
Fired Google memo writer draws scorn, cheers and a job offer (from Wikileaks) - pseudolus
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-diversity-idUSKBN1AO1WY
======
moxious
This guy touched a nerve, and now he is the latest football in a really toxic
culture war being waged right now. All of the various culture warriors on both
sides are now going to be lining up to take their 15 minutes in the spotlight,
to wear on their sleeves their commitment to their cause (both sides).

The loser in all of this will continue to be any sense of nuance or rational
debate. If he had a point, it's lost now in claims of "anti-diversity". If his
opponents had a point, it's lost now in claims of "PC authoritarianism".

~~~
_ar7
So if we were to have a rational debate, what points did he have, and points
did his opponents have?

~~~
moxious
The original post that started all of this is here:
[http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-
div...](http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-
screed-1797564320)

Some useful ideas in that post which were buried: Google itself has unexamined
biases; There's real fear among some people that they can't speak their mind
on sensitive issues because they might be ostracized for fired for them (which
the author was); Google needs to have an open and honest discussion about the
costs and benefits of our diversity programs; Google needs to focus on
psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

By my count, zero of those were discussed after the memo. Related to the
content of the linked article we're discussing -- the author tried to actually
promote diversity with some ideas (albeit in a hamfisted, and potentially
offensive, way)

His opponents have some points too... (here's a typical response:
[https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-
man...](https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-
manifesto-1e3773ed1788))

The memo is pushing a fairly outdated and unsupported notion of fundamental
biological differences between the genders. The memo did not out and out say
"women can't code" but it sure did seem like that's what he meant. The memo
author did not for even an instant think about what affect his memo would have
on other people, and so whether misinterpreted or not, he may be guilty of
creating a hostile work place. The memo called for "De-emphasize empathy".
This would validly seem to many people like a really bad idea.

On a sensitive cultural issue, engineers will tend to get upset if what they
write/think is misinterpreted. But on emotional issues, you'd best pay
attention to how your message arrives, because it's always more important than
what you intended your message to mean.

His opponents are currently drowning him out, but the way that even they are
doing it isn't terribly intellectually honest. For example, making simple
claims that all of his claims are refuted by decades of science but neglecting
to proffer that science is a fairly normal but annoying intellectually
dishonest thing to do in a debate.

\--

Google got put in a bad situation here. Diversity is a very important cultural
value to them. So they couldn't do nothing. And I also think it's a terrible
idea to fire a person who was explicitly writing about how the company won't
permit open discussion of hard issues. __This is what makes him a culture war
football, because the extremes on both sides will be able to look at this
case, and see all of their worst fears __.

~~~
d3ckard
I do not see "women can't code" anywhere in that memo. I see "women are less
likely to take interest in coding (for biological reasons possibly)" which is
completely different thing.

~~~
moxious
Granted. To this point, I'd say this: more than half the internet read his
memo and understood "women can't code". At some point, it doesn't matter if
that's not what he said. The impact of his work is how people perceive it, not
what he meant. This isn't really fair, but it is so.

One thing that's obvious: the author clearly did engage in broad
generalizations about half of the population; your quoted sentence is proof.
He hedged these statements with others, saying that of course it always
depends on the individual. But when a person makes broad generalizations about
populations, they're always playing with emotional fire. And once people get
bothered and emotional, all of the rational hedging in the world won't save
your job.

------
alexc05
Wikileaks may have started with the best intentions from the "information
needs to be free" playbook (or maybe it has always been corrupt).

But it is very clear for anyone who has been watching, that they are
absolutely operating as an arm of the Russian government now.

They put their "reputation on the line" to denounce the Steele Dossier. I wish
I could remember the other weird calls they've made recently... but there have
been a few.

There has been congressional testimony claiming Wikileaks as a propaganda arm
of the Russian government.

Through the US election they switched their hosting to Russia:
[http://www.stopfake.org/en/wikileaks-switched-to-russian-
web...](http://www.stopfake.org/en/wikileaks-switched-to-russian-web-hosting-
during-election/)

Current CIA director Mike Pompeo: [http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-cia-
boss-wikileaks-is-a-r...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-cia-boss-
wikileaks-is-a-russian-tool)

James Clapper former Director of National Intelligence.
[http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/clapper-wikileaks-is-
russi...](http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/clapper-wikileaks-is-russian-
propaganda-video/)

Not being funny - but I think a job at wikileaks is likely going to get you
walking out the door in handcuffs one day.

~~~
smsm42
Way to drag the Red Scare into a totally unrelated topic.

~~~
alexc05
So the topic isn't entirely unrelated. In fact there is some evidence out
there that the story itself is being artificially amplified by Russian social
media bot accounts.

    
    
        http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/  
        Updated on August 8, 4:28 PM    
    
        The second story related to the firing of 
        a Google employee who wrote an internal 
        manifesto against diversity. In both cases, 
        users amplified existing hashtags as well as
        mainstream news content. Influence operations 
        aim to raise the profile of certain themes and
        issues, but they don't always create the content
        they amplify. This is likely the case with the
        Google story, which has been trending among
        far-right users.
    
        Russia frequently amplifies content related to
        the far-right in both the U.S. and in Europe, 
        but it does so opportunistically. It's easier 
        to amplify something people are already talking 
        about than to create a trend out of thin air.
    

Gamergate was similar. Right wing discord was amplified opportunistically.

These are stories which reasonable shouldn't be more than a "blip" but by
amplifying their importance it serves the Russian strategy. There are a number
of strategic reasons that it benefits their aims.

They sow chaos & discord. Make the fringe appear larger and more powerful than
it is. Embolden & attract people who may have had "leanings" or agreed with
smaller parts of it.

It's a propaganda war. It is totally asymmetric and the USA is getting crushed
by it.

Recognizing that is important.

~~~
smsm42
> the story itself is being artificially amplified by Russian social media bot
> accounts

Any shit (or anything that looks like shit) about US would be amplified,
because the idea they are pushing is "maybe it's crappy here, but you wouldn't
believe how crappy it is _over there_ ". It's a very powerful and very
successful strategy, they didn't invent it (pretty much every totalitarian
regime has used it) but they are surely following it.

> who wrote an internal manifesto against diversity

Useful rule: anybody who writes "manifesto against diversity" didn't read it,
doesn't know anything worthy of mention about it and should be completely
ignored.

> Right wing discord was amplified opportunistically.

 _Every_ discord will be amplified opportunistically. That's what they do. The
right thing to do is to ignore them.

> These are stories which reasonable shouldn't be more than a "blip" but by
> amplifying their importance it serves the Russian strategy.

Russians didn't make it a story. Google and MSM did. Also people throwing a
fit because somebody published a thoughtcrime did.

> They sow chaos & discord.

They sow nothing. Nobody in US watches them. Nobody in US cares about them.
Stop blaming Russians for what Americans do to themselves.

> It's a propaganda war

Maybe. But if it is, it is a propaganda civil war.

> It is totally asymmetric and the USA is getting crushed by it.

On the contrary, USA doesn't even notice it. The rating of any Russian media
outlet in USA is zero. The only way anything gets to the eyes of the public if
US media amplifies it - which now unfortunately they do quite a lot, because
the stupid part of Democrats thinks that blowing up the Red Scare would help
them topple Trump. And they don't care about the collateral damage. Absent
that, the influence of Russian media on the US is zero point zero.

------
Diggsey
Original memo:
[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-
Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf)

Might be worth actually reading it before arguing over whether this kind of
material should be censored and its author shunned.

~~~
YCode
It's a bit ridiculous he was _fired_ , but by the same token I don't buy the
biology story he's telling.

I feel like if he had skipped that and simply made his suggestions then the
memo would have firmer ground to stand on, because then others could say they
support them without giving the impression they are sexist.

------
rhapsodic
This has been flagged as a dupe, but the other posting didn't rise:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14955319](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14955319)

------
khazhou
Did the original title include "(from wikileaks)"? If not, then that's a
curious bit of editorializing, given wikileaks' history with Hillary.

~~~
xiphias
It removed the clickbaity part of the title. Withough that I have to skim the
whole article just to find that information

------
dogruck
If this guy changes his pronoun, heads will explode.

------
rhapsodic
_> James Damore, the engineer who wrote the memo, confirmed his dismissal,
saying in an email to Reuters on Monday that he had been fired for
"perpetuating gender stereotypes"_

It's time to start scouring the Twitter feeds of female Google employees
searching for tweets that perpetuate stereotypes about the male gender, and
report them to Big Brother.

~~~
vernie
Nobody's stopping you. GLHF.

