
Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity - gbarc888
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-08/google-can-t-seem-to-tolerate-diversity
======
naturalgradient
What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept
into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst
highly educated people.

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.

~~~
kafkaesq
_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 ..._

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_."

~~~
nxsynonym
That's kind of the point though.

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?

~~~
bilbo0s
But Google isn't really "censor"-ing anyone.

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.

~~~
nxsynonym
I think it would be more like if your Son said "what if I called my sister a
c-word" and you kicked him out of the house and cut him off completely.

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.

~~~
kafkaesq
From the context it sounds like you're talking about the actions of some
hypothetical _teenage_ son, here.

Recall that the employee that was fired is an _adult_ (and apparently in his
30s, at least).

~~~
BlackLotus89
Yeah he ist talking about the hypthetical son, but obviously not because of
the age but because of the relation. The point was rule through fear.
(Siblings don't speak up anymore - coworkers don't speak up anymore)

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.

------
eco
> Media outlets like TechCrunch, Gizmodo and Motherboard jumped on board to
> declare the memo an “Anti-Diversity Manifesto.” It appears that the
> ideological echo chamber extends beyond Google’s campus.

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.

~~~
pseudalopex
There have been several very active threads about this incident, the
conversation has been mostly people talking past each other, the headline is
inflammatory, and the article adds nothing new to the discussion.

~~~
eco
If people want to talk about it, let them talk about it. If you don't want to
read them talking about it, don't read them talking about it. It's weird
hearing anyone claim we need less discussion and communication about anything.
An unproductive conversation won't hurt anyone. If anything it'll teach
everyone we are further apart on an issue than anyone thought and that maybe
we need to step back and think about the issue more broadly.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> An unproductive conversation won't hurt anyone.

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.

------
ithilglin909
Here, here. I’m a software engineer who happens to be a woman. Mr. Damore's
piece didn’t offend me at all. There were parts I agreed with and parts I
didn’t agree with. I’m more bothered by Google’s response(s) which seemed to
reveal an incredible lack of critical reading ability, and far more disturbed
by the levels of harshly enforced group-think that seem to increasingly
dominate supposedly intelligent circles.

~~~
canoebuilder
_incredible lack of critical reading ability_

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.

------
throwa34943way
The problem here is the people assuming "diversity" means actual diversity.

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.

------
sidlls
What's more likely: the author was fired for suggesting alternate methods of
improving diversity at Google or the author was fired for repeating
unsupported gender stereotypes, offering alternate methods that themselves
played on gender stereotypes, and creating an environment in which he would
not be able to effectively carry out his responsibilities as a result of
promoting gender stereotypes?

~~~
leereeves
> unsupported

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...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-
Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf)

~~~
noncoml
I don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no
citations at all. Eg:

> 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.

~~~
jorgemf
Hey, from the original document (I have added the references for you):

\- 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....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism](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.

~~~
noncoml
> Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the
> article?

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.

~~~
jorgemf
Now I can reply: I 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.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
For hot-button issues (or maybe just for heavily-commented articles?), HN
sometimes limits the reply rate.

~~~
jorgemf
No I think the reason is that they keep flagging and unflagging the post. And
when it is flagged you cannot comment anymore

------
jshevek
"If the goal was to confirm Damore's thesis, Team Google is doing a great
job."

Yes, indeed.

This is something we, as a culture, need to look at more carefully.

------
blfr
Has he set Google up for this blowup or do Americans just usually have
complaints to federal regulators written and ready to send?

 _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...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-
fired-memo.html)

~~~
19guid
I think it's more likely that there's a history here that we're not aware of.
His complaint suggests he's been arguing with Google's management for some
time, and that this memo was the last straw.

------
gobugat
> "Companies don’t have viewpoints."

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.

~~~
fwn
> Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments.

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.

~~~
azinman2
But it’s not civil when you suggest there’s inherently biological reasons for
your coworkers to be inferior to you.

~~~
nxsynonym
But it is. Just because he holds one opinion does not mean that he will act on
it, expect google to act on it, or cause harm because of it.

Ideas don't hurt people. People with no way to voice their ideas and opinions
become angry, and then hurt other people.

~~~
azinman2
Guessing you’re not a minority in anyway. When others who aren’t a member of
your class tell you anything that’s inherent to your class DOES hurt people...
such ideas are often used to restrict what you can do or set you up for
failure in society in a particular way because ideas spread. They also do a
lot of internal self-harm just from being expressed by others.

It’s bad enough to get that in life in general, but then to get it at work as
well....

~~~
nxsynonym
You know what they say about assuming things...

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.

~~~
azinman2
You asked for a substantive reply given the downvotes by others, and I gave
you one. Are you going to reply to it or focus on the guess (which I called
out as a guess... hardly an assumption).

------
rwcarlsen
Here is a link to the guy's original memo (with all his references that have
been removed from much popular media coverage of its content):
[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-
Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf)

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?

------
jorgemf
I find it funny he was fired by "promoting gender stereotypes" when what he
wants it to evaluate each individual without taking account any stereotype.
And then Google has policies for increasing the minority diversity (like
helping women to get in tech). Just the fact you have programs target for
specific demographics supports the fact that there are "gender stereotypes".
Not to mention all the analytics tools that split the population by gender.

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.

------
trequartista
Google is in a no-win situation here. Fire the guy - get these kind of
reactions about not listening to opposing voices. Not fire the guy -
incendiary reactions from the general public.

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.

~~~
jorgemf
I think Google could have done things better. First, do not fire the guy the
next day the article is in the public. Second, taking time and create a
committee to evaluate the situation and decide the actions to take. Third,
express in public they official opinion as a company and what they really do
in the diversity programs (I still not sure if they have positive
discrimination or/and just increase the pool of candidates from minorities).
Forth, fire the guy or arrange any deal with him if that is what they have to
do giving him an option to make clear any statement he did. I think the guy is
intelligent enough to know the impact of the article he wrote and would leave
the company by himself to avoid more internal conflicts even when a lot of
people think he is right.

------
danschumann
It's hard to say things that can easily be misconstrued. The wage gap: guess
what, women don't take high paying dangerous oil rigging jobs. Men suffer 90%
of workplace deaths. Those deaths are high paying. It's unpopular, because it
sucks, but it's true, so lets not tabloid-ize it.

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.

------
tevonsb
I find it rather sad that, before writing this comment I had to reconsider
what I wanted to say , because, as a young engineer, I am worried how my
opinions will effect my job prospects.

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.

~~~
jorgemf
Too late. I already took an screen shot of your comment and will post it
public tomorrow and they will fire you. (so sad this can be true for some of
the people commenting here, I am even scared that my comments in this topic
here can have consequences in the future).

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.

------
grey-area
_It’s worth noting that the author has a Ph.D. in systems biology from Harvard
University._

This footnote is incorrect according to Harvard he never completed a PhD.

------
dangerlibrary
Is any organization of meaningful size (# of employees, revenue, market cap -
pick your metric) handling diversity issues in a way that completely satisfies
the "proportional representation of the population" metric? Are there any
success stories that one could use as case studies?

~~~
canoebuilder
_" proportional representation of the population" metric?_

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?

~~~
gjulianm
I think diversity is not exactly an end in and on itself, but a way to reduce
general inequality. Increasing the number of woman in fishing, or logging, or
coal mining is not going to have as much effect on the general economic/social
power of women as doing the same on bigger, richer industries such as
programming. As resources are limited, you want to be as efficient as possible
and that will probably shift the focus away from industries that are not that
influential. Of course the fact that they're not as attractive is also
relevant, but it seems that being non-attractive and being less important are
correlated features in an industry sector.

~~~
canoebuilder
_I think diversity is not exactly an end in and on itself, but a way to reduce
general inequality._

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.

------
tptacek
This Bloomberg blog post doesn't add anything more to the discussion of what
happened than would any >100 word comment, drawn at random from the biggest HN
thread on this fiasco. All it's doing here is giving us a license to
pointlessly recapitulate the same debate we had yesterday and the day before.

Stuff like this is what the flag button on the site is for.

~~~
onli
The media, that before completely warped what the memo is saying, now
reporting differently is interesting, relevant to HN and newsworthy, and not
something we saw yesterday.

~~~
tevonsb
Absolutely seconded, this is the first article with this tone that I've seen

------
positivity89
Does no one see what's happening? This whole thing is a massive sign of
progress. Men are deeply scared of an increasingly growing population of
female developers. This is a pretty significant moment of anxiety and fear.
That's good. It means there's change. It's no coincidence that more women are
joining CS AP courses than ever before:

"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/](https://www.wired.com/story/ap-computer-science-2017/)

------
macspoofing
I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really _that_ big of a deal
that it a) got all the press that it got and b) that it required a personal
condemnation from "Head of Diversity" and the CEO - who will now hold a town-
hall to, I guess, denounce it even more?

The entire thing seems like a big nothing-burger from every side.

~~~
ucaetano
> I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really that big of a deal
> that it

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.

~~~
macspoofing
>I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues
discussed in the essay.

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.

~~~
MBCook
I think what the GP meant is that if you're a young white guy this all seems a
bit accedemic because your job isn't in direct question. Perhaps it would be
harder to get hired in the future.

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.

~~~
macspoofing
>I think what the GP meant is that if you're a young white guy

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?

~~~
ucaetano
> I know what he meant.

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.

~~~
macspoofing
>No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone

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?

~~~
ucaetano
> Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else?

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 :)

~~~
pottersbasilisk
You think you won the argument but all youve done is created 10 more another
trump supporters in silicon valley no less.

------
jungletime
Apparently Jordan Peterson will have an interview with the google memo guy on
his youtube channel today. Just curious how this will go down, since youtube
already took down Jordan's channel last week, before brining it back without
explanation, fueling many conspiracy theories. Jordan is probably the first to
layout a coherent logical, scientific argument against Identity Politics, that
seems to have inspired the google memo.

~~~
manigandham
Flagged discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967693](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967693)

------
skylark
I don't have strong feelings about the original memo, but the media coverage
has been an absolute circus.

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.

~~~
MBCook
I agree with you that given the level of coverage I don't know how Google
could NOT do something. It's becoming a huge distraction and to let it
continue on for a few weeks seems like it would be even worse.

------
baccheion
My time at Google many years ago led me to the conclusion that they are
completely full of it. Many employees are repulsive, off-putting, and enjoy
treating others like nothing. They also couldn't care less about diversity.

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.

------
Mikeb85
I'm glad that there's still at least some truly liberal voices out there.

Regressive neo-liberalism is a cancer on society.

Edit - also sad that this keeps getting flagged. Dissenting opinions and
debate is good for society.

------
tomohawk
This guys mistake was thinking that his organization was interested in
learning. Learning requires admitting you didn't know something or that you
were wrong about something. People who are in diversity leadership positions
are often dogmatic, true believer types. The last thing they will tolerate is
someone trying to tell them that the belief system on which their position is
based might be faulty in some way.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
I find it disturbing that they still link to the censored Gizmodo version.
They should know better and use the original, either the PDF or
[https://diversitymemo.com/](https://diversitymemo.com/)

------
neo4sure
Wow so many hit pieces on how to tolerate sexism.

------
illuminati1911
If companies/people REALLY want to solve the diversity issue, we have to have
open discussion and let even "stupid" opinions be openly shared/discussed.

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.

~~~
MBCook
I think a lot of people ( __on both sides __) feel like we 've had the "stupid
opinions" part of the debate repeatedly for a long time and are tired of
having to put up with hearing the same "stupid" arguments and are ready change
instead of vague platitude and promises.

------
caiob
Wish I could paste that Michael Scott "Thank You" gif here.

------
Froyoh
Oh the irony...

------
canoebuilder
Who wants to discuss the suppression of content on HN?

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.

------
danharaj
What else could Google have done? He made himself a visibly toxic employee to
have on most teams. This might be weird to some people, but at work you have
to work with other people, and while it may be OK to hold <X> belief in
general, advocating for it at work can make it harder for you to work with
others.

Abstract free speech crashes and burns in any situation where you can't select
your peers.

~~~
moduspol
The issue at hand is that it's entirely work-related (it's about Google's
hiring policies) and that it's framed by offended parties entirely as
something it's not (a suggestion that women can't perform in certain roles as
well as men).

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.

