internet?
Actually it was, for a while. And I actually did read a lot of these works; and considered their points, very carefully; and debated them with their adherents, very patiently and thoughtfully.
Until I figured out what general superstructure of thought patterns was behind their arguments (which mostly boil down to: cherry picking; what-about-ism; and "authority, authority authority") -- and moved on other things.
Most likely because, whether the author intended it that way or not, the memo was draft in a way that was pretty much guaranteed to push people's buttons. And when people -- particularly very smart people who have a lot more important things to do with their time -- feel their buttons being pushed, they tend to react, and get to the root of the matter very quickly.
The author not only clearly stated this, he even included a picture to make it clear: https://diversitymemo.com/population-overlap.png
Does it really deserve a reaction of "You can't do that here"?
Google's decision was most definitely not in response to that graphic you linked to.
Consider the people within Google who declare their unwillingness to work with the person that believes in science and in treating people like individuals.
Actually I found his piece to be distinctly unscientific.
It parades as scientific, for sure. But when you break it down, and consider the whole of the message it imparts... at it's core, it was very unscientific.
And I bet that those at Google who decided to terminate his employment felt pretty much the same way.
He was very good at sourcing almost every single one of his claims with references to published scientific studies.
Your statement on the other hand has zero quotes to support your claim.
I know which one I will consider "unscientific".
The last part is "the message" of a scientific publication (the "why I worked on/wrote this").
Why was his memo unscientific? 1. His choice of data presentation was almost exclusively for his side of the hypothesis, of the form "women are biologically inclined to X" without including any of the (vast corpus of) counter-studies* that directly offset many of his core supporting arguments.
2. Even if his arguments were sufficiently sound (which is unlikely as per 1.), his conclusions were a bit of a quantum leap from his "sourced" claims to "this is unfair, divisive, bad for business" (as per the TLDR). He pretty much just decided that for himself. There were few or no studies/data/observations to support that crucial step.
*going to piggyback off the sources linked in this slate article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/07/the_google_a...
I think the standard that you have set for the author expressing these opinions is unfairly high, and the bar that you have set for yourself for criticizing him for expressing that is unfairly low. You criticize that the author has cherry-picked his sources; you now have to support that claim by showing the deluge of counter-studies that show that it is not true that women are inclined to X personality. I've checked the Slate article and it doesn't link to sources that show that. In fact, the first paragraph of the article links to articles that agree with that WSJ article and with the author that discrim. leads to gender strife.
> the sources linked in this slate article
I couldn't find any counter-studies in the article you linked. I tried traversing the sources, but those sources don't have any studies either. Is that the link you intended to post?
I'll grant that I had a kneejerk reaction of "that can't be accurate" and assumed there must be lots of literature to back me up, but it isn't easy to find it. Personally I neither support nor oppose this manifesto, but I think given the very expectable backlash and damage potential, drawing such concrete conclusions without stronger grounds was a bit too risque to be considered scientific.
Whether a claim (or other statement) someone makes is "scientific" or not is, fundamentally, a matter of the soundness and logical coherence of the overall argument they're making. And about the aspects of the issue they sidestep and ignore (and this guys ignores a whole lot in his manifesto, actually) as much as the aspects they cite.
Not the number of footnotes, quote or diagrams it has.
This is a dangerous level of indirection. "The whole of the message". Sounds like you are reading into what it says, finding things that it doesn't actually say - without acknowledging that you are doing so.
The paper demonstrates that the author values diversity, open dialog, and science.
And many people at Google declared they were unwilling to work with such a person.
Those are the people who should have been fired, for creating a hostile, intolerant work environment.
No, it's called "assessing it qualitatively as well as quantitatively".
Which is a very useful skill, actually.
1) "... we will fire you, because you have generated negative press for us with this even though we had no explicit policy prohibiting this"
2) "... we will fire you because what you did has directly violated an explicit existing company policy"
3) "... we will give you a warning, and add 'workplace gender diversity' to the list of topics prohibited from public discourse by employees so that in the future we can fire people for this"
It's unclear whether 1) or 2) happened (I suspect it was 1), and they could have chosen 3). They didn't. And the poor sap probably doesn't want to consider a lawsuit against Google if it was 1) and not 2) even if one could argue wrongful termination. And that's exactly what authoritarianism is about, the power to make rules pretty much on the fly and expect those affected by your choices to play by them.
PS: Not taking sides here, IMHO the manifesto was dumb and the person sounded like a green'un who got a rude dose of reality from what he probably considered merely a provoking thought experiment/writing exercise.
In the grand scheme of things, being intolerant towards intolerance is certainly on the positive side, but it is still scary seeing the vitriol directed towards whoever is the current target of our internet hate.
You can argue the current anti-intellectual attitude of a large part of the population is a immune reaction to the political power intellectuals had when their opinion was sought by politicians.
You can also argue white supremacism is an immune reaction to what some white populations incorrectly perceive as a threat to their historic prosperity.
I’m usually at least somewhat amenable to the “but the bad actors are mostly just the outliers” position, as well. In most cases, that’s true. Again, however, not here. Anyone who read the manifesto and the “response” post by Zunger while practicing even a nominal amount of epistemological integrity would have immediately recognized that Zunger’s post was wildly dishonest, did not deal directly with the content of the post at all, and apparently even thought that fantasizing violence against the manifesto author was an acceptable way to respond. It wasn’t.
I was and remain extremely disappointed in Bay Area tech culture right now. This “manifesto” —a ridiculous and politically expedient moniker— was a crucial opportunity to have a culture-wide teaching moment and we blew it spectacularly. We could have had a nuanced, intelligent discussion about an extremely personal and difficult topic while also demonstrating to Mr. Damont why his application of the very real, widely accepted science he cited was wrong-headed and possibly even oppressive[1]. But no. We didn’t want to acknowledge the facts at all, and our aversion to doing so was so strong that a witch-hunt was executed instead. Meanwhile, we still seem largely oblivious that we made Mr. Damont’s broader point for him. And for the alt-right. They’re having a field day with this, and it’s all the more infuriating because they’re not wrong this time.
[1] e.g. https://contemporarysex.tumblr.com/post/163876071377/doing-a...
They might think something like this: "The very wealthy people who control a sizable portion of the Internet and hold vast influence in society hate me. They would gladly ruin me even if I gently express a rational and benign version of what I really think."
My point: be very careful about making threats in reaction to benign speech. People might take you seriously.
But maybe I'm saying the same thing as you are...
I think you are speaking of those who wish to become part of an authoritarian elite.
I'm speaking of the mob members who simply agree with certain absolutist and easily manipulated notions. (Like: "Hate speech is violence", or "we should never question someones claim of being emotionally hurt"). Simply believing in these notions make prone to mob aggression in support of authoritarianism.
Do you have anything to support that notion?
We are all prone to mob aggression. That is the whole problem with mobs. It allows the individual to disconnect themselves from the actions of the whole. Any large group of people has the potential to turn into a mob.
You'd be hard pressed to find a company where leveling personal attacks against your co-workers isn't a fireable offense.
Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from the consequences of his actions. All it means is you can't be jailed or executed for it. You are not entitled to have people continue to have you in their lives.
Furthermore, his employer has a right to freedom of association, and they have chosen to exercise that right by ceasing to associate with him.
If this is authoritarian, than I will proudly call myself an authoritarian. Perhaps Hobbes was right after all.
That would be very disturbing, but that's not what's written in the document. Saying that there are average differences between groups, and that therefore people should be treated as individuals, is not at all like saying that all individuals in one group are inferior to another.
I think he was wrong on some facts, and also didn't explain things in the best way.
But I think it was wrong of many people to misrepresent what he said (as "women are inferior"), and it was wrong of Google to fire him.
thankfully, google hires individuals as individuals, and google employees are exceptional and meet the requirements of the job they are hired for, in spite of the average of their community, and in spite of the supposed problems of diversity programs.
It was an internal memo, which someone else leaked.
Whoever leaked that memo was not fired though.
How is this any different than if I was to exercise my "free speech" to insult my CEO and found myself fired? This was a private corporation, operating in an at-will employment state. Now if the government had taken steps to censor speech, one could argue that we're in an authoritarian regime. But workplaces have always (at least since I've been working), been places where we voluntarily subject ourselves to private authority, or else quit or are fired.
I think it's widely accepted that work is generally a place where discussion of politics and gender relations is not appropriate. I know I do my best to avoid arguments on those topics at work, and that's fine. But when your employer explicitly encourages carrying out this kind of discussion in specific work-only forums, and then turns around and punishes you for it when some people throw a hissy-fit, that's gonna leave a bad taste in many people's mouths.
To use your example, if I insulted my CEO and got fired for it no one would be surprised. But if my CEO was soliciting honest feedback on their performance and then I got fired for pointing out some stuff they dropped the ball on, I'd be (understandably, I think) quite upset.
As I look up and see this article flagged on HN (since unflagged).
The points and ideas from his memo may be wrong or they may be right (or anywhere in between) but more important than this incident has been the reaction to it. I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend the issues don't exist.
To try to shed a little light on this phenomenon, the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way."
Using the expansion in your paragraph:
=====
I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend that women and minorities are biologically as qualified for this job, or that their hires are as legitimate as anyone else's.
=====
That's what some people are hearing. Hopefully it's obvious why management at most companies would consider these discussions to be less than helpful in fostering the most productive work environment.
Accepting your characterization here for the sake of argument: if his claims are so laughably ridiculous as to be easily refutable, people should just have pointed to studies refuting it (of which there are plenty) and gone about their day. When you can't bring up a topic in a respectful way without being shouted down, it's a bad situation.
Remember: this guy lost a job. Discriminations kill and ruin the lives of millions routinely.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
If you read the memo, he is completely against discrimination, including positive discrimination.
Please show me the other well informed people that claim the opposite.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/06/what-diff...
An unproductive conversation, becoming more hostile, can hurt the HN community. This is supposed to be a place for reasoned conversation. It's already difficult to maintain that. A raging flamewar won't help in that direction.
This generally happens when ideas presented in the conversation are radical and dangerous to a point the target people in the discussion feel an existential threat.
Look at the nature of this discussion. Presented in its simplest form, its a case for a merit based system. The socialist types don't like this, the very fact that merit is being discussed implies their entitlement to free resources at the expense of other hard working people is threatened. They can't allow it to go on.
You don't want people to start thinking about it.
But it's not like this thread is full of people saying the exact same thing who haven't declared they are women.
Maybe I should delete my original comment but I might offend someone too if I delete it.
Life is complicated, I would jump from the window to end it but I think it will also offend someone.
Ok, fuck it. I am happy. I don't care!
When factoring in all the egregiously false headlines, news stories, tweets, etc. about this I think what is really going on is not lack of critical reading ability, but rather some people's willingness to tell outright lies and willful misrepresentations when someone points out aspects of reality that these falsehood peddlers would prefer didn't exist for whatever reason.
And what's even more frustrating is Google's response of firing him. It makes me scared of working in the tech industry, luckily, I am a "minority" in both gender and race. Yet I can't help but wonder, if someday I speak up about my different views than the vast majority of my company, am I going to get fired for it?
Just like "inclusiveness" or "safe space". They do not mean what most people unaware of the political use of these expressions mean. These expressions are politically loaded.
The confusion is orchestrated, on purpose, by the ideologues who redefined these words. Who can say he is against diversity? inclusiveness? safe-spaces, off course people want to be safe! these are positive words. Until you actually understand that a safe space isn't a physical safe space but a ideological safe space, where dissidence is prohibited.
For the "ignorant", they mean one thing, for the ideologues, they have a complete different meaning.
I too was completely fooled by the post-modernist double speak and engaged in the attack of the people who were against these "concepts", I too engaged in witch-hunts, before I truly understood how these words were politically loaded and didn't mean what I thought they meant. It is extremely subtle and cunning. Redefinition of words is an extremely effective and manipulative weapon.
People say, well, keep politics out of work and you'll be fine. But if the internal rules at work use expressions such as diversity, inclusiveness or safe-space, these are politically loaded at first place! your work environment IS adopting the intersectional ideological framework.
Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references?
Here's a copy with the references:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original.
People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
> Women, on average, have more:
> ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)
> ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
> ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
A bit further down:
> Men’s higher drive for status
> We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Holy crap!
- Edit below this line -
This is not expressing a different opinion based on facts, but pure stereotyping.
As a person who appreciates logic in arguments, I wouldn't like to work or have an argument with someone who presents his views of the world as axioms without data to support them.
Thanks for correcting me.
If you are a bit interested in more references (those claims sound horrible, but they are not as far-fetched as they sound), have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw. It's a presentation by Steven Pinker that explains a lot about what science actually has to say about biological differences, and in an aside at the end even mentions stereotypes.
I already mentioned it in a subthread to this post, no harm intended.
- Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things [1], relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing [2])
- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
- Neuroticism [3] (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article?
[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism
EDIT: noncoml I wanted to reply you (but I cann't I don't know why) and apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.
I think that a quick dismissal is not appropriate, that it is the right basis for a discussion and would definitely like to take some time and look at the citations and how they tie up and support the arguments.
I wish he had posted the anti-echo-chamber parts on their own, instead of using them to decorate an argument on gender differences.
I doubt he expected this to blow up like it did; I imagine a Harvard PhD candidate would have provided better references if he'd known it would be public.
Likelihood usually change on the environment, just look at Uber.
But, it's all speculation, they denied that data to DoL.
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...
1) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0O3ZRp... (cache version)
People are portraying it like he posted it on the cafeteria bulletin board. That was someone else's doing, trying (and succeeding) in punishing him.
Well, It surely did not work out that way, and I stand by my caution to folks that however its defined (limited audience, private list, etc.) there will be someone to spread it beyond the original intended audience.
I assume you're talking about when the Department of Labor asked for more information on employees? If so, I don't believe they actually found any gender pay gap; they were merely asking for more data which Google refused to give up due to privacy concerns.
The judge ruled in Google's favor so it's hardly "hot water" (https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/16/judge-sides-with-google-in...)
> During the audit, however, the agency found “systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” according to testimony from a DoL official.
> The lawsuit was about accessing data, not the merits of the DoL’s arguments, she says, pointing out that the government has yet to present its case.
https://www.wired.com/story/google-department-of-labor-gende...
Is calling my co-workers who are people of colour racial slurs a thought crime? Should I be fired for that, or should my employer tolerate it? Should I be allowed to make remarks about how evolutionary psychology tells me that women should be in the kitchen? Or that African Americans are predisposed to crime?
At what point does saying things stops becoming thought crime, and starts becoming 'creating a hostile work environment'? There has to be a point of crossover, somewhere, right?
If you said yes, you're an authoritarian stifling discourse. If you said no, then... Well, that's certainly a principled stance you can take.
1. I agree we should not allow racial slurs, or Nazi symbols, etc. We can do that because the vast majority of society disapproves of them. But the opinions in the document are not in that status: they are mostly rejected by progressives, debated by centrists, and mostly accepted by conservatives. In other words, Google has sent a signal of "you can't work here if you're not a progressive", and that's harmful on a societal level, because while we can have a functioning society after kicking out Nazis and people saying slurs, can we thrive if we have separate corporations for progressives and conservatives? No, we have to find a way to work together. Google's actions were a blow against such cooperation.
2. Saying that average group differences exist is a scientific fact (there are debates about where the differences lie, what they mean, what caused them, etc. but that some exist is long settled). And just acknowledging their existence seems to be what got this person fired, after others - including Google leadership - misunderstood average group differences to mean "one group is inferior to another".
Certainly well known, supported, and referenced scientific facts, are not creating a hostile work environment. The fact that he was treated that way suggests that it is in fact a "thought crime".
Probably. Did the Google guy do even remotely that (or the sexist analogous)? No.
>At what point does saying things stops becoming thought crime, and starts becoming 'creating a hostile work environment'? There has to be a point of crossover, somewhere, right?
That would be relevant if I had said that there's no point of crossover.
But my "thought crime" argument wasn't that saying some things can't be "beyond the pale" (which I can agree with).
Rather it was that today some things can't even be discussed openly with rational arguments because people are not allowed to even touch them without automatically being labelled -- however good their intentions are and however sensical their arguments -- or how in accordance to science.
This is the part of this whole thing that bothers me the most. You can't just close this debate down with proof by repeated assertion. Whatever you think about the memo, its author, or the views he's presented, it's simply not settled science and certainly not settled on the side you seem to think it is.†
The following should get you started:
* Steven Pinker & Elizabeth Spelke | The Science of Gender & Science | Mind Brain Behavior Discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8
* http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
Answering questions as complicated as "Why aren't there more women in tech?" is extremely difficult. There are likely lots of factors, all intertwined, difficult to untangle.
The idea that you could just say, "Nope. It's settled. It's 100% sexism and no other cause" is just patently absurd. Anybody telling you otherwise is full of shit.
† Note that the science on this question is independent of questions like "Should he have posted this at work?" or "Did Google handle this the right way?"
Yes, indeed.
This is something we, as a culture, need to look at more carefully.
Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He added that it was “illegal to retaliate” against an N.L.R.B. charge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-eng...
They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not.
Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google executives just did.
They are. At least that's how civilised societies would handle it. It could be a textbook example of a decision a civil discourse could approach.
Ideas don't hurt people. People with no way to voice their ideas and opinions become angry, and then hurt other people.
Make a valid counter-argument or bug off. Downvoting opinions you don't agree with is reddit-level hive mind. Make a stance and don't hide behind your ability to downvote.
It’s bad enough to get that in life in general, but then to get it at work as well....
I get this is a sensitive topic, but don't try to discount my opinion by claiming I don't have the necessary experience or vantage point. You know nothing about me.
However, I don’t see how that’s relevant. The author of that memo didn’t wrote about male superiority of anything similar. He talked about statistically significant differences, and proposed ideas for google to attract more female employees without discriminating against males.
I agree it wasn't a smart thing to say, but I don't think it furthers the discussion to misrepresent it.
That said, I don’t think it’s a textbook example of civil discourse to be circulating this within your own organization. When one side suggests “distributions of differences” are root causes (without diving into them and first principals), it takes all the oxygen out of the room. It makes for a very uncivil situation for colleagues to have to defend their own gender.
Cloaking false information inside of distributions and using the word “different” doesn’t mean somehow that the expressed opinions are fair, unbiased, or rooted in some truth. It clearly implied that we shouldn’t expect an equal distribution of men and women in tech because women “on average” aren’t as well suited for the job. Bullshit.
I’ve seen myself male dominated teams that create their own monoculture that makes it hard for an outsider to enter. I’ve been part of such teams at Google! It’s not necessarily the fault of the people on the team, and for the most part people seemed to want to accept others. But I did encounter moments of racism, sexism, and homophobia that were quite shocking to me. And I’m a white male, so presumably people felt “comfortable” with me there enough to express it. Can you imagine being be a woman of color and trying to feel welcome? And this was a less bro-y team. Being gay I felt very uncomfortable with it, but at least they automatically gave me an intellectual pass due to the “distributions” I come from.
We need to look at individuals and not distributions to bring a class up. Over time societal forces change, which will affect such “averages.” It used to be that on average, women didn’t work outside the come. That’s no longer true. It used to be that on average, women made far far less than men. That’s no longer true (but still not equal.) Things are dynamic, so by trying to hide under statistics we ignore the potential (and necessity) for change. This article _implies_ that females inherently inferior for high-level Google/tech jobs (or things that deal with “ideas”... so insulting)... and that’s just plain wrong.
In other words, I'm not sure whether the firing is to supress opinions or to punish putting the company in a bad spot.
Am I meant to work alongside a person who has literally said he wants me to die, completely seriously?
So at some point, there is a line - I feel the more interesting discussion is why you feel this isn't beyond the line - presumably it comes down to a matter you not believing there was harm caused?
For me, I think the obvious justification for the firing here is that this guy had hiring as a part of his responsibility, and this document is a statement he isn't going to be able to fulfil that.
If I'm a developer and I write a manifesto about how we should be writing code to optimise for the worst maintainability to keep job security, am I fair game to fire? If I'm literally coming out with a manifesto that says I'm not going to do the job I was hired to do (of part thereof), is it unreasonable to fire me?
Maybe you can point out some things in the memo that you feel warrants someone's ability to make a living be taken away.
---
Edit: I would expect for people who preach in the name of diversity to be more open to criticism and opinions that don't match their own. I've said of myself repeatedly that I'd much rather have more politicians I can respect than those that I agree with. It's somewhat hypocritical of someone to espouse diversity, while simultaneously shutting out differing opinions.
Please, just read the text: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
But we should tolerate moderate views across the political spectrum. The document was wrong in some points, but overall largely fit in with mainstream conservative politics. Many centrists also agree with parts of the document.
I think it's ok to fire someone for being a Nazi or (as in your example) issuing a death threat. I don't think it's ok for someone to be fired for being a progressive or a conservative.
They could have reacted with a "Google does not support or endorse the views expressed", and let the rest happen naturally.
This is censorship. Yes, it's within a privately owned company, but it is very clearly a suppression of intellectual debate. Why not encourage this debate to happen?
This black-and-white, all-or-nothing trend in public speech in general is very concerning. Debate and discourse no longer exist, it's simply one side flaming the other.
I will gladly debate this with you. Don't assume I don't want to engage, or that I would attempt to censor your view.
Indeed, you should enter a debate with the idea that the other might convince you, right? If you are not going to change it it's not a debate.
A small soon as this became publicly known Google had to take a stand one way or the other. They may not INTEND to, but a big chunk of the audience (on either side) would have seen it as such.
Heck if they tried to ride the middle some/many women may have felt betrayed and unwanted and some/many men felt ignored or slighted.
Some have said, "Reacting to it would dignify it". Is that an endorsement?
> They are not.
Are you saying we can't use science to determine whether differences between the sexes exist?
> Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments.
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.
PS. Why is your username green?
An account created just a few days ago. After some time it will become grey.
Is this view not pretty clearly authoritarian? It literally comes across like a comic book villain speech.
Is it not possible that there simply are intelligent people who disagree with you validly, and that shaming them into silence isn't the best solution?
Exactly but then in the statement, don't pretend people should have the ability to speak their mind freely. By firing the guy they basically closed that door entirely, they choose to inflict the maximum penalty they legally could on a guy that wrote an internal memo.
Google executives basically just said: "Anyone expressing any other view other than our official politically correct position will be excommunicated (fired) on the spot" then goes on saying "but hey, we like free speech you know ;-)". They are not fooling anyone.
You may agree with the manifesto author or not, but his thought were articulate. He provided evidence for his theories and at no point was he needlessly insulting to anyone.
I feel a better response form the Google team would have been to issue a statement defending and justifying their position: "Google executive team does not agree with those theories for reasons X Y and Z, and our internal measurements have shown that mixed gender teams perform on average better for X Y and Z reasons as shown by report foo and bar. We however agree with the author that gender equality is a difficult issue to tackle bla bla bla".
The discussion would have moved to the manifesto evidence vs Google evidence and we would have actually had something to talk about regarding gender equality. Now it's just about Google inability to cope with free speech inside the company, as shown by the Bloomberg article.
No, no, and no. Asserting that half of humanity is incapable of taking on pressure and responsibility is insulting, and suggesting that his rant was articulate or evidenced shows a serious lack of basic humanity. Strong words, but as I said, this is not a TV debate. This is a struggle. We won't convince each other here.
Where in his manifesto did he say that?
I've read it through a few times, and nowhere does he say that.
That is actually what he is trying extra hard to explain that he is _not_ asserting (if you go read the thing).
It's basically what he is spending the first few pages trying to be absolutely clear about. The overlapping normal distribution curves is a very immediate way to visualise it, but an excerpt will have to do:
"Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
He opens _and closes_ with:
> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
He even includes a chart to show the amount of overlap between the curves (high) and directly argues against applying traits towards individual behavior.
Let's phrase this another way if I state that if you are "black" (sub-Saharan African) in origin you have a higher likelyhood of Sickle-cell is that racist?
No. It is a _population_, _average_ difference.
Now the _science he cites_ (women are more prone to Neuroticism) is less well settled. That's something to disagree with.
But if its insulting to even have a discussion that the population of women, on average, show different traits then men what discussion _can be had_? Can we even talk about diseases that are more likely to affect women? What's okay?
You should read it before you draw any conclusions. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything he says (and how he says it), he does make some interesting points in a way that I would hope can promote constructive discussion. I definitely don't think he should have been fired just for the memo - maybe there is more to the story? - or maybe he shouldn't have been fired?
I would find more helpful if companies have programs to increase the tolerance and respect inside the company. Because the problem of sexims or racism are not the women or the black people, the problem is the people with prejudices. Adding to the company people of minorities is useless if the internal culture is a shit. At some point they will leave the company. I think Google made a step in the wrong direction and promote a worse culture with this action. People now will not talk about issues afraid of getting fired, even when they do it with respect.
If Google had not fired the guy, a large majority of women (and men) in Google wouldn't want this guy (as brilliant as he may be) in their teams - that would create an unnecessarily hostile and uncomfortable workplace.
There's a whole set of NGOs out there that mint money milking such issues, in the name of "diversity" while doing little to address the real issue.
The same people saying there is a wage gap are saying that every rich person is too greedy. So, if they're greedy and only care about money, why wouldn't they hire only women? They can pay women less and they only care about money. Are they saying that the only things ceos care about more than money is men? Doesn't add up.
This is a single issue, a single "one liner" that won't die. Remember the old story "if you flash your headlights at a certain gang, they'll follow you and shoot you". Sometimes lies are more viral than the truth. It's much easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled. It hurts to be told you were fooled, it feels fun to be a fool.
When I am afraid to say what I believe, for fear or ramifications, it flies directly in the face of what Google and others profess to trying to do: 'create a work environment in which all people, regardless of political affliation, opinion, or creed feels safe.'
The worst part for me, is that many in the valley (particularly on university campuses like Stanford's) have used the disguise of promoting diversity to battle ideas they disagree with. There is not enough emphasis on diversity of ideas.
young engineer, women, white, black,... we are all worried because of this event. The people who was scared to talk before now are not going to talk for sure.
This footnote is incorrect according to Harvard he never completed a PhD.
Is there some reason the social disrupters only get all frothy mouthed about this in certain areas? Like shouldn't we spend much more time going after the NBA, Fishing, Logging, Elementary teachers, Nurses, etc. because these industries are far more out of "diversity balance."
Are people clamoring for a "proportional representation of the population" metric prepared to fire a whole lot of Asians and Jews at places like Facebook and Google in order to bring these populations more in line with their broader United States society proportions?
So it's basically a shakedown.
general economic/social power of women
History and stats don't back up the image of women as some horribly oppressed group at least in western society.
And I am tired seeing this pitted as some kind of battle. The vast majority of people don't feel this way. Men and women are meant to, and do work together for their own mutual benefit and the benefit of succeeding generations.
And they work together in complementary ways, it is silly and destructive to think of the sexes as interchangeable.
Is the ideal representation of women in tech (assuming sexism doesn't exist) 50/50? I have no idea, probably not.
Let me offer a counterpoint: I work on a team of 12 people with 0 women programmers. I'm personally convinced that's not ideal. So wherever the finish line is, I don't think we're there.
This NPR infographic seems to support that assertion, at least that seems to make more sense to me than an interpretation where programming became dramatically less attractive to women due to reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with sexism.
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/10/21/womencoding_wide...
Stuff like this is what the flag button on the site is for.
The entire thing seems like a big nothing-burger from every side.
I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself.
Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't make us better or worse, just humans.
If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%2...
I don't work at Google, so I'm not.
The manifesto itself is controversial in that if you poll the plurality of the population or employees of Google on whether they agree with some or all of it, you won't have consensus, I'm sure of it.
>I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself.
Yeah, thanks for the condescension - just because I haven't reached the same conclusion must mean I haven't taken "time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself".
>Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it.
Uh huh.
>If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.
Why don't you try making an effort sometime.
If you're in a minority being questioned (women here, could be a racial group, age range, etc) people are directly questioning your ability and implying you aren't fit for your job. It looks like a much more personal attack.
So they're a lot more incentivised share/discuss it.
I know what he meant. I know what you mean as well. This isn't a substantive conversation on the issue. You and OP are not putting forward a cogent argument to support a position. You're making an appeal to emotion and valuing an opinion based on the skin color and gender of the person that argued it - not on its own merits.
>It looks like a much more personal attack.
And what does what you are doing look like to you?
> And what does what you are doing look like to you?
From your comment I thought you didn't understand the parent so I tried to help by trying to explain it differently. I was trying to help clear up possible confusion.
Does what I posted look like advocacy to you? I honestly didn't mean it that way.
I understand exactly what he's saying. I wasn't born yesterday. I reject the notion that policy is not up for debate if you're not the right gender or skin color. I reject the notion that if you don't have the right skin color or gender you cannot put forward good arguments for or against.
>From your comment I thought you didn't understand the parent so I tried to help by trying to explain it differently.
OP was simply patronizing when they wrote: "I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself".
That you don't see how condescending, narrow-minded, and patronizing that kind of statement is, is your blind-spot.
No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone, I can see that not only you completely misunderstood my post, but also was offended by it.
Not only that, you don't even seem to think that maybe you don't know, that there are different ways to voice and interpret messages.
I'm not making an appeal to emotion, I'm explaining that perhaps you can't comprehend why people act in a certain manner because you're not in their place. That is normal, we all do it. It has nothing to do with gender or skin color, just with not being in the place of the other person.
I even tried to make it very clear:
> Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't make us better or worse, just humans.
But you just chose to ignore it and believe in your own truth.
So not only you don't know what I meant, you intentionally ignored my clarification and decided to create your own reality. And I'm sure that no matter what I say, you'll continue to claim that I just mean to offend you.
Well, if the cap fits, wear it.
I responded to your patronizing and condescending tone. If you want a civil debate, make an rational argument.
When you write: "I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself." Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else? You're implying that because I don't share your opinion I must have not thought hard enough about the issue. "Please teach me your ways so that I too may be as enlightened as you".
>you don't even seem to think that maybe you don't know, that there are different ways to voice and interpret messages.
Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world?
Honestly, you're lecturing me but you cannot even fathom the idea that you may be completely wrong about this ... because you took time and effort to really really really think about it and you finally figured it all out.
Urgh.
>I'm explaining that perhaps you can't comprehend why people act in a certain manner because you're not in their place
Does a gay black woman know the experience of straight white man? Or a recent immigrant from China? Or a rural farmer? Or black executive from Wall Street?
Democracy is based on the idea that we collectively make decisions that then apply collectively. You're saying that a gay black woman cannot comprehend the experience of white, straight men so she shouldn't engage in policy debates that affect them? Are you seriously making that kind of an argument?
So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?
Wait, I'm admitting my own fault at being able to see the world through other's perspectives, and that's condescending?
> Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world?
There's is no right or wrong way to see the world per se. There are just different ways. And yes, I'm usually wrong, I never claimed not to be.
> you're lecturing me but you cannot even fathom the idea that you may be completely wrong about this
Do you disagree that people see the world from different perspectives and it is often hard to understand each other's actions without trying to see the world from their perspective? That's my only point so far, nothing more.
> So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?
It was actually neither. I was saying that when we don't understand someone else's actions, it is often because we haven't put enough work into seeing the world from their eyes.
> Does a gay black woman know the experience of straight white man? Or a recent immigrant from China? Or a rural farmer? Or black executive from Wall Street?
No, they don't necessarily know, and that's my point.
> You're saying that a gay black woman cannot comprehend the experience of white, straight men so she shouldn't engage in policy debates that affect them? Are you seriously making that kind of an argument?
No, I'm not, and I'm actually quite surprised that you're even considering that I'm saying that. So far I fail to see anything in all my comments resembling that, but I might be wrong.
> So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?
It was actually neither. I was saying that when we don't understand someone else's actions, it is often because we haven't put enough work into seeing the world from their eyes.
But you actually proved that not only you can't understand other's experiences (or even acknowledge that people have different experiences and base their actions on different perspectives), you also don't seem to have empathy or the ability to reason.
The cap keeps fitting better and better. But given the downvotes on your posts, I think I'll call an end to this subthread. Have a nice day :)
I've been seeing the stories from my software dev friends who happen to be women, and it's shocking that the same dumb shit is happening in 2017. "Wow, YOU'RE a developer?" "Hey, will she sit next to me?" etc etc etc etc.
So the memo strikes a nerve. That doesn't make it right or wrong, I'm not saying his being fired is this or that. What I'm saying is that it's not nothing: a lot of human beings who happen to be women and who happen to be software developers have been trying to fight these insane gender stereotypes that somehow are still being perpetuated.
And Google has no choice but to clean up the mess with the right signals.
I don't think concern over diversity or sexism (which deserves its own calm debate) is what's driving this "nothing burger" story.
It is unfortunate that it took this memo to expose what a lot of people were previously afraid to say (from BOTH sides)
Imagine how surreal this must be for Damore.
In regards to the explosive nature of this episode, I think it is indicative of the people who seem to be going progressively more insane's realization that their little social engineering experiments curry no favor in the halls of reality and their misguided efforts are rapidly being washed out to the sea of history while the scattered sand from their tantrums is being transformed by the tide into a nice, orderly and peaceful beach for those of us in the reality-based community to enjoy.
I'm not 100% convinced that he didn't expect this. Some of the points he raised are valid and people should be able to agree to disagree. But the points about biological differences being responsible for women not being interested in STEM are controversial. I don't think Science is there on that - so raising them in this kind of a manifesto is inflammatory.
This is also nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
"HIGH-SCHOOL GIRLS ARE taking more Advanced Placement computer engineering exams than ever before, according to a new report from Code.org and the College Board. In 2017, largely thanks to a new test aimed at expanding the reach of engineering classes, female participation in these AP tests increased at a faster rate than young boys’ participation on the exam in 2017."
Source: https://www.wired.com/story/ap-computer-science-2017/
Google's hand was forced because of the negative PR storm that happened, not because it systematically suppresses the voices of its employees.
> This algorithm is tuned by an internal team of evaluators. If the company silences dissent within its own ranks, why should we trust it to manage our access to information?
I'm almost convinced that this is satire.
Based on their diversity report, only ~200 (of ~20,000) software engineers are black, which is still likely an exaggeration, as I bet many are software engineers in test.
Regressive neo-liberalism is a cancer on society.
Edit - also sad that this keeps getting flagged. Dissenting opinions and debate is good for society.
If you are right about something you don't need to silence/censor others. If you are not, then you do. The witch-hunt has to end.
163 pts in 37 mins, but flagged off the front page as soon as it appeared.
Does the number of flags required to trip the [flagged] trigger increase with the number of points and speed of those points on a story?
If not, why not?
Yes one could say rapid point accrual on a story of this nature is telling of a hot-button issue that and thus likely to create discussion not up to our desired standards.
But what I think is really being shown here is that this is an issue many feel is in much need of attention and the fact that a small group can just flag these so quickly when the rest of the community is saying this is important seems strange.
Abstract free speech crashes and burns in any situation where you can't select your peers.
Google could have:
* Clarified the opinions shared are not theirs and they do not endorse them. * Clarified their existing position on the topic at hand (as they did). * Created or clarified a new policy on how such suggestions can be shared in a way less likely to be read by people easily offended by opposing views. * Created some training policies regarding how to effectively avoid or even (gasp) tolerate opposing views without taking personal offense. Perhaps this could be just after the microaggression training mentioned in the memo.
This whole idea that it's A-OK to preach the need for discrimination to account for effects unmeasurably attributed to white privilege, yet as soon as one suggests an alternative view, it's suddenly off-limits and political is ridiculous.