7 ms·

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign

by pacala 9y ago

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment. Textbook thoughtcrime punishment. The heretic must be isolated and extirpated, with physical violence for good measure. Don't you dare interact with him, or else you'll be ostracized as well.

irl_zebra 9y ago
I believe he's talking about punishing the overt act of publishing this large manifesto and the negative consequences that flow from it. Not the thinking or discussing his views.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  Shouldn't even be talking about it. It's simply not an option. Violence is not acceptable. Period. Discussing it as a repercussion for a possibly misguided manifesto is not an option. It's disgusting.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    Meh, some people respond to insults with violence. It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong.
    - scarmig 9y ago
      Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? I read the manifesto and thought it was stupid in most of its claims. But it's not hard to feel like thoughtcrime has become a real thing nowadays.
      - mcphage 9y ago
        > Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? Am I seriously stating that abusing people verbally and emotionally is equal in moral gravity to abusing them verbally? Yes.
        fucktech 9y ago
        Even worse sometimes. But don't tell these privileged little cunts who haven't had anything bad happen to them ever.
        fucktech 9y ago
        Dang loves to cultivate the privileged cunt mentality here if you haven't noticed
        blub 9y ago
        Writing some manifesto can be at most offensive, but is nowhere near "abuse". And it's under no circumstance as grave as physical assault. Try your tough guy act in real life and you'll have a very serious discussion with the police.
      - fucktech 9y ago
        People are pussies these days
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - masterleep 9y ago
      One is a crime and the other isn't. That's for a good reason.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - carsongross 9y ago
      That's insane. All of human moral progress can be briefly summarized as "talking, not hitting."
      - mcphage 9y ago
        No. All of human moral progress can be briefly summarized as "not hurting other people". Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence, but you don't solve disagreements via discussion if you attack them verbally.
        thehardsphere 9y ago
        Right, and because it's hard to have discussions that may not be easy to resolve, it far easier to re-label those disagreements as "attack them verbally." Hence, the new thoughtcrime.
        mcphage 9y ago
        So tell me why you labeled "people disagree with me" as "thoughtcrime"
        carsongross 9y ago
        Comment 1: > It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong. Comment 2: > Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence lol, always amusing when I assume both intelligence and good faith when discussing things on the internet. You think I'd learn.
        mcphage 9y ago
        Wait, are you actually equating discussions, with verbally attacking someone? And then you have the gall to accuse me of acting in bad faith?
        deleted 9y ago
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- MartinCron 9y ago
  Who would think that publishing a manifesto might have consequences?
  - Goladus 9y ago
    Calling this a "manifesto" is mostly laziness. It is not actually a manifesto. It is a call to dialog. It is a memo that identifies and describes a perceived problem and thoughtfully follows through with some reasonable suggestions for what could be done about it. While one can tolerate people referring to it as a manifesto for the sake of clarity, since his name is not common knowledge and there is no other catchy title associated with it, it's not reasonable to use that language to imply that what was written is actually a manifesto by the dictionary definition of the word. A manifesto is a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government. That is quite clearly not what the author's piece actually is.
    - MartinCron 9y ago
      And here I was thinking that I was being all moderate by not calling it a "screed" or a "rant".
      - Goladus 9y ago
        Not like you gave me much to work with. It was a single sentence of bland sarcasm.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
muninn_ 9y ago
Tell me about it. Reading that made me sick. I don't necessarily agree with the original manifesto, but the idea that "a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face" is an acceptable thing to say is ridiculous. If this "manifesto" was actually racist and bigoted, it still doesn't excuse violence, or the suggestion of violence. That is FAR worse. It's un-American. We tolerate groups like the KKK or Black Panthers or Westboro Baptist because even if they are vehemently WRONG, they have a right to speak freely. Not to mention, one person published what they thought at risk of being ostracized by their community and workplace. The other person doesn't work at Google, has 0 real risk, and is just taking the status quo stance and presenting a holier-than-thou approach. This is all you need to see: "Either political analysis of authoritarian regimes, or interesting facts about science, depending on my mood." What this means is: Wahhhh Trump! I'm pretty moody and better than you, so I'll only discuss something if I can look good doing it or I can impress everybody.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  > Tell me about it. Reading that made me sick. I don't necessarily agree with the original manifesto, but the idea that "a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face" is an acceptable thing to say is ridiculous. Agreed. Yonatan Zunger holds some very disturbing views. Google is better off being rid of him.
- untog 9y ago
  > We tolerate groups like the KKK or Black Panthers or Westboro Baptist because even if they are vehemently WRONG, they have a right to speak freely. We also don't hire the KKK. Those of us who run companies or manage people respect our employees more than to have a gay employee pair program with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Free speech does not mean immunity from the consequences of your actions.
  - blub 9y ago
    It's inhuman to attempt to destroy someone's life for having politically incorrect opinions, no matter what those opinions are. The employee should instead give them a warning and educate them. Writing a manifesto is not a capital crime.
mcphage 9y ago
> The heretic must be isolated and extirpated, with physical violence for good measure. More like "the [heretic] has burned any social capital or respect their coworkers might have had for them, and so no longer are capable of working in a collaborative environment with their peers"
- blub 9y ago
  Having just read the manifesto, I've seen someone trying to approach a very tough subject in an awkward way. They were not hateful or fanatical. It was disappointing to see they didn't provide citations for their statements, but the argumentation is quite nuanced and contains plenty of disclaimers, clarifications and apologies. The "neuroticism" statement was quite crass, but otherwise I must confess that I don't have the necessary knowledge to disprove the manifesto's argumentation. Furthermore, some statements match what I read in some evolutionary psychology books. I believe it would be very helpful if people could correct the manifesto author's statements and provide references instead of attacking the author. I don't see why they should lose social capital or the respect of their coworkers. Why does the US society want to punish people so severely for expressing opinions in a polite way instead of correcting them when necessary and giving them a second chance?
  - pacala 9y ago
    Just in case you were reading Gizmodo's version, http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-div..., please note that the original document has been edited specifically to remove data and references. > The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.
- Goladus 9y ago
  More like "the [heretic] has burned any social capital or respect their coworkers might have had for them, and so no longer are capable of working in a collaborative environment with their peers" This says more about the bigotry and intolerance of the coworkers than the author of the manifesto. It also confirms the manifesto author's point entirely about the echo-chamber hostility towards anyone who doesn't toe the line. If someone can't read that thoughtful, polite, sincere, and clearly-written piece and respond without "losing respect for their co-worker", they are far too sensitive.
untog 9y ago
[I've made about four edits to this post and still can't do it justice - should have drafted it more thoroughly. Others have made my points much more effectively and this is just a distraction, so I'll remove it]
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  >> The manifesto clearly lays out the fact that women are genetically inferior and that most women developers shouldn't have their job. This could be very easily misread by someone not paying close attention. Consider "argues that" instead of "clearly lays out the fact that."
  - untog 9y ago
    Fair. Edited. Thanks!
- brandonhsiao 9y ago
  Imagine for a second that, controlling for all environmental factors, the average IQ of men was shown to be 3 points lower than women. (Totally hypothetical.) Additionally, women in this world outperform men at chess by a noticeable margin. There is a valid argument in this case to be made about how the reason women are better than men at chess is partly biological, and that chess diversity programs should be cognizant of this. How would you propose this be brought up in today's climate without offending people? I don't know if you haven't read the manifesto, or are happy making simplifications for the sake of making conclusive moral statements, but it is wildly dishonest to claim the manifesto argued that "women are genetically inferior." It argued that on average, looking at various traits and preferences, men and women are better at and care about different things, some of which make them better suited -- again, on average-- to some professions than others. You can disagree and that can be a fun internet argument, but judging by the reaction to this manifesto, the sheer outrage while misrepresenting the manifesto's content, sort of demonstrates the author's meta-point about ideological homogeneity.
  - untog 9y ago
Lagged2Death 9y ago
Textbook thoughtcrime punishment. People are fired for exhibiting corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitudes every day. Are they all victims of "textbook thoughtcrime punishment?"
- Goladus 9y ago
  People are fired for exhibiting corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitudes every day. Are they all victims of "textbook thoughtcrime punishment?" The Google manifesto does not represent a "corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitude." That so many people are insane or lazy enough to think it does is precisely the author's point.
  - Lagged2Death 9y ago
    The question in my mind is: Does an opinion suddenly become a "thought crime" if expressing it publicly might get you fired from a non-governmental employer? The consequences don't include incarceration or even necessarily the end of a career. This is, in principle, "crime?" Really? You've jumped straight into name calling without engaging that question. Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement? Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call. Consider the possibility that you have read the manifesto but you haven't understood the context. That other people, who claim to see something else there, really are seeing it, they're not making it up. Consider the possibility that some of them have had experiences you have not. That some of them are just smarter than you. That people who disagree with you aren't insane or lazy.
    - Goladus 9y ago
      The question in my mind is: Does an opinion suddenly become a "thought crime" if expressing it publicly might get you fired from a non-governmental employer? Coercive behavior of any sort is rarely an appropriate response to a sincere and well-articulated argument. It is incumbent on the coercive actor to justify their actions. Usually, the justifications are not controversial. When they are, often that means there's a problem somewhere and that discussion really is necessary. In this case, the author clearly explains why he believes this topic is important to discuss. Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement? No. Not unless you accept that it is justified to punish someone for posting a polite, articulate, well-informed argument made out of a genuine attempt to be both truthful and helpful to the mission of the organization. (note: well-informed does not mean comprehensive or right about everything. It just means good enough to start a dialog.) Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call. Explain to me how the memo is corrosive. What is being corroded? Explain to me how the memo is counterproductive. What is the desired production? How does the memo run counter to that production? Explain to me how the memo represents a bad attitude. What is "bad" and "good?" I say the memo is polite because it shows a substantial degree of sensitivity to the opposing arguments and ideology. The ideas are presented in a detached, academic manner with a clear effort to avoid sensational rhetoric or ranting. I say the memo is sincere for several reasons. I am unable to detect any attempt to misrepresent or mischaracterize his opposition. He clearly demonstrates acceptance of personal responsibility for the opinions presented. Finally, he appeals to open discussion in a way that welcomes disagreement and sincere disputation of any points he makes. The one presumption of sincerity that I might have questioned-- that Google really is an ideological echo-chamber-- was overwhelmingly confirmed by the hostility of the response. I say the memo is clear and thoughtful because the author uses plainly stated premises and syllogisms. He is straightforward with his points and transparent with his logic. While specific citations for supporting evidence could have been more rigorous, it's clear that the author is not just pulling these positions out of nowhere. Any reasonable attempt to continue discussion could challenge him to go into more detail about the supporting evidence. That some of them are just smarter than you. It has little to do with intelligence. It has mostly to do with not having the first clue how to tell the difference between a legitimate attempt at dialog and ideologically-motivated rhetoric. Intelligence is only a factor insofar as a baseline of intelligence is needed to comprehend the argument. I'm not an expert but I suspect most of the people hysterical about the manifesto are smart enough to understand it, if they knew how to read it properly.
supernintendo 9y ago
Wow, I thought what the author said was hyperbolic until I read this response. Come on now. How many SF Bay Area tech workers would actually assault another employee over comments posted on the Internet? How many software engineers at Google have ever even been in a fight? This "punch you in the face" thing seems to be a sticking point for most of the comments here and I think people are misrepresenting what the author is trying to say. He's not advocating for violence, he's considering a possibility in which he would have to make managerial decisions based on animosity between employees over this "manifesto". That's reasonable. I'm not sure what kind of culture they have at Google, but from my time working as a software developer I've rarely discussed politics at the office. I avoid it. It has the potential to bring down the morale of the team. Just don't see the point in throwing a wrench into the gears of the company you work for to make a political point. Don't you dare interact with him, or else you'll be ostracized as well. Oh please. There's a reason why the writer of this "manifesto" felt the need to grovel and apologize in every opening paragraph. He knew how his peers would take it. You can't just raise into question the fundamental capability of every woman you work with and then expect them to want to work with you. People lose friends over Facebook posts. He deserves to be ostracized for bringing this crap into the office. There are no "thoughtcrimes" here, just someone with a persecution complex fomenting strife amongst his own colleagues. Would you want to work with someone like that?
- pacala 9y ago
  > [...] raise into question the fundamental capability of every woman you work with [...] Can you please substantiate? Link to the "manifesto", https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320/amp https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    Does this really need explaining? He lists certain traits he thinks are distinct to men and women. Clearly, "ability to handle stress" is important for every job. Measuring someone's stress and perceiving your own stress are highly subjective, as is the definition of success. The manifesto author acts like these things are all objectively observable, but they're not. If you want a data-based analysis on which we can all probably agree, look at the success of Google. They've maintained these values over the years with the same founders and have found quite a bit of success.
LordHumungous 9y ago
The author completely ignores the accusation that Google silences people with non-conforming ideologies, then suggests that the author of the manifesto should be punished. Almost seems he accepts that there is an echo chamber, and approves of it?
stephenboyd 9y ago
That's not punishment, it's problem-solving. It's about protecting the company, not what the manifesto author deserves. Yonatan Zunger didn't promote any kind of retribution or vengeance for writing the manifesto, just that they would have to stop the employee from further degrading the workplace environment with the most reliably effective response, termination.
- Goladus 9y ago
  Anyone who thinks the Google author's piece represents degradation of the workplace environment needs to put up a valid non-circular argument for why that is the case. No one has. And no one will, because the piece is very polite, sincere, well-written, and reasonable. Anyone can claim their feelings are hurt by someone speaking the truth as they see it. That doesn't mean you get to use that claim (true or not) to impose your will forcefully on others any time you want to.
  - sagichmal 9y ago
    Effectively every public rebuttal to the piece has painstakingly demonstrated in great detail how and why it actively and maliciously "degrades the workplace environment." To claim that nobody has successfully done so is disingenuous in the extreme.
    - Goladus 9y ago
      Link me one.
      - urahara 9y ago
        You are actually commenting under the link to one. Zunger's post does an excellent job explaining how this 'memo' is right the opposite of your description: it is vastly incorrect, uncivilized, insincere, awfully written and unreasonable. More links on this: Google has hired a diversity VP — just as it struggles with a sexist memo from an employee https://www.recode.net/2017/8/5/16102476/google-diversity-vp-employee-memo https://www.recode.net/2017/8/5/16102476/google-diversity-vp... Dr. Sadedin's Quora answer: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

by pacala 9y ago

irl_zebra 9y ago

I believe he's talking about punishing the overt act of publishing this large manifesto and the negative consequences that flow from it. Not the thinking or discussing his views.

muninn_ 9y ago
Shouldn't even be talking about it. It's simply not an option. Violence is not acceptable. Period. Discussing it as a repercussion for a possibly misguided manifesto is not an option. It's disgusting.
- mcphage 9y ago
  Meh, some people respond to insults with violence. It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong.
  - scarmig 9y ago
    Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? I read the manifesto and thought it was stupid in most of its claims. But it's not hard to feel like thoughtcrime has become a real thing nowadays.
    - mcphage 9y ago
      > Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? Am I seriously stating that abusing people verbally and emotionally is equal in moral gravity to abusing them verbally? Yes.
      - fucktech 9y ago
        Even worse sometimes. But don't tell these privileged little cunts who haven't had anything bad happen to them ever.
      - fucktech 9y ago
        Dang loves to cultivate the privileged cunt mentality here if you haven't noticed
      - blub 9y ago
        Writing some manifesto can be at most offensive, but is nowhere near "abuse". And it's under no circumstance as grave as physical assault. Try your tough guy act in real life and you'll have a very serious discussion with the police.
    - fucktech 9y ago
      People are pussies these days
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - masterleep 9y ago
    One is a crime and the other isn't. That's for a good reason.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - carsongross 9y ago
    That's insane. All of human moral progress can be briefly summarized as "talking, not hitting."
    - mcphage 9y ago
      No. All of human moral progress can be briefly summarized as "not hurting other people". Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence, but you don't solve disagreements via discussion if you attack them verbally.
      - thehardsphere 9y ago
        Right, and because it's hard to have discussions that may not be easy to resolve, it far easier to re-label those disagreements as "attack them verbally." Hence, the new thoughtcrime.
        mcphage 9y ago
        So tell me why you labeled "people disagree with me" as "thoughtcrime"
      - carsongross 9y ago
        Comment 1: > It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong. Comment 2: > Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence lol, always amusing when I assume both intelligence and good faith when discussing things on the internet. You think I'd learn.
        mcphage 9y ago
        Wait, are you actually equating discussions, with verbally attacking someone? And then you have the gall to accuse me of acting in bad faith?
        deleted 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
MartinCron 9y ago
Who would think that publishing a manifesto might have consequences?
- Goladus 9y ago
  Calling this a "manifesto" is mostly laziness. It is not actually a manifesto. It is a call to dialog. It is a memo that identifies and describes a perceived problem and thoughtfully follows through with some reasonable suggestions for what could be done about it. While one can tolerate people referring to it as a manifesto for the sake of clarity, since his name is not common knowledge and there is no other catchy title associated with it, it's not reasonable to use that language to imply that what was written is actually a manifesto by the dictionary definition of the word. A manifesto is a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government. That is quite clearly not what the author's piece actually is.
  - MartinCron 9y ago
    And here I was thinking that I was being all moderate by not calling it a "screed" or a "rant".
    - Goladus 9y ago
      Not like you gave me much to work with. It was a single sentence of bland sarcasm.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

muninn_ 9y ago

Tell me about it. Reading that made me sick. I don't necessarily agree with the original manifesto, but the idea that "a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face" is an acceptable thing to say is ridiculous. If this "manifesto" was actually racist and bigoted, it still doesn't excuse violence, or the suggestion of violence. That is FAR worse. It's un-American. We tolerate groups like the KKK or Black Panthers or Westboro Baptist because even if they are vehemently WRONG, they have a right to speak freely. Not to mention, one person published what they thought at risk of being ostracized by their community and workplace. The other person doesn't work at Google, has 0 real risk, and is just taking the status quo stance and presenting a holier-than-thou approach. This is all you need to see: "Either political analysis of authoritarian regimes, or interesting facts about science, depending on my mood." What this means is: Wahhhh Trump! I'm pretty moody and better than you, so I'll only discuss something if I can look good doing it or I can impress everybody.

rhapsodic 9y ago
> Tell me about it. Reading that made me sick. I don't necessarily agree with the original manifesto, but the idea that "a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face" is an acceptable thing to say is ridiculous. Agreed. Yonatan Zunger holds some very disturbing views. Google is better off being rid of him.
untog 9y ago
> We tolerate groups like the KKK or Black Panthers or Westboro Baptist because even if they are vehemently WRONG, they have a right to speak freely. We also don't hire the KKK. Those of us who run companies or manage people respect our employees more than to have a gay employee pair program with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Free speech does not mean immunity from the consequences of your actions.
- blub 9y ago
  It's inhuman to attempt to destroy someone's life for having politically incorrect opinions, no matter what those opinions are. The employee should instead give them a warning and educate them. Writing a manifesto is not a capital crime.

mcphage 9y ago

> The heretic must be isolated and extirpated, with physical violence for good measure. More like "the [heretic] has burned any social capital or respect their coworkers might have had for them, and so no longer are capable of working in a collaborative environment with their peers"

blub 9y ago
Having just read the manifesto, I've seen someone trying to approach a very tough subject in an awkward way. They were not hateful or fanatical. It was disappointing to see they didn't provide citations for their statements, but the argumentation is quite nuanced and contains plenty of disclaimers, clarifications and apologies. The "neuroticism" statement was quite crass, but otherwise I must confess that I don't have the necessary knowledge to disprove the manifesto's argumentation. Furthermore, some statements match what I read in some evolutionary psychology books. I believe it would be very helpful if people could correct the manifesto author's statements and provide references instead of attacking the author. I don't see why they should lose social capital or the respect of their coworkers. Why does the US society want to punish people so severely for expressing opinions in a polite way instead of correcting them when necessary and giving them a second chance?
- pacala 9y ago
  Just in case you were reading Gizmodo's version, http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-div..., please note that the original document has been edited specifically to remove data and references. > The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.
Goladus 9y ago
More like "the [heretic] has burned any social capital or respect their coworkers might have had for them, and so no longer are capable of working in a collaborative environment with their peers" This says more about the bigotry and intolerance of the coworkers than the author of the manifesto. It also confirms the manifesto author's point entirely about the echo-chamber hostility towards anyone who doesn't toe the line. If someone can't read that thoughtful, polite, sincere, and clearly-written piece and respond without "losing respect for their co-worker", they are far too sensitive.

untog 9y ago

[I've made about four edits to this post and still can't do it justice - should have drafted it more thoroughly. Others have made my points much more effectively and this is just a distraction, so I'll remove it]

rainbowmverse 9y ago
>> The manifesto clearly lays out the fact that women are genetically inferior and that most women developers shouldn't have their job. This could be very easily misread by someone not paying close attention. Consider "argues that" instead of "clearly lays out the fact that."
- untog 9y ago
  Fair. Edited. Thanks!
brandonhsiao 9y ago
Imagine for a second that, controlling for all environmental factors, the average IQ of men was shown to be 3 points lower than women. (Totally hypothetical.) Additionally, women in this world outperform men at chess by a noticeable margin. There is a valid argument in this case to be made about how the reason women are better than men at chess is partly biological, and that chess diversity programs should be cognizant of this. How would you propose this be brought up in today's climate without offending people? I don't know if you haven't read the manifesto, or are happy making simplifications for the sake of making conclusive moral statements, but it is wildly dishonest to claim the manifesto argued that "women are genetically inferior." It argued that on average, looking at various traits and preferences, men and women are better at and care about different things, some of which make them better suited -- again, on average-- to some professions than others. You can disagree and that can be a fun internet argument, but judging by the reaction to this manifesto, the sheer outrage while misrepresenting the manifesto's content, sort of demonstrates the author's meta-point about ideological homogeneity.
- untog 9y ago

Lagged2Death 9y ago

Textbook thoughtcrime punishment. People are fired for exhibiting corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitudes every day. Are they all victims of "textbook thoughtcrime punishment?"

Goladus 9y ago
People are fired for exhibiting corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitudes every day. Are they all victims of "textbook thoughtcrime punishment?" The Google manifesto does not represent a "corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitude." That so many people are insane or lazy enough to think it does is precisely the author's point.
- Lagged2Death 9y ago
  The question in my mind is: Does an opinion suddenly become a "thought crime" if expressing it publicly might get you fired from a non-governmental employer? The consequences don't include incarceration or even necessarily the end of a career. This is, in principle, "crime?" Really? You've jumped straight into name calling without engaging that question. Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement? Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call. Consider the possibility that you have read the manifesto but you haven't understood the context. That other people, who claim to see something else there, really are seeing it, they're not making it up. Consider the possibility that some of them have had experiences you have not. That some of them are just smarter than you. That people who disagree with you aren't insane or lazy.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    The question in my mind is: Does an opinion suddenly become a "thought crime" if expressing it publicly might get you fired from a non-governmental employer? Coercive behavior of any sort is rarely an appropriate response to a sincere and well-articulated argument. It is incumbent on the coercive actor to justify their actions. Usually, the justifications are not controversial. When they are, often that means there's a problem somewhere and that discussion really is necessary. In this case, the author clearly explains why he believes this topic is important to discuss. Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement? No. Not unless you accept that it is justified to punish someone for posting a polite, articulate, well-informed argument made out of a genuine attempt to be both truthful and helpful to the mission of the organization. (note: well-informed does not mean comprehensive or right about everything. It just means good enough to start a dialog.) Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call. Explain to me how the memo is corrosive. What is being corroded? Explain to me how the memo is counterproductive. What is the desired production? How does the memo run counter to that production? Explain to me how the memo represents a bad attitude. What is "bad" and "good?" I say the memo is polite because it shows a substantial degree of sensitivity to the opposing arguments and ideology. The ideas are presented in a detached, academic manner with a clear effort to avoid sensational rhetoric or ranting. I say the memo is sincere for several reasons. I am unable to detect any attempt to misrepresent or mischaracterize his opposition. He clearly demonstrates acceptance of personal responsibility for the opinions presented. Finally, he appeals to open discussion in a way that welcomes disagreement and sincere disputation of any points he makes. The one presumption of sincerity that I might have questioned-- that Google really is an ideological echo-chamber-- was overwhelmingly confirmed by the hostility of the response. I say the memo is clear and thoughtful because the author uses plainly stated premises and syllogisms. He is straightforward with his points and transparent with his logic. While specific citations for supporting evidence could have been more rigorous, it's clear that the author is not just pulling these positions out of nowhere. Any reasonable attempt to continue discussion could challenge him to go into more detail about the supporting evidence. That some of them are just smarter than you. It has little to do with intelligence. It has mostly to do with not having the first clue how to tell the difference between a legitimate attempt at dialog and ideologically-motivated rhetoric. Intelligence is only a factor insofar as a baseline of intelligence is needed to comprehend the argument. I'm not an expert but I suspect most of the people hysterical about the manifesto are smart enough to understand it, if they knew how to read it properly.

supernintendo 9y ago

Wow, I thought what the author said was hyperbolic until I read this response. Come on now. How many SF Bay Area tech workers would actually assault another employee over comments posted on the Internet? How many software engineers at Google have ever even been in a fight? This "punch you in the face" thing seems to be a sticking point for most of the comments here and I think people are misrepresenting what the author is trying to say. He's not advocating for violence, he's considering a possibility in which he would have to make managerial decisions based on animosity between employees over this "manifesto". That's reasonable. I'm not sure what kind of culture they have at Google, but from my time working as a software developer I've rarely discussed politics at the office. I avoid it. It has the potential to bring down the morale of the team. Just don't see the point in throwing a wrench into the gears of the company you work for to make a political point. Don't you dare interact with him, or else you'll be ostracized as well. Oh please. There's a reason why the writer of this "manifesto" felt the need to grovel and apologize in every opening paragraph. He knew how his peers would take it. You can't just raise into question the fundamental capability of every woman you work with and then expect them to want to work with you. People lose friends over Facebook posts. He deserves to be ostracized for bringing this crap into the office. There are no "thoughtcrimes" here, just someone with a persecution complex fomenting strife amongst his own colleagues. Would you want to work with someone like that?

pacala 9y ago
> [...] raise into question the fundamental capability of every woman you work with [...] Can you please substantiate? Link to the "manifesto", https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320/amp https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  Does this really need explaining? He lists certain traits he thinks are distinct to men and women. Clearly, "ability to handle stress" is important for every job. Measuring someone's stress and perceiving your own stress are highly subjective, as is the definition of success. The manifesto author acts like these things are all objectively observable, but they're not. If you want a data-based analysis on which we can all probably agree, look at the success of Google. They've maintained these values over the years with the same founders and have found quite a bit of success.

LordHumungous 9y ago

The author completely ignores the accusation that Google silences people with non-conforming ideologies, then suggests that the author of the manifesto should be punished. Almost seems he accepts that there is an echo chamber, and approves of it?

stephenboyd 9y ago

That's not punishment, it's problem-solving. It's about protecting the company, not what the manifesto author deserves. Yonatan Zunger didn't promote any kind of retribution or vengeance for writing the manifesto, just that they would have to stop the employee from further degrading the workplace environment with the most reliably effective response, termination.

Goladus 9y ago
Anyone who thinks the Google author's piece represents degradation of the workplace environment needs to put up a valid non-circular argument for why that is the case. No one has. And no one will, because the piece is very polite, sincere, well-written, and reasonable. Anyone can claim their feelings are hurt by someone speaking the truth as they see it. That doesn't mean you get to use that claim (true or not) to impose your will forcefully on others any time you want to.
- sagichmal 9y ago
  Effectively every public rebuttal to the piece has painstakingly demonstrated in great detail how and why it actively and maliciously "degrades the workplace environment." To claim that nobody has successfully done so is disingenuous in the extreme.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    Link me one.
    - urahara 9y ago
      You are actually commenting under the link to one. Zunger's post does an excellent job explaining how this 'memo' is right the opposite of your description: it is vastly incorrect, uncivilized, insincere, awfully written and unreasonable. More links on this: Google has hired a diversity VP — just as it struggles with a sexist memo from an employee https://www.recode.net/2017/8/5/16102476/google-diversity-vp-employee-memo https://www.recode.net/2017/8/5/16102476/google-diversity-vp... Dr. Sadedin's Quora answer: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...