Hacker News Reader

Something tells me it wasn't a conservative that originally leaked Damore's memo; I think it was likely a left-wing idealogue who're unable to tolerate alternative perspectives on the subject of diversity.

And let's be completely honest, Damore's memo was mischaracterized in the wider media; at no point did he say that women made worse engineers than men, and at no point were his suggestions regarding improving Google's diversity efforts (which is something he spent time and thought on) even glanced at by his detractors. I'd challenge anyone who thinks I'm misinterpreting the memo to prove me wrong; I would welcome being corrected as right now the coverage of Damore makes me feel like the only sane person in the crazy house.

So is your argument that leaking the memo justifies opening up your colleagues to public attacks and harassment? I sure hope not.

You're not the only person to have mentioned that the memo leaked. So what? That's basically the "well, they started it!" argument. Or even "two wrongs make a right".

Knowingly opening up colleagues to a barrage of hate is a vile act. There is no justification for it. Condemn the leak of the memo if you want but it is unrelated.

It's not unrelated, to quote your original comment:

> If you're a white male conservative Google engineer who feels oppressed and leaks such details, maybe the best thing for you to do is question your belief system that's so warped that you've managed to convince yourself that that's OK. Because it isn't.

Here you are implying that white male conservative Google engineers who leak such details should question their warped belief system, yet you're excusing others who presumably aren't white male conservatives who have done exactly the same thing.

I was responding to this element of the parent post: "The low point to me is how some (reference in the article) feel justified in leaking conversations and personal details of their coworkers to the likes of Breitbart.". Tit-for-tat tactics aren't justifiable, but they're hardly surprising and I was pointing out that by leaking the memo, one side legitimized that tactic. It's an observation, not a value judgement.

> How anyone who works at Google can feel oppressed is honestly beyond me.

So that applies to both sides? Or just the white males?

So issues like this never came up prior to Trump becoming president? I find that hard to believe.

So, since the election we've had:

- Neo-nazis committing violence in Charlottesville with a president who almost refused to condemn them and tempered any hollow condemnation with claims of their being very fine people on both sides;

- The Chief of Staff peddling the quite racist view that the Civil War was a "failure to compromise", implicitly blaming Northern aggression;

- Defense of civil war statues and monuments. Personally I have mixed feelings about this one because you can't erase history no matter how ugly. But that wasn't the point. The point was a rallying cry to the descendants of former slave owners who seem unable to get over the fact that they can't own slaves anymore;

- Puerto Rico basically being abandoned post-Marla. Compare that to the response after the Houston flooding. On its own this may simply be incompetence. It fits a pattern of behaviour however.

More examples:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

The existence of racist acts prior to Trump becoming president is beside the point. The issue is the quantity and nature of events after (compared to before) and how such purveyors of hate and intolerance have been emboldened by the white nationalist-in-chief.

The emboldening was caused not by Trump, but by the media itself. For example with Charlottesville, Trump's initial response was:

> We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.

This addressed the extreme-right/neo-nazi violence, as well as the increasing violence perpetrated by extreme-left/antifa agitators (which you conveniently ignored). I would hope my president would condemn all political violence equally.

The media took his statement and ran with it, arguing that it somehow supported extreme-right violence. Alt-right people believed them and became emboldened. If the media had focused on the actual political violence and emphasized that all such acts should be condemned, maybe the agitators would have crawled back to their basements.

Excellent post. I am just shocked reading some of the posts on this thread. Honestly wonder if there is not an agenda to try to divide us everywhere in the US from gov to companies like Google.

The problem is (at least in part) the two party system. It really helps fuel the us vs them mentality. It allows people to write off people's opinions with a broad stroke. For example, "Oh, that person is Republican. They must be racist and hate poor people," or "That person is a Democrat, they want everything handed to them and an authoritarian state." Both of these statements clearly do not represent the average person on either side.

Opinions are a spectrum, but we are constantly blasted with the extremist opinions on both sides. Social media has only amplified these issues. Extremists generate many responses from both sides and thus a lot of eyes end up on these opinions. Talk to your neighbor. Regardless of their political affiliation, they're probably a pretty decent human being (obviously there are outliers). Just try to remember the person you're talking to is a human being and their opinion is probably more nuanced than you give them credit for.

> defenders seem oblivious to the fact that implicitly questioning whether your coworkers deserve to be there

which is understandable, since defenders don't hold this view. Which parts of the memo are you referring to.

> feel justified in leaking conversations

AFAIK the memo itself was a result of a leak, which sets the tone..

> It is not.

> Because it isn't.

Do you have any comments on the specific things in Damore's lawsuit?

> which is understandable, since defenders don't hold this view. Which parts of the memo are you referring to.

I'm not going to dissect the entire memo and get into a back-and-forth about the exact comments but one example is illustrative:

> - A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

The implication being that it's easier for "diversity" candidates to get hired. This implicitly devalues any such coworkers you have because you've just said they were held to a lower standard.

If you can't see how that might create a hostile work environment then I'm afraid I can't help you.

> AFAIK the memo itself was a result of a leak, which sets the tone.

So that justifies opening up your colleagues to very public harassment and open attacks by leaking not only what they said but their personal information? Because the memo leak set the "tone"?

I sure hope you're not saying that. And if you aren't, what are you saying, exactly?

Is it really your view that it's unacceptable to draw attention to a high priority queue or something like that, just because it might 'devalue' the beneficiaries of the policy?

Right. It's literally blaming the whistleblower. "We created a high priority queue, but we're faulting you for pointing out the disparity we created".

Also consider under new religious protection rules, one may discriminate against gays and transsexuals in business if it is important to their religious views. This is considered a conservative victory.

When people think of mainstream American conservative views, do they mean like those on the Texas GOP platform? People should go take a look. Or on Reddit's /r/conservative?

https://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PERM-PLA...

What do people here think about the fact that for the past 2 decades, the only issues worthy of national Christian consensus have been sexual issues? And now there's this transgender business? For example, do people remember the push for a Constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage? Was that used to rally the base?

My Twitter feed (former software engineer) has become an endless, open harangue targeting white men. My industry collegues don’t even think twice about openly saying white men are at the root of all problems in tech.

Everyone knows, the definition of “making something diverse” is “removing white men from a group and replacing them with anyone not white and male.”

If I were to post anything remotely resembling disagreement , it would end my professional career. I would be called racist, sexist, transphobic, you name it. So I keep my mouth shut. I’m not the only one.

If I were to reveal that these statements make me deeply uncomfortable, I would be accused of “white fragility.”

Trump isn’t the problem. Any sort is disagreement has been effectively banned and silenced by use of the exact same coercive tactics that are now being turned back on these far Left Google employees.

Liz Fong Jones for example, who would openly disparage white men on Twitter on a regular basis - Still has a job!

Despite all of the harassment, administratively, if you disparate white people due to their race, age and gender (old white men), you are still employed. Maybe you get a mean tweet now and then but your job is intact.

Think about that. If I were to post any of the following: Women don’t work as hard as men and have different priorities due to their biology, All gender bathrooms are stupid and don’t make sense etc - I would get fired.

If me saying those things is wrong and fireable, so is their left wing equivalent.

It’s time for these large corporations to realize that allowing the minorities to disparage the majority isn’t the solution or acceptable either.

Look at what has happened.