
On managing outrage in Silicon Valley - jp_sc
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/06/on-managing-outrage-in-silicon-valley/
======
EddieRingle
One of my first exposures to this "manifesto" was on Twitter with someone
starting a thread with "Google has a Nazi problem." The majority of the other
responses I read either attacked the author, dismissed the entire text in
whole, and/or refused to actually argue the paper's points because they saw
them as so ridiculous or "obviously" wrong.

I read the paper. I don't see at all how it relates to fascism, Trumpism, or
whatever you want to call it.

I am against discrimination, and that includes positive discrimination.

If there were factual inaccuracies in what the author wrote, why not discuss
them? Why not use high-quality sources to validate your argument? I wish it
was the opposite, but I don't have the time to research the
psychological/sociological perspectives on these issues. Human civilization
has grown thanks to being able to specialize. I specialize and (hopefully)
make contributions in one field, but I depend on others that have specialized
elsewhere to provide knowledge and resources I can depend on.

~~~
grey-area
Since most of these threads are pretty content free, and you asked for it,
here's a rebuttal, by a woman who's good at math.

[https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3...](https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3LAlcESJTBxIBg)

Of course men and women are different on average, but are they different
enough to justify the massive disparity in tech? No.

~~~
AlexCoventry
That is a lazy slide deck. From the paper it cites
([http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-14384-001](http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-14384-001)):

> It is important for us to know that females begin in high school to perform
> less well than males on mathematical problem-solving tasks. Problem solving
> is critical for success in many mathematics-related fields, such as
> engineering and physics. In this sense, mathematics skills may continue to
> be a critical filter.

It speculates that this may be because

> the content of problem-solving items on those tests may have heavy
> representation of masculine-stereotyped content, which has been shown to
> produce better performance by males in some studies, although results on the
> issue are mixed

So the Figure 1 the slide uses from the paper has smeared the critical skill,
from a software-development perspective, across a large set of other math-
related skills. The results of the paper with respect to that skill are
inconclusive, not surprising since it's a 27-year-old meta-analysis. Surely
there are better results to cite by now?

~~~
actuallyalys
Well, it's refuting a lazy argument. Why would computer science be so
different from other STEM fields that have radically higher proportions of
women? [0] In particular, why is math so much better? [1] If biological
differences are so important, why has it varied so much over time, including a
big decline since the 80s? [0] I mean, we know that gender roles play a big
role in what jobs people do and that sexism is a problem in tech, so it's
honestly kind of weird to think "actually, it's mostly caused by some hitherto
unobserved large biological difference."

Nonetheless, there is research indicating gender differences in math vary
greatly between countries and appear to be correlated to other measures of
gender equity [2]. Even in countries with relatively large discrepancies,
there's not a big difference. I couldn't find any meta analysis of
specifically programming skill, but an analysis of one CS department didn't
find gender differences due to ability [3]. An older study showed women and
men scored similarly on an introductory class, but women were less likely to
get an A or A+ [4]. A small study of elementary students showed that girls and
boys did equally well on easy problems, but boys did better on hard problems
[5].

[0]:
[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-
women-stopped-coding)

[1]: Compare these tables for math and computer science:
[https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tab34.pdf](https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tab34.pdf)
and
[https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tab33.pdf](https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tab33.pdf)

[2]:
[http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/136/1/103/;](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/136/1/103/;)
PDF [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicole_Else-
Quest/publi...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicole_Else-
Quest/publication/40906547_Cross-
National_Patterns_of_Gender_Differences_in_Mathematics_A_Meta-
Analysis/links/0a85e530ca35b7bdea000000/Cross-National-Patterns-of-Gender-
Differences-in-Mathematics-A-Meta-Analysis.pdf)

[3]:
[http://www.pd.infn.it/~lacaprar/ProgettoScuola/Biblio/gender...](http://www.pd.infn.it/~lacaprar/ProgettoScuola/Biblio/genderdiff_2003.pdf)

[4]:
[http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384389.pdf](http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384389.pdf)

[5]:
[http://ase.tufts.edu/DevTech/publications/Sullivan_Gender%20...](http://ase.tufts.edu/DevTech/publications/Sullivan_Gender%20Differences%20Robotics_2016.pdf)

~~~
AlexCoventry
I don't think biology plays a big role in this disparity, and I agree that the
Google essay was poorly argued, ill-considered and harmful.

------
Meekro
"If Galileo had said that people in Padua were ten feet tall, he would have
been regarded as a harmless eccentric. Saying the earth orbited the sun was
another matter. The church knew this would set people thinking." \-- Paul
Graham, What You Can't Say [1]

"And worse than simply thinking these things or saying them in private, you’ve
said them in a way that’s tried to legitimize this kind of thing across the
company, causing other people to get up and say “wait, is that right?”" \--
senior Google guy, in condemnation of the essay [2]

[1] [http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)
[2] [https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-
man...](https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-
manifesto-1e3773ed1788)

~~~
hncens0rship
SV/YC culture is extremely toxic, and people hate having that pointed out to
their faces.

edit: sv/yc are toxic for how they actively shame outsider opinions, then
headhunt the individuals who put said opinions forward. from sama's what i
heard from trump supporters, "Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to
me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very
red states were worried about getting “targeted by those people in Silicon
Valley if they knew I voted for him”. One person in Silicon Valley even asked
me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she
worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong
Trump supporter."

like for instance on this website, where flagged & downvoted comments lead to
rate limiting. sorry guy i can't respond to, it's the mods' fault. minority
opinions get to say 1, maybe 2 things, before being silenced. controversial
threads are flagged or removed by dang and co from the front page within an
hour. ever have a convo with a conservative on here, where they just stopped
responding to you? was probably silenced by the moderation team.

this discussion is flagged to obscurity, while the stupid circle jerk post
about "google engineer breaking his bubble through global travel!" is on the
front still.

[http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-
supporters](http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters)

~~~
sillysaurus3
I don't think it's fair to lump YC culture in with SV culture. YC is based in
SV, but it seems to be an island of reasonableness.

~~~
Bukhmanizer
While I think that YC tends to be a bit more reasonable on some topics, it can
be pretty reactionary on others. For example, if anything to do with Facebook
or Zuckerberg is posted, the level of discourse drops to the typical reddit
outrage machine.

Similarly, I think that when it comes to talking about sexism in tech, the
community as a whole can be pretty toxic. As someone who was annoyed by both
the original manifesto, and the response to the original manifesto, it's a bit
frustrating to see the conversation here take shape the way it has.

------
fnovd
I read the memo, and compared to the stuff I read from the real "deplorables"
(on 4chan, The_Donald, etc.), it was pretty tame.

Yes, many of his ideas are backwards and unjustified. At the same time, many
of his arguments were perfectly sane (e.g. silencing all dissenting opinions
leads to an increasingly toxic and divided culture). If you want people like
him to actually change their minds, you have to be willing to hear them out
first. You can't show someone where they went wrong if they're too scared to
tell you what they think in the first place.

Sexism in the workplace clearly exists. We've seen it manifest too many times
for any rational person to deny it. At the same time, many of the initiatives
that SV companies pursue to combat sexism are treating the symptoms rather
than the cause. Googlers should try to make sure that they are consciously
fighting their unconscious biases when hiring, but changing your hiring
practices isn't going to eradicate sexism. Many of these diversity "action-
plans" are more effective at improving a company's PR than they are at
actually combating sex-related discrepancies. They become self-serving, even
though their goal is noble. The author of the memo was _trying_ to get at
that, but that message was lost due to his problematic views on biological
determinism, among other things.

~~~
warcher
This is increasingly my concern-- There really seems to be a prevailing
opinion that racism and sexism are just fine when directed towards white men.
You can drag a white guy for pretty much any societal ill you like on the
internet these days, and while there are some pretty great points to be made
with respect to blaming a lot of modern society's problems on its principal
architects (old white dudes), this is no way to win hearts and minds.

We're currently suffering through four years of self-imposed punishment as a
result of being a bunch of judgmental assholes in pursuit of a goal that any
reasonable human would accept as self-evident-- that people deserve to be
treated fairly and without prejudice, no matter their race, sex, gender
identity, et cetera. That the American Dream is available equally to all
Americans.

I spend a lot of time offering feedback to people in a professional capacity
and I am frankly shocked at the level of discourse I see on the internet from
progressives. If I pulled this kind of shit at work I'd be finished, because I
don't see any way I could possibly be effective communicating an idea to
anybody in this fashion.

Almost as if the media doesn't really give a shit about justice or equality,
but rather generating rage-clicks and internet lynch mobs to move advertising
inventory. :-\

~~~
generic_user
>> We're currently suffering through four years of self-imposed punishment as
a result of being a bunch of judgmental assholes in pursuit of a goal that any
reasonable human would accept as self-evident-- that people deserve to be
treated fairly and without prejudice, no matter their race, sex, gender
identity, et cetera.

If leftists/liberals wanted everyone to be treated fairly without prejudice of
their race or sex then they would not continually push for the expansion and
entrenchment of race and sex based affirmative action programs which
deliberately exclude people from employment opportunities, scholarships,
networking opportunities and many other essential resources.

The goals and the means are contradictory. If you abandon the goal of equality
of opportunity as the left has for the more dubious goal of equality of
outcomes then your create a system that treats people unequally based on there
race and sex. And furthermore, a system that artificially transfers burdens
and hardships onto select races while giving others races 'privileges' and
opportunity.

No 'reasonable human' will ever accept exclusion from employment because of
there race or sex. And that is exactly what is happening to many qualified and
ambitious people at this point. The pool of disaffected people is only going
to grow until these polices are changed to reflect a meritocratic model based
on objective qualifications.

~~~
warcher
I think if you take a population that has been the subject of generations of
systemic government oppression, remove it (allegedly), and then declare
"fairness accomplished! You are free to complete on a level playing field! Pay
no attention to the effects of generational poverty!" you are on real dubious
ground. This would also presuppose that we have successfully eliminated
systemic racism from our society, which is... an argument that would require
substantial supporting evidence.

And with respect to the whole "taking of jobs", I will add a more
comprehensively researched rebuttal to my own anecdotal experience: if you're
good, you're in no danger of getting caught up in a quota system. Competent
white folks are doing just fine. The less-competent.... probably should cowboy
up. As my exploited millennials would say: "git gud".

[http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/03/13/gender-
quot...](http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/03/13/gender-quotas-and-
the-crisis-of-the-mediocre-man/)

~~~
generic_user
>> I think if you take a population that has been the subject of generations
of systemic government oppression, remove it (allegedly), and then declare
"fairness accomplished! You are free to complete on a level playing field! Pay
no attention to the effects of generational poverty!" you are on real dubious
ground.

Equality of outcomes enforced by excluding certain racial groups creates
intergenerational systemic government oppression of the excluded groups. Again
the goal and the means are contradictory.

The socially acceptable way to increase participation by a perceived
underrepresented group is to target that group with sustained improvement
programs with measurable outcomes. This is the only serious way to address the
problem. The opportunities are there but talent with proper skills is not.

>> This would also presuppose that we have successfully eliminated systemic
racism from our society, which is... an argument that would require
substantial supporting evidence.

The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that 'society' is in fact
guilty of 'systemic racism'. The presumption of Innocence until proven guilty
is a cornerstone of western law. Whey you have an indictment of 'society' in a
court of law then we can have a fruitful discussion of 'societal systemic
racism'.

>> And with respect to the whole "taking of jobs", I will add a more
comprehensively researched rebuttal to my own anecdotal experience: if you're
good, you're in no danger of getting caught up in a quota system. Competent
white folks are doing just fine. The less-competent.... probably should cowboy
up. As my exploited millennials would say: "git gud".

Once again your presenting a contradiction. You want to argue that 'systemic
racism', for instance against blacks is a horrible injustice. But also claim
that other racial groups such as whites are being excluded because there is a
racially discriminatory quota system, but you have no problem with that.

So what I gather from your post is that you support racism as long as its
against Whites and Asians.

And you also think that its perfectly fine to remove 'less-competent' people
as long as they are White or Asian and replace then with presumably even
'less-competent' black people?

------
OoTheNigerian
Silicon Valley controls a lot of the world's communication and we should be
really worried if silencing of unpopular opinions is the order of the day.

As a "minority" I perhaps disagree with a lot of what this person has written
but my reaction to it will be to counter his arguments with a better one
rather than go on to silence him.

\--

I have already written about this somewhat during the past elections.

[https://medium.com/@oothenigerian/trump-v-clinton-silicon-
va...](https://medium.com/@oothenigerian/trump-v-clinton-silicon-valleys-mind-
bending-hypocrisy-is-more-of-a-threat-to-freedom-than-dd6263af03ac)

~~~
cm2187
And calling "fake news" any opinion they disagree with. I find it pretty
problematic that Facebook wants to police the political debate. Kind of like
if gmail started blocking emails sent to a gmail account if it disagrees with
its content.

~~~
yesbabyyes
> Kind of like if gmail started blocking emails sent to a gmail account if it
> disagrees with its content.

I'm pretty sure that gmail's superior spam filter was one of its big initial
selling points?

~~~
cwkoss
If 30+% of the country passionately supported penis-enlargement pills, it
would have been received much differently.

------
rhapsodic
No matter what side of this debate you're on, I don't think you can argue
against the notion that there is only one side of it whose adherents can feel
completely free to express their opinions or argue their case without fear of
retaliation. Many stupid, unsupportable statements have been made by people on
the left side, but I've yet to see much in the way of internet rage mobs
formed against them.

I think if google tries to punish the manifesto's author, there needs to be a
massive backlash. Perhaps a grassroots effort to lobby the federal government
to bust them up as a monopoly. It doesn't matter what, just cause them pain
and suffering through whatever legal means are available.

Suppose, for example, once Yonatan Zunger's current employer becomes public
knowledge, that company was inundated with phone calls and nasty tweets until
they decide that keeping on the payroll is not worth the trouble. Would that
be fair? I don't think so, but it would no different than if the manifesto
author is outed and fired for expressing his opinions.

~~~
andkon
Let's be super clear: if this guy gets fired, it would not be because he
expressed his opinions. It would be because he has abhorrent opinions that
will forever affect his ability to work with women, whom he has decided are
inherently incapable of working at Google.

~~~
Fang_
> women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google.

But that's not at all what he wrote?

~~~
andkon
Oh sorry. I was too broad. He wrote that it is unpopular for him to say that,
for many biologically determined reasons, women do not have the traits
required to excel in computer science, and that in reality the lack of their
employment at Google could be reducible to their being women.

He then went on to explain at length that any effort to suppress this sort of
opinion is the real diversity problem.

So I'd summarize that as: he believes that women are biologically not fit to
work at Google, and therefore diversity programs are misguided, and therefore
the real diversity problem is in not taking his unpopular opinions seriously.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
The vast majority of people are biologically not fit to work at Google. All he
said is because of slight differences in average ability and preferences we
should expect the proportion of women in that incredibly small pool of people
who are capable of working at Google to be lower than you would assume if you
thought there was no sexual dimorphism in traits needed for engineering.

Another example, East Asian people and Ashkenazi Jewish people are much
smarter than gentile whites, half a standard deviation to a full standard
deviation on average:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960600033X)

Because of this we should expect them to be over represented in cognitively
demanding jobs such as engineering at Google. And this is indeed exactly what
we see. Should we positively discriminate for white people? This does not mean
all white people are unfit to work at Google, it just means that on average
white people are less likely to have the requisite ability, though many
individuals will.

~~~
andkon
Biologically unfit?

The vast majority of people are _biologically unfit_ to work at Google?

Are you serious? What 100 meter sprint time do you need to get a job at
Google?

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
IQ is mostly genetics. You won't find many 100 or even 120 IQ engineers
working at Google.

------
bkeroack
Hacker culture used to trend towards libertarian ideals: free speech
absolutism, cyberpunk freedom, etc. Now we have a huge mass of people at
Google forming a rage mob to punish someone for expressing an unpopular idea.
Should people lose their livelihoods and be blacklisted from the industry
because you disagree with them? (see also Brendan Eich)

~~~
drewrv
Most people don't want to work with jerks, and in a libertarian ideal would be
free to choose whether to do so.

Most companies choose to get rid of jerks for a ton of sensible reasons. In a
libertarian ideal they'd be free to choose who to hire/fire.

Large groups calling for someone to lose their job is totally in line with
libertarian ideals. Nobody is calling for government regulation, this is just
the (employment) market at work.

~~~
shaftoe
That's all well and good, but one of the core instincts of libertarianism is a
deep distrust of angry mobs.

I don't think the SV crowd gets how reasonable the author looks to everyone
else and how unreasonable the angry rants on Twitter look.

~~~
CodeCube
"everyone else" ... I don't know man, I haven't been ranting about this on
twitter, and I find the author's document to be completely unreasonable, and
many of the arguments against it to be entirely reasonable.

Maybe this just says more about our individual social groups ... or one of us
is wrong about how prevalent one viewpoint is vs the other. Could be me :)

------
thowaway26539
I think that it would not be a bad thing to have more diversity of thought in
the tech community, or at least to have some basic level of considerate
behavior toward people with different opinions.

I grew up in Red America; while I'm politically neutral/apathetic at this
point, most of my friends/family are still varying shades of red. It was a
drag to have all of my colleagues constantly and casually make insulting
remarks about people that I care about.

Once, during an oncall shift, I pulled an all-nighter dealing with PagerDutys
trying to keep our team's systems up; came in the next day and had to sit
through a presentation where an assortment of republican party figures (no,
not just Trump) were used as examples of "low IQ people" as part of some
contrived metaphor that speaker was trying to make. Everyone laughed. No one
made any comment about how this was unprofessional/inappropriate. Felt pretty
angry.

This kind of environment is unhelpful to everyone. Obviously for folks on the
right it is unpleasant, but for folks on the left it contributes to a culture
of excessive contempt and hatred, increasingly detached from any actual
contact with the people that they hate. This is not helpful for building
winning coalitions.

~~~
dudul
It makes me think of one of our Slack channel at work that is full of jokes
about Trump, the GOP, stupid republican voters, etc.

To make it clear, I personally don't give a damn F about politics, I don't
vote, don't follow any political "drama". But the fact that people feel that
it is appropriate to do that at work is pretty mind blowing to me.

~~~
int_19h
It's the ongoing increase in partisanship. It makes it easier to form
ideological bubbles even where they didn't exist before, because the ratio is
so skewed to begin with, it's entirely possible to end up in a group of people
selected by some unrelated criteria (e.g. a work team), and find out that
there's a significant overlap ideologically. So issues that were not okay
because of the potential to offend someone etc, gradually become acceptable,
because (at one particular point) there was no-one in particular to be
offended. Of course, once established as part of the culture, this becomes
self-reinforcing...

------
asciicircum
Could someone opposed to the arguments the manifesto makes explain to me what
quotes caused them to strongly dislike it?

Reading the reactions to the manifesto I'm left feeling like I'm taking crazy
pills. I must have read a different manifesto.

AFAICT the main idea of the manifesto is that biological differences between
men and women account for part of the representation gap. This seems to be
perfectly logical and fair to me. Whether the explained part is significant or
just a fraction of a percent should definitely be discussed. The available
version of the manifesto not having its sources makes this a lot harder
though.

> The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting
> modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.

If your offense is with the manifesto misrepresenting the amount of the gap
explained by biological differences I can relate to your point of view and
this post is not directed at you (which quotes of the manifesto lead to this
impression would still be interesting to hear).

If not, I would really like to understand where you are coming from. The
manifesto does not seem sexist (e.g. representing women in tech as inadequate)
to me. Some quotes from the manifesto to support my claim:

> I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and
> don’t endorse using stereotypes.

> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part
> explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and
> leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair,
> divisive, and bad for business

> Many of these [biological] 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.

> I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or
> society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases,
> or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority.

> I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles;
> I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as
> just another member of their group (tribalism).

Please help me understand.

~~~
schimmy_changa
The issue is that he is trying to solve an social problem via engineering, and
in trying to simplify the problem, not spending enough time researching, and
by "de emphasizing empathy" he takes a step backwards.

Basically, he sets forward incorrect assertions about biological differences
without the self-awareness about _why_ he takes those differences as truth.
For instance "Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in
things". This is true at least in a very large part because women are
socialized from birth to do so. There are dozens of similar examples.

The people unhappy with him are frustrated by always having to make the same
damn argument to the same people who somehow think behavioral evolution is the
end-all-be-all, as if somehow the computer they're typing on was a natural
result of that evolution.

Now, in this particular case I don't think the author had any bad intent, and
I think people who disagree should argue straightforwardly and use this as a
great, clear opportunity to address the many people who actually do agree with
this person but don't speak out. I also think the author has some good
feedback when it comes to how dissenting opinions are heard on the left, but
it's overshadowed by his lack of understanding of the more serious problem of
bias and discrimination of women in tech. (yes, it is a more serious problem
than conservatives being unable to express their views - at least they can
choose to talk or not, even if I'd rather everyone be able to freely share
their views)

~~~
thecupisblue
>but it's overshadowed by his lack of understanding of the more serious
problem of bias and discrimination of women in tech.

Huh I didn't get that, I actually thought he understands there is a problem
with bias and discrimination, but he also points out there are other reasons
why there is not a balance and why there won't be a 50/50 balance and forcing
it might be bad. Now, I don't agree with his writing completely and honestly
haven't done the research to know if it's true or not, and personally feel
like the problem is rooted in education of our young ones.

Still, I'm afraid to speak out on this issue and this is the first time I've
voiced I even partially agree with him. Honestly, I just skipped discussing
this issue.

> The people unhappy with him are frustrated by always having to make the same
> damn argument to the same people who somehow think behavioral evolution is
> the end-all-be-all, as if somehow the computer they're typing on was a
> natural result of that evolution.

I don't get that feeling and that's why I don't want to comment on it. I get a
feeling like he does, anyone with an opinion that doesn't fit the super-uber-
equality narrative isn't countered with arguments, but attacked, shamed and
"blacklisted". As people in tech, an industry that is supposed to build a
better feature, I believe we should be better than this, we should be rational
and use arguments, we shouldn't attack, shame or fire someone who doesn't
agree with us but discuss it. Really makes me sad and I hope I get to cash out
and leave tech as soon I can. Is it fair that I'm just 25 and don't want to
work on what I love anymore because people have turned it into a toxic
community where differing opinions are assaulted? Isn't equality to all
people, views and opinions what diversity is about?

(Note: This isn't as much as an reply to your post as much as I wanted to
reply but it lead me to a mini-rant. Just like, fuck this, I don't wanna be a
part of this shithole anymore)

~~~
schimmy_changa
I feel ya, this stuff wears me down too. It's exhausting thinking about this
stuff and wondering what the right thing to say or do is.

However, that's exactly what the women and other under-represented minorities
have to handle every day in tech! (and they don't even get the option to skip
discussing the issue)

There's a reason women leave tech, and it's the reason you're feeling _right
now_! And there's a problem if we don't address those feelings.

------
blablabla123
The thing is, the guy wrote what many people think - outside of tech. It just
so happens that techies happen to be very open oftentimes.

I mean, what this person wrote, I heard it on various occasions in different
formulations from various people. Even a woman (a Psychologist student at that
time) once told me she'd rather have a male dentist and a male president.

I imagine tech industry to be brutal for woman, but so are probably a lot of
other areas like construction works, virtually anything with hand-labour
involved, not to speak about the military.

Anyways, it's great that people in the tech industry speak what they think.
Maybe things change faster this way.

~~~
untog
> The thing is, the guy wrote what many people think - outside of tech.

I agree, but that's also at the core of my (internal) confusion about it. His
arguments are not new, at all. As far as I could tell he doesn't present any
new evidence to back up his argument, either. So, to those who say "it is
important that he spoke out, and that we have this debate": when does this
debate end? Assuming we _have_ the debate and reach a conclusion, what happens
when I post a similar manifesto in six month's time asserting another
conclusion without presenting any new evidence? Surely by that logic we need
to have the same debate over again? It'll never end.

"We must debate!" feels very objective until you admit to yourself (as I
freely will) that you're coming to this with a preconceived opinion, and won't
be content until the debate is settled _in the way you think it should be
settled_.

~~~
wutbrodo
> As far as I could tell he doesn't present any new evidence to back up his
> argument, either. So, to those who say "it is important that he spoke out,
> and that we have this debate": when does this debate end?

The problem is that (inside Google and elsewhere) the debate ended by fiat,
not because one side made their case better; and it didn't end in favor of a
side with tons of science to back it (not even close). My money is on there
not being much of an average difference between the population of each gender
when it comes to technical talent. But much more importantly, I'm aware that
the science is far from conclusive on the topic, since socialization can be
pretty different to untangle. The argument at places like Google is that
looking at demographic differences in a population and deciding that it must
be caused by discrimination is just assuming that nothing else could possibly
contribute.

> "We must debate!" feels very objective until you admit to yourself (as I
> freely will) that you're coming to this with a preconceived opinion, and
> won't be content until the debate is settled in the way you think it should
> be settled.

The irony is thick in this sentence. How do you not understand that if both
sides claim the other does this, _the one that's actively trying to shut down
scrutiny of their claims_ is by far in the weaker position?

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Does it matter, for Google, whether the gap in interest-in-engineering is
biological or social? Either way, there's more men doing the sorts of things
that get them the skills they need to succeed as an engineer at Google, and
it's in Google's best interest to hire every engineer with the necessary
skills.

~~~
wutbrodo
No, it doesn't matter, but it is sufficient if not necessary. Google's answer
to socialization problems was going upstream: getting "work in tech/Google"
into girls' minds earlier and earlier to combat ostensible messages pushing
them away from tech. But it's all founded on the assumption that any
population difference in ability must be fixable, if not at the hiring level,
then earlier.

------
Const-me
In US, only 1.5% plumbers are female: [http://www.contractormag.com/blog/stop-
calling-yourself-plum...](http://www.contractormag.com/blog/stop-calling-
yourself-plumbette)

In IT, in 2008 women held 25% of all professional IT jobs in the US:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorikozlowski/2012/03/22/women-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorikozlowski/2012/03/22/women-
in-tech-female-developers-by-the-numbers/#629291461760)

An order of magnitude difference.

I have never seen discussions about gender-based discrimination for plumbers,
or biological or sociological factors preventing women to seek career in
plumbing. My personal opinion, on average, women just don’t want to do
plumbing. And the society seems to be OK with that.

I wonder what’s so special with the software development that causes companies
to do positive discrimination, gender-based hiring targets, and other stuff
these companies apparently do in the US?

~~~
kamaal
>>I have never seen discussions about gender-based discrimination for plumbers

In general only jobs which have a high value of effort/money-earned are
preferable to anybody.

Im pretty sure most plumbers don't get into plumbing because they are
passionate about it.

Also curiously you can be passionate about something if you earn well doing
it. So, ultimately its all about home much money you can make, at what effort.

Make plumbing a high paying job and calls for diversity in plumbing will go up
like no tomorrow.

~~~
ubertaco
>Im pretty sure most plumbers don't get into plumbing because they are
passionate about it.

I'm pretty sure most office desk jockey computer nerds don't get into being
stuck sitting at a desk all day because they're passionate about it.

I'm pretty sure most professional head-trauma punching bags don't get into
being an NFL defensive tackle because they're passionate about it.

I'm pretty sure most accountants don't get into hunching over spreadsheets and
calculators because they're passionate about it.

See? I can concoct blatantly-false statements from _lots_ of my-opinions-are-
universal bubbles!

~~~
kamaal
I said exactly what you are saying.

Most people chose jobs because they pay well for little work.

Nobody really calls for diversity among coal miners.

------
kristianc
The major elephant in the room here, which the memo doesn't seem to address,
is that as late as the 1960's, computer programming was seen as a natural
career for young women. Has biology changed that much in the last fifty years?

~~~
geofft
This is the one place where I actually do agree with the author of the essay:
computer programming is now seen as a high-status field, so it's worth it for
men who seek high-status careers to displace women and construct
rationalizations. It wasn't high-status in the 1960s.

~~~
chrisco255
Operating a computer in the 1960s was arguably more high-status. Computers
occupied entire rooms and were operated mainly by military, government, and
academic institutions.

~~~
chrisco255
[https://www.slideshare.net/lenbass/programming-in-
the-1960s](https://www.slideshare.net/lenbass/programming-in-the-1960s)

------
pnathan
What happens when the lone voice is in the right, and the mass of people are
in the wrong, and all of the preponderance of current science and wisdom is
against the lone voice?

It's no great stretch to find examples through history of this in different
social contexts.

~~~
s73ver
If the preponderance of current science is against the lone voice, then it's
highly likely that the lone voice is not in the right.

~~~
arnioxux
"Science" is often thrown around to justify things it shouldn't.

Sociology hasn't had as much success as "hard" sciences so we should
distinguish between the two. (for example with the controversy around major
psychology experiments being unreplicable etc)

------
nyxtom
Change is hard for everyone with any systemic bias in the game. Outrage is a
byproduct of that systemic bias and comes from a primal level need to
eliminate a percieved threat. It's quite natural of a reaction. But it only
proves the authors point overall.

Nevertheless, someone can have a seemingly innocent and accurate observation
such as: there appear to be less women in tech overall and we seem to be
forcing policies which appear to reduce the overall quality of our
performance. Some of this may be subjective, "quality" for instance.

His conclusions and assumptions may or may not be accurate and may not make a
difference in moving the needle forward. Some might be accurate on some
standard deviation level. But he doesn't deserve to be fired or harmed for
putting out his opinion.

It is natural to want to be outraged by something that is interpreted as a
threat and there is significant historical context for doing so. Hostility
towards women working at all as one example. Or perhaps for instance, the
"bro"/"frat" culture of silicon valley being pretty rampant. A side effect of
hiring people straight out of college perhaps?

The only way to be constructive in this is to continue to challenge the status
quo. Violent outrage does nothing but prove the point that we are incapable of
getting past any systemic bias to make our case heard.

I appreciate the effort to try and question the effectiveness of a policy and
question the bias of a percieved political echo chamber. If there is
historical precendent (and I claim there is) that refutes the underlying
argument, then state those clearly.

One such example is that women have repeatedly mentioned exiting the field
because of how they are typically treated by their peers. It is a bit ironic
that the author mentions tribalism as a problem at Google because exclusivity
of women, bros promoting bros, and the overall bias is quite obvious in the
industry. Another commenter mentioned this here, but the obvious historical
context for programming and computer science being a natural fit for women in
the early days. Social tribalism and the echo chamber indeed has everything to
do with the problem, but not in the way I think many are implying. To wit, I
actually think that also approaching diversity of thought would be beneficial
to Google - perhaps even help eliminate the same homogenous bro culture; just
as much as it might help reduce progressive bias or any other systemic bias
that plagues the community from hiring diverse talent.

------
sbierwagen
It's interesting to note that the only reason this is a news story is because
"a Google engineer" wrote it. If the essay had been published entirely
anonymously, then it would have attracted no attention at all, like a dozen
similar essays.

The story is the source, not the content.

~~~
JoshTriplett
The story is not "a Google engineer wrote it". The story is "a large fraction
of Google circulated and endorsed it". _That 's_ what makes this news.

~~~
tptacek
A large fraction of Google circulated it. Is there evidence that a large
fraction endorsed it? That's not remotely the impression I get.

~~~
camperman
More than a third of respondents to his survey either strongly or almost
agreed with the documents point of view.

------
mcguire
I'm a little confused when he writes, "Yet a newer form of discrimination is
starting to greatly alarm me, and that’s discrimination against anyone with a
point of view that’s deemed offensive to the tech majority."

This has been the case for as long as I've been in the industry. Heck, it's
probably older than the industry. Simply saying, "there’s still far too little
diversity" has been enough to get you mocked, downvoted, shouted down, and
generally dismissed for decades. There's nothing at all new about it.

------
guelo
So you like free speech except when people use their speech to call out speech
they don't like?

Let's stop bullshitting, this isn't about any core principles, it's just
another battleline in our ugly politics.

------
PrimalDual
When I first read the manifesto, It sounded like a regurgitation of Jordan
Peterson's content. After being immersed in his lectures I found it very hard
to contradict his points not just because of his eloquence but also because of
his method for vetting ideas. I am very glad that his stuff has gained so much
popularity because I may finally find counterpoints stick against his
arguments.

~~~
merdreubu
There's also a fair amount of Jonathan Haidt influence.

------
ben_jones
Can we also acknowledge that a lot of groups are _profiting_ from outrage?

------
artursapek
Why are people so outraged at this guy? I read what he wrote and it honestly
sounds like he's trying to be helpful. It's at least polite. The knee-jerk
"SEXIST!" reactions to him come off extremely self-righteous and immature.

There are a hundred other male-dominated careers and I never, ever hear women
complain about not being equally represented in them. Why? Because they're not
attractive careers.

~~~
mc32
Another thing is people are outraged that the engineer seems to denigrate a
whole group of people as not as good engineers, and the eng is doing groups a
disservice but when people bash "whitemaleness" you don't see the same
reaction of, well, please don't lump all while males into one group, don't
denigrate a whole group.

A noticeable issue is in google and other tech cos it's totally okay for
people to virtue signal against white males, even Asian males. Any other group
and you're treading on very thin ice. You're likely to get summoned to see an
HR rep.

------
mvindahl
Like it or not, I think speaking openly against defined corporate dogma will
get you in trouble in most places. He should probably have realized that and
adjusted his course accordingly. Outright being fired is a pretty harsh
sanction, and in this case it probably only came to this after the story blew
up and Google had to exert damage control in public. A more conventional
response would be an uncomfortable talk with your manager and the implicit
warning of your career being sidetracked. That alone is enough to keep most
people in line.

I don't think the core of this matter is if he was right or wrong, or if he
overstepped the red line of PC. I think it's about any culture or any company
having things that you shouldn't say. You can challenge these but you do so at
your own peril. I think if a Google employee wrote a ten-page, widely
circulated, manifesto on the ickiness of ad trackers, he or she would get into
similar trouble.

------
mempko
Just as he has a right to say it, I have a right to argue, complain, ridicule,
etc. Why should his view be given a platform while mine is denounced. Seems
people want to silence his critics. Controversial views are not safe from
criticism just as any other views.

------
0xdeadbeefbabe
> I don’t think it made much sense, and what I did understand of it seemed
> very poorly argued.

As someone who forms opinions, I care more about the argument than how poorly
it was argued. Is it biased, or even racist or sexist, of me to have such a
view?

Edit: I wish the author of this piece sounded less frightened.

~~~
jff
I'd be frightened too if I was writing an article on Techcrunch that could
potentially be seen as supporting the memo too much, since as we've seen
that's the sort of thing that gets people fired once Twitter finds out about
it.

------
elihu
> But this groupthink terrifies me when it’s used to bully people for
> exercising their right to free speech. How will we know what people are
> truly thinking if we rush to silence them?

I think "right to free speech" is a weak and kind of scary argument to be
making here. Inside a corporation, you don't have the same right to free
speech you would have on the outside. HR can fire employees for things that
wouldn't get you arrested for saying in public.

To quote the alt-text for [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

> I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a
> position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're
> saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that
> it's not literally illegal to express.

I think a better argument would be that the "manifesto" wasn't actually saying
anything particularly controversial, it was just a statement of opinion that
many reasonable people would agree with. Perhaps it contains some assumptions
that aren't backed up by recent research, but unknowingly saying something
that's not true shouldn't ordinarily be a fireable offense.

I would rather work at an employer where employees feel free to discuss hard
problems that are relevant to the work environment for which there aren't any
easy answers than one where minority opinions (or even majority opinions that
contradict the leadership) are silenced. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to
work at an employer where people felt free to say deliberately offensive
things without repercussion.

~~~
int_19h
> I think "right to free speech" is a weak and kind of scary argument to be
> making here. Inside a corporation, you don't have the same right to free
> speech you would have on the outside. HR can fire employees for things that
> wouldn't get you arrested for saying in public.

It's an argument that certainly makes a lot of sense from a libertarian
perspective. But those of us on the left have already dismissed similar
arguments - we know that when private commercial entities are sufficiently
powerful, the limitations that they impose on their employees, customers etc
can be so strong that they cannot be unchallenged (see the entire history of
workers' rights movement, basically). We consider this immoral, and advocate
for various limitations on the ability of businesses to do whatever they want.

If free speech is a public good, then why shouldn't the same standard be
applied to it? I'm not even talking about legal aspects here, but purely the
ethical side of things - shouldn't we at least condemn a situation where an
entire industry effectively suppresses some opinions using its economic levers
(employment among them)?

And if it's not considered a public good, then that should be explicitly
stated, because that used to be one of the pretty basic tenets of liberalism.

~~~
elihu
The United States has historically given very broad protections to free speech
in public, which is something I support and am very glad of. There is some
kind of speech that isn't appropriate in a corporate setting. There are some
kinds of speech that I think should be legally protected both inside and
outside a corporation. I think the manifesto should fall inside the category
of protected speech, as he was only saying things that a reasonable person
might think given what he saw inside of Google. Workers should be free to
criticize management decisions or comment on working conditions.

There are some things that aren't okay, though. I wouldn't want to work with
someone who decorates their cubicle with iconography commemorating the third
Reich, or who makes unwanted remarks about which of his or her attractive
coworkers they would most like to sleep with.

I don't know exactly what the criteria should be for what speech inside a
corporation should be protected and what should not, but I'm not comfortable
with the idea that an employee has no right whatsoever to any free speech in
the course of their job, but I don't think that an employee has exactly the
same free speech rights while they're on the job that they would have in any
public place.

~~~
int_19h
Thank you for a well-reasoned reply.

I broadly agree with what you say. There are some forms of speech that
shouldn't be easy to suppress by economic pressure from actors in a dominant
position (like corporation vs a single employee), but where that line is in
the workplace, is certainly different compared to where it is in off-work
public speech. And it's not just about offensiveness of opinion - the
corporation is also an actor with certain legal rights, and to unduly
constrain them would also be inappropriate.

I would draw the line a bit differently, though. IMO, the distinguishing point
here is that this guy wrote his manifesto on an _internal_ corporate network.
So he used the company-provided communication channel, and targeted other
employees of the company, specifically to discuss how said company should be
run. Is this still public speech? I'm not sure. It feels like the company
should at least be able to control the communication channel. While yes,
ideally, it should be possible to raise criticism internally as well, I think
that is also best left as an internal company policy. If its owners think that
their business run better if it's managed by yes-men, in general or on certain
topics, they're probably wrong, but it's their right to be wrong in this
manner.

Speaking out in public - on your own time, using public channels, and not as a
company employee - is another matter, that I think deserves more protections.

------
Shank
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

No matter how you read the original manifesto or the responses to it, I think
there's a level of separation one must achieve before they pass judgement on
it. If you let yourself live in the binary black-and-white world that the
manifesto author created, where views are either left _or_ right, you're bound
to get fired up. This is a natural reaction to the fact that party
identification and attacking identity tend to trigger much more primal
responses than if party was removed. In my humble opinion, Google is a very
good example of a company with a mixed culture. They're a hugely conservative
company in how they manage their finances, pay taxes, hire employees, and
operate their company to the normal world. At the same time, they attempt to
create "Googley" spaces where thinking and diversity are promoted. Are these
necessarily right wing and left wing ideologies? Maybe. But it's definitely a
mix -- you don't see Google spending 100% of its money on social programs, nor
do you see it spending 0% of its money on social programs.

Does the manifesto author have a reason to write? Yes. He's clearly scared,
and clearly feels attacked, perhaps on a regular basis, in the workplace. Like
many an engineer before him, he attempted to identify the problem and
presented several solutions that may or may not work.

Now, were the solutions he presented the correct ones? I personally am
inclined to say no. Just as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. The article was eloquent and well pointed at specific
"problem areas" the author presumed to be at fault. The author did not provide
anything to corroborate his hypothesis that things like removal of empathy
would do any good to help the situation at Google. Similarly, the author's
attack on outreach programs aimed at minorities did not make any effort to
show how these programs were exclusively harming non-minority participants.

Now, obviously, there are questions on the other side of the plane too --
specifically on whether or not diversity initiatives help or whether or not
empathy helps either. I haven't done this research -- but the author hasn't
done his research, so I feel this is fair. I'm just pointing out that Google
is a for-profit company. They tend to make decisions that are economically
viable, and they may or may not have done research on these types of things in
the past -- though I would assume they have. Again, this is a company infamous
for A/B testing shades of blue for engagement. It would be silly if they were
burning their cash pile on programs known to be detrimental or non-working.

To summarize: if you write a manifesto, I expect you to pull some figures and
prove some points before you start pulling the political party card and
getting everyone riled up about your thoughts and opinions. If you read a
manifesto, don't conflate perceptions as fact without examining and thinking
about them closely for a long period of time. It will ONLY lead to pointless
arguing and senseless fighting, while the real issue gets ignored.

------
11thEarlOfMar
Likewise, are they different enough to justify the massive disparity in
nursing?

As of 2011, 90% of nurses in the US were women[0]. That's even more skewed
than tech. Moreover, the average income of a nurse in Silicon Valley is $100k.
To my knowledge, there is no outcry or movement to bring more men into the
nursing profession.

[0]
[https://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupa...](https://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupations.pdf)

~~~
Impossible
This is constantly brought up as a counterpoint to women in tech on HN and it
seems like no one that uses this argument ever does any research. Trying to
get more men in nursing has been a thing for a very long time, in many ways
its like the inverse of tech. A quick Google of "men in nursing" would show
you a ton of resources and opinion pieces that look like a mirror of women in
tech initiatives. Just because you aren't aware of the struggles of a given
field because you aren't close to it doesn't mean they don't exist.

With nursing it's very clearly a social issue. Nursing is seen as a women's
job even though having more male nurses would improve the quality of health
care.

There are also other female heavy professions where there it is seen as
important to bring more men in to increase diversity. Generally anything that
has to do with working with children (childcare, especially teaching). In
education getting more male teachers, especially minority male teachers is
seen as important to provide young men with role models.

~~~
geggam
Yet with constant and proactive pushes to increase women in tech and men in
nursing it doesn't happen.

Ever think maybe men generally dont want to be a nurse and women generally
dont want to be a nerd ?

~~~
Impossible
In both cases there are gendered cultural associations built into the
profession. Nursing is definitely viewed as feminine and software engineering
is is still considered a masculine profession, although that perception is
slowly changing as software becomes a more important part of everyone's life.
Even if you get past that, the active shaming and harassment of people that
enter or attempt to enter the respective fields keeps a lot of people out or
drives them to quit.

The "men just don't want to be nurses and women just don't want to be
programmers" standpoint usually assumes some immutable property (often
genetics) that defends the status quo, and ignores mountains of other obvious
problems that might lead to gender imbalances in a given profession. Obviously
men and women are different, but there are many people that might enjoy and
thrive in a profession they wouldn't otherwise consider because it's "not for
them."

~~~
poohblahoyamo
I would highly encourage men to go into nursing while discounting women. You
don't get the hazing and the shit if you are a man and mostly the good parts,
okay you get called to lift more shit... There is that.

------
mcappleton
Women don't go into tech because they don't like it. Boys like legos, girls
like dolls. Sure there are occasional tomboys but the fact is most girls just
don't like engineering.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
Don't try to gaslight people. Posting terrible arguments for sides you
disagree with is lame epistemic pollution.

~~~
mcappleton
Lol denying reality to support your fantasy is pretty lame too

------
whipoodle
Maybe it's okay for people to be outraged about some things.

~~~
fireflash38
Sure is! People can be offended all they want. Where things get really iffy is
when they want 'justice'. It often means that they try to get that person
fired or lambasted in front of their peers. I don't see how that's at all
constructive, let alone 'justice'.

At the very least, it leads to even more divisiveness, instead of rational
discussion.

As a thought experiment: have you ever seen someone change their mind or
worldview as a result of being insulted & fired?

~~~
navait
My manager threatened one of my co-workers with termination if they didn't
take a more proactive approach towards making the code he wrote more robust.
He took out specific examples of shit code he wrote, and had us criticize it
and the mindset that created it. It changed how he programmed for the better
and his outlook towards his job.

~~~
stagbeetle
The first step is to want to help.

Too many, all across the spectrum, have his mindset that people that do or
think things they don't like should be destroyed and locked away from
"civilized society." A common rebuttal I see from these sorts, after being
questioned why they don't take it upon themselves to sit down and understand
one another (I will concede there is a very very very small minority that this
shouldn't be done with, but you're unlikely to ever interact with them), is
that it's not their duty to help these people.

Unfortunately, this makes the issue worse when you start exiling certain
groups and radicalized with hate.

Here's an interesting article (isolated incident) where those with extreme
views were shown compassion and understanding, and ultimately disavowed their
ideas:

 _Black Man Gets KKK Members To Disavow By Befriending Them:_
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-man-daryl-davis-
be...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-man-daryl-davis-befriends-
kkk-documentary-accidental-courtesy_us_585c250de4b0de3a08f495fc)

------
russelluresti
Regarding the "is it okay to fire this engineer" argument the author is making
- here's what I'd ask the author. If you were managing the team this person
was on, would you feel comfortable placing a female engineer on the team to
work with him knowing the he fundamentally believes women are inadequate
engineers?

That answer should be "No."

By that alone, that engineer has created a toxic team environment.

You can't put a female engineer on his team, he can't work across teams with
other female engineers, he shouldn't be interviewing potential female
engineers given his obvious bias against them, etc.

If this isn't a reason to fire someone - what is?

~~~
SamReidHughes
"knowing the he fundamentally believes women are inadequate engineers?"

He doesn't believe that at all, and I'd like to hear why you think he does.

------
losteverything
< But this groupthink terrifies me when it’s used to bully people for
exercising their right to free speech. How will we know what people are truly
thinking if we rush to silence them?

This is called growing up.

We dont need to know how everyone thinks. We dont want to know either.

We tailor our words to our audience. We avoid saying or typing dumb things.

We only say what we really feel to our confidante.

These outwardly stupid writings are simply that: bad childish judgement.

~~~
chrisco255
Growing up is being able to hear an opposing viewpoint without automatically
dismissing their intelligence or morality. Growing up is understanding that no
one is immune from the influence of their peers, upbringing, or background.
Growing up is engaging in a constructive conversation instead of shaming
someone into silence or unfriending or firing someone in a knee jerk manner.
Growing up is accepting and appreciating our differences in thought and
understanding that the vast majority of people actually mean well.

Are there limits to this line of thinking? Sure, if someone is being a
completely disrespectful asshole, that's when they deserve to be shut down. If
someone puts forward a thoughtful essay...even a half thoughtful essay...even
if that rocks you to your core...growing up is realizing that even your values
are not absolutely correct.

Discussion is the only way we ever get to engage with other points of view.
Discussion is an invitation and opportunity to be persuaded otherwise.

~~~
losteverything
The dude was fired. Bad judgement.... Not some significant philosophical issue
here..

I bet a 45 aged techie would know better and still have a job

------
mnm1
This idea that all opinions are equal and need to be respected is ridiculous
and needs to stop. Politics is real and political opinions and actions have
real consequences. Not all political opinions should be respected. In fact,
it's our duty as citizens to evaluate and mock / scorn the opinions of others
that we see as toxic. No one is protected from this and people that think they
are, are feeling entitled to something that they do not deserve.

Protections of free speech apply to government actions only. This isn't a free
speech case. Google can do whatever it wants, including firing the poster of
the manifesto. If Google, for whatever reason or no reason, doesn't want such
thinking in its organization, it should have no qualms about firing the
poster. There is no safe space, except from the government, for political
opinions. The poster should know that by know. People have been fired for way
less. Many companies would not want a toxic person like that in their midst
and that's perfectly fine. It creates a toxic workplace and brings everyone
else down. That's a great reason to fire someone.

~~~
jblow
I find pretty unconscionable this line of rhetoric, which I see a lot lately
from people on the left: "this isn't a free speech issue, because it's not the
government doing the censoring".

I want to live in a society that embraces liberal values like freedom of
expression. Preventing the government from encroaching on those values is a
good idea. But if we then go and clamp down on those freedoms everywhere else,
then it won't _matter_ that the government doesn't do it -- nobody will be
able to express themselves freely anyway.

This seems to be the society that the 'progressives' want and it disturbs me
enough to have completely alienated me from that movement, and I am far from
the only one, so I don't know why they aren't stopping and questioning the
efficacy of this philosophy right about now.

If we are really a society that embraces liberal values, then we want those
values to be upheld throughout the society, not just in the part explicitly
controlled by laws.

~~~
mnm1
So then the government should step in and provide protections against his
firing? Should they tell Google, no you can't fire this guy even though you
don't like him and he's bringing down the morale of your whole workforce?
Should that apply to someone who might actually be a neo-Nazi or become one
during an employment term? Should Google be forced to hire / unable to fire
people tattooed with swastikas or ones that verbally support ISIS or any other
number of despicable positions?

And how is the government going to choose the right side of enforcement here?
Company A wants to fire an employee for X and now we have government
intervention to the utmost degree. Yeah, that's exactly the kind of society
that "embraces liberal values like freedom of expression." No one has a right
to a job or to not have their opinions trashed because they're stupid, cruel,
or whatever they may be. If you're complaining that corporations have too much
power, I agree, but that's a completely different point.

~~~
jblow
No, I didn't say anything of the kind.

I am saying that this kind of mob shaming-and-silencing mentality is
deplorable. And if you choose to engage in that, then you will alienate a lot
of people, including many of the best people.

I am not saying anything about government, and as I said in my previous
posting, I find it weird that people keep jumping to this. We're talking about
ethics, not law.

~~~
mnm1
At least we agree that some acts of expression are deplorable, just not which
ones.

------
JoshTriplett
> He is one individual in a company that employs more than 72,000 people. Why
> has Silicon Valley spent the weekend talking about him

Because we're not talking about a memo posted by one random engineer that got
the reaction it deserved for declaring a large fraction of his co-workers sub-
standard engineers (among the myriad broken things in that memo). That would
have been a story for all of five minutes.

Instead, we're talking about how a large fraction of a major tech company
quickly and enthusiastically endorsed it and circulated it.

"Hey, finally someone says it ought to be OK for me to denigrate my co-
workers, treat them as sub-standard engineers and sub-standard humans, and
propagate junk science to prop up my prejudice! I feel validated!"

That this is even _remotely_ a popular sentiment, rather than something that
gets you treated like you just said "the earth is flat", is the story here.

~~~
SamReidHughes
"for declaring a large fraction of his co-workers sub-standard engineers"

Are you blatantly lying about the content of the memo? Like, I wouldn't think
so. I think you're hallucinating your own meaning to it. Would you mind
explaining the thought process that lead you form this representation?

~~~
seppin
> I think you're hallucinating your own meaning to it.

Welcome to politics. A single event merely kicks off a discussion that people
want to have, not actually debating what was said/done.

It's a boring game to play over and over.

