5 ms·

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 complete

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.

rhapsodic 9y ago
The parent of this post is getting a lot of upvotes, and a lot of downvotes.
jmull 9y ago
Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage? It's hard to see how that makes sense. Personally, I hope Google ignores the angry people on all sides and does the right thing. I think it's ok to have principles and standards and to stick by them when the situation is tough. (Otherwise, what's the point?)
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage? It's hard to see how that makes sense. Not threats of angry outrage, actual angry outrage. The left's tactics should be used against them, in greater degrees, until they cease using those tactics.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Show them how wrong they are by becoming like them? That's... not very wise. Also cowardly.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >Show them how wrong they are by becoming like them? That's... not very wise. Also cowardly. I have no interest in showing them they're wrong. I just want them to stop trying to destroy people who publicly express opinions which with they disagree. As to whether or not that's "cowardly", I'm not really concerned.
  - pavlov 9y ago
    You mean there is not enough angry outrage on the right? Are you serious? Your comment highlights the main problem in American politics, on both sides: a vicious cycle of self-victimization where participants seem to become completely blind to how their own actions are a reflection of the hated others'.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >You mean there is not enough angry outrage on the right? Are you serious? My point was not that there is not enough angry outrage on the right. There certainly is. My point was that the right's angry outraged is not as organized and focused as the left's. In addition to random angry tweets, they need to wage public campaigns against the employers or businesses of their counterparts on the left to get them fired or professionally destroyed, the way the left does to people on the right who express badthink in public. I'm an example of the unorganized, unfocused anger on the right. I've never yet taken concrete steps to bring about the change I'd like to see, beyond talking about it on HN.
andkon 9y ago
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_ 9y ago
  > women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google. But that's not at all what he wrote?
  - andkon 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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/S016028960600033X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606... 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.
schimmy_changa 9y ago
This sounds true, but is actually incorrect. Whenever women speak out on social media, they get at the very least abuse, but also often rape threats and death threats against them. That is retaliation, plain and simple. That's just the loud stuff. There's also the quiet "oh she's too much of a firebrand" or "oh she won't fit into the small team because she might call people out for their casual sexism" that happens all the time.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >This sounds true, but is actually incorrect. Whenever women speak out on social media, they get at the very least abuse, but also often rape threats and death threats against them. That is retaliation, plain and simple. Rape threats and death threats are illegal. They should be reported, investigated and prosecuted. (As an aside, I've seen many instances where women claim to have received rape or death threats, with no mention that they reported them to the authorities. I find that perplexing.) If by "abuse" you mean garden-variety insults and name-calling, well, that's been one of the left's go-to tactics for a long time. And women have certainly engaged in it plenty. I'm referring to waging public campaigns to have a person fired or otherwise professionally, personally or economically harmed. The left has done this many times to people who have dared express wrongthoughts publicly. And it has had a chilling effect against others who might harbor similar wrongthoughts and are thinking of expressing them publicly. So far, there's been no downside for the left for employing these tactics; only upside. That needs to be changed. They'll continue these bully tactics as long as they carry no risk. I want to see this change. I want to see leftists who gin up rage mobs find themselves facing one themselves, more often than not. I want to see companies who capitulate to the demands of leftist rage mobs get besieged by an even more vocal and organized rage mob from the right. In short, I don't like rage mob tactics, but the only way to fight against them effectively is with opposing rage mobs.
  - Shank 9y ago
    > Rape threats and death threats are illegal. They should be reported, investigated and prosecuted. (As an aside, I've seen many instances where women claim to have received rape or death threats, with no mention that they reported them to the authorities. I find that perplexing.) True! They should be, but they frequently aren't because there's a significant amount of time, friction, and effort required to do an accurate police report. Even more importantly, the internet's ability to enable harassment through pseudo-anonymity is unparalleled. It's really easy to send a death threat to someone over Twitter with a burner phone. It's not easy to come to the police and say "hey, throwaway99475 on Twitter posted a picture of my house and said he was going to rape me." To quote yourself: > So far, there's been no downside [for] employing these tactics; only upside. That needs to be changed. They'll continue these bully tactics as long as they carry no risk.
s73ver 9y ago
The guy has just alienated over a third of the company. Likely any of the women on his team don't trust him anymore.
tptacek 9y ago
Why is it interesting to you that one side of this debate doesn't feel free to express itself? This debate has that in common with plenty of other debates, from the legitimacy of ISIS to the criminality of child pornography --- both of which are debates that have happened in some form on HN, if you think I'm just cherry picking. Sometimes these dynamics form simply because there's a clear right answer, and we're repulsed by the implication of the wrong answer.
- existencebox 9y ago
  I'd ask you to read some of my past posts that brush up against this subject matter. I consider myself aggressively moderate, but if you look at the "results" of what I considered rather unoffensive thoughts, you'll see that they were met with almost immediate silencing. First; it's a bit disingenuous to paint it as a white vs black; since much of the substance of the debate to my eyes is the nature of the intervention you chose, not "is there necessarily a problem", but given that, I think it's very fair to say those on the spectrum of opinion short of "full unflinching support" have felt a chilling effect as of the last few years. Granted I can only speak for myself, but to suggest that differing opinions on the greys of implementation could be perceived as "repulsive" is an excellent and apt example of how far the discourse has already fallen. It's on both sides, frankly. Extremely polarized with dogma abounding. I don't know how to fix that problem, unfortunately.
x0x0 9y ago
Manifesto dude: Women/Blacks are too stupid to be engineers Women/Blacks: Fuck this guy You: Why are those women/blacks being so rude?

rhapsodic 9y ago

The parent of this post is getting a lot of upvotes, and a lot of downvotes.

jmull 9y ago

Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage? It's hard to see how that makes sense. Personally, I hope Google ignores the angry people on all sides and does the right thing. I think it's ok to have principles and standards and to stick by them when the situation is tough. (Otherwise, what's the point?)

rhapsodic 9y ago
>Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage? It's hard to see how that makes sense. Not threats of angry outrage, actual angry outrage. The left's tactics should be used against them, in greater degrees, until they cease using those tactics.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Show them how wrong they are by becoming like them? That's... not very wise. Also cowardly.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >Show them how wrong they are by becoming like them? That's... not very wise. Also cowardly. I have no interest in showing them they're wrong. I just want them to stop trying to destroy people who publicly express opinions which with they disagree. As to whether or not that's "cowardly", I'm not really concerned.
- pavlov 9y ago
  You mean there is not enough angry outrage on the right? Are you serious? Your comment highlights the main problem in American politics, on both sides: a vicious cycle of self-victimization where participants seem to become completely blind to how their own actions are a reflection of the hated others'.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >You mean there is not enough angry outrage on the right? Are you serious? My point was not that there is not enough angry outrage on the right. There certainly is. My point was that the right's angry outraged is not as organized and focused as the left's. In addition to random angry tweets, they need to wage public campaigns against the employers or businesses of their counterparts on the left to get them fired or professionally destroyed, the way the left does to people on the right who express badthink in public. I'm an example of the unorganized, unfocused anger on the right. I've never yet taken concrete steps to bring about the change I'd like to see, beyond talking about it on HN.

andkon 9y ago

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_ 9y ago
> women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google. But that's not at all what he wrote?
- andkon 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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/S016028960600033X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606... 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.

schimmy_changa 9y ago

This sounds true, but is actually incorrect. Whenever women speak out on social media, they get at the very least abuse, but also often rape threats and death threats against them. That is retaliation, plain and simple. That's just the loud stuff. There's also the quiet "oh she's too much of a firebrand" or "oh she won't fit into the small team because she might call people out for their casual sexism" that happens all the time.

rhapsodic 9y ago
>This sounds true, but is actually incorrect. Whenever women speak out on social media, they get at the very least abuse, but also often rape threats and death threats against them. That is retaliation, plain and simple. Rape threats and death threats are illegal. They should be reported, investigated and prosecuted. (As an aside, I've seen many instances where women claim to have received rape or death threats, with no mention that they reported them to the authorities. I find that perplexing.) If by "abuse" you mean garden-variety insults and name-calling, well, that's been one of the left's go-to tactics for a long time. And women have certainly engaged in it plenty. I'm referring to waging public campaigns to have a person fired or otherwise professionally, personally or economically harmed. The left has done this many times to people who have dared express wrongthoughts publicly. And it has had a chilling effect against others who might harbor similar wrongthoughts and are thinking of expressing them publicly. So far, there's been no downside for the left for employing these tactics; only upside. That needs to be changed. They'll continue these bully tactics as long as they carry no risk. I want to see this change. I want to see leftists who gin up rage mobs find themselves facing one themselves, more often than not. I want to see companies who capitulate to the demands of leftist rage mobs get besieged by an even more vocal and organized rage mob from the right. In short, I don't like rage mob tactics, but the only way to fight against them effectively is with opposing rage mobs.
- Shank 9y ago
  > Rape threats and death threats are illegal. They should be reported, investigated and prosecuted. (As an aside, I've seen many instances where women claim to have received rape or death threats, with no mention that they reported them to the authorities. I find that perplexing.) True! They should be, but they frequently aren't because there's a significant amount of time, friction, and effort required to do an accurate police report. Even more importantly, the internet's ability to enable harassment through pseudo-anonymity is unparalleled. It's really easy to send a death threat to someone over Twitter with a burner phone. It's not easy to come to the police and say "hey, throwaway99475 on Twitter posted a picture of my house and said he was going to rape me." To quote yourself: > So far, there's been no downside [for] employing these tactics; only upside. That needs to be changed. They'll continue these bully tactics as long as they carry no risk.

s73ver 9y ago

The guy has just alienated over a third of the company. Likely any of the women on his team don't trust him anymore.

tptacek 9y ago

Why is it interesting to you that one side of this debate doesn't feel free to express itself? This debate has that in common with plenty of other debates, from the legitimacy of ISIS to the criminality of child pornography --- both of which are debates that have happened in some form on HN, if you think I'm just cherry picking. Sometimes these dynamics form simply because there's a clear right answer, and we're repulsed by the implication of the wrong answer.

existencebox 9y ago
I'd ask you to read some of my past posts that brush up against this subject matter. I consider myself aggressively moderate, but if you look at the "results" of what I considered rather unoffensive thoughts, you'll see that they were met with almost immediate silencing. First; it's a bit disingenuous to paint it as a white vs black; since much of the substance of the debate to my eyes is the nature of the intervention you chose, not "is there necessarily a problem", but given that, I think it's very fair to say those on the spectrum of opinion short of "full unflinching support" have felt a chilling effect as of the last few years. Granted I can only speak for myself, but to suggest that differing opinions on the greys of implementation could be perceived as "repulsive" is an excellent and apt example of how far the discourse has already fallen. It's on both sides, frankly. Extremely polarized with dogma abounding. I don't know how to fix that problem, unfortunately.

x0x0 9y ago

Manifesto dude: Women/Blacks are too stupid to be engineers Women/Blacks: Fuck this guy You: Why are those women/blacks being so rude?