You only say that because it's convenient for you. You would not like it one bit at the conservative places I worked at. It really is a two way street and u-turns are allowed.
So the commenter says that he looks forward to the next generation of developers not experiencing the hate that he has experienced. You say, he’d be unhappy at conservative places, presumably because he’d still experience that hate.
So then why do you wonder why he pushes for politics in the workforce? His goal—hell, it should be all of our goal—is to stamp out places where such hate is encouraged.
Because he doesn’t understand that these places openly hostile towards gays are likely formed by white heterosexual Christian conservatives defending their identity and pushing for politics at workplace.
> it should be all of our goal—is to stamp out places where such hate is encouraged
You can’t stamp out people. You forcibly convert that one place to your faith, people will likely change jobs or move to other states.
Through most of the history, the threats were imaginary, and it was conservative majority who oppressed other people.
Recently however, in places like Bay Area, the conservatives are no longer a majority, and consequently the treats became quite real, see e.g. https://www.scribd.com/document/368692388/James-Damore-Lawsu...
I don’t think the right way to solve this is oppress, stamp out, or discriminate people positively or negatively. The right way is promoting tolerance (the good one i.e. civilized behavior towards people despite different positions, not the bad one that says everyone must express the only true position), and most importantly following the laws.
Democracy + judicial system worked OK for centuries. IMO it’s the only working mechanism invented so far how a society can function despite different people have different identities and beliefs.
Spoiler Alert: the current threats to their identity are just as imaginary. White heterosexual conservatives will eventually learn how to be a minority, just like every other identity in this country has.
What, precisely, about other minorities existing threatens that identity?
You keep repeating this claim of threats, but haven't been able to articulate any.
> I don’t think the right way to solve this is oppress, stamp out, or discriminate people positively or negatively.
And yet that's precisely what the Google engineer linked to was doing by circulating his memo describing how he and others believed women weren't as "qualified" to be programmers based solely on their biology. Hence, why he was fired.
The only thing that cannot be tolerated in a tolerant society is intolerance itself.
See the link in the previous comment. Being fired for expressing a political viewpoint is a classic example of discrimination. Also because the subject was about work conditions, the firing was illegal in California jurisdiction.
> describing how he and others believed women weren't as "qualified" to be programmers
Apparently, you have not read that memo. He never said that (I’ve just downloaded the memo and searched), nor anything similar to that. And IMO he never meant that either.
That really doesn't describe a threat to the "white heterosexual Christian" identity. In fact, you're free to be a white heterosexual Christian at Google or anywhere else for that matter.
> Being fired for expressing a political viewpoint is a classic example of discrimination.
Again, the viewpoint on women and minorities was an intolerant one. Please study the Paradox of Tolerance.
> He never said that (I’ve just downloaded the memo and searched), nor anything similar to that.
You're right, he made a much more broad statement about the gender gap in the tech industry. Although there is this section:
> 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).
>○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
He's regurgitating the idea that biology, rather than society, is what is holding women back in the tech industry. This is an intolerant viewpoint, as it suggests that there is something inherent about being female that makes them inferior at participating in the tech industry.
The conclusion you’ve made in this and previous comments is about abilities.
Huge difference between the two.
This is the conclusion the author of the memo reaches as well. His suggestions are not to fix the culture surrounding these preferences, but instead to simply "give women what they prefer", which inherently limits their experience and makes an implicit claim on their ability without that compensation.
He then prescribes things based on that generalization that make implicit claims about the ability of women to work without said compensation.
Because you really sound like making stuff up, just to confirm your bias against Damore. The whole memo was about something else, yet you claim that because:
> He then prescribes things based on that generalization that make implicit claims about the ability of women to work without said compensation.
(whatever that actually means)
he is:
> He's regurgitating the idea that biology, rather than society, is what is holding women back in the tech industry.
That's gross hyperbole at best, and, considering you have not provided single citation (even after being called out), seems like random baseless belief you hold.
Frankly, now your two liner applies wonderfully:
> You are free to believe whatever you want. Just be prepared for your ideology to be called out for what it is if you choose to publicly stand for it.
After all discussions on the HN on the topic you still hold this view? When you paint the dissenting view in the worst possible light (and imagine a few things just to be sure), you will be seen as the oppresor.
Hence the identity threat to the conservatives.
You are free to believe whatever you want. Just be prepared for your ideology to be called out for what it is if you choose to publicly stand for it.
How do you think a person who wore a MAGA hat to Google or Facebook would be treated? What about someone who advocates that people who entered the country without permission should be charged with a crime? I think the point being made is that be careful how the minority is treated because one day you might be in the minority. The best way to do that is to keep out politics out of work.
I’m a heterosexual white male. It’s convenient for me to ignore the hardship of people who are outside my demographic.
I went for smoothies with a work friend who was outwardly gay and heard him called a faggot by a couple of random people when I realized how different life might be for someone who is not me. It was not great. It would be more convenient if I hadn’t heard that. The fact is, it happens.