5 ms·

> We have a culture of anti-intellectualism and dogmatism around certain topics that for whatever reason are considered sacred and not allowed to be challenged

> We have a culture of anti-intellectualism and dogmatism around certain topics that for whatever reason are considered sacred and not allowed to be challenged (ie. political correctness), and its disgraceful. From a personal perspective I get where you are coming from, but from a professional perspective it makes no sense. There are ways to present opposing viewpoints in a workplace without offending half of the people who work there.

someguydave 9y ago
>There are ways to present opposing viewpoints in a workplace without offending half of the people who work there. Ways like not sharing your opposing viewing at all? From a professional perspective Google's management should have ignored the note. It's unprofessional to become wrapped up in minor drama (posting a note to a message board threatens nobody) and to act in carelessly hurried manner.
- vyhd 9y ago
  Ways like described in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954802. No one should be surprised about the outcome of handling a nuanced, difficult, and highly culturally relevant topic so callously.
just2n 9y ago
That comes across as unfair by definition, but practically there are no such ways to do what you've claimed. It's unfair in the sense that this progressive or far left ideal is allowed to be pushed onto entire organizations and by the media as de facto "right" or "correct", which is inherently a political position and would likely offend anyone who disagrees with it. If these processes and programs should be publicly enacted on people who disagree with them, it's unfair then to disallow any discussion about them under an implicit threat of termination. Google just confirmed that threat is very real. I know many conservatives here (a classical liberal / libertarian mostly myself, which is far too "right leaning" for this area) who are actually scared of any political discussion due to this exact threat, even though those with the "correct" opinions can openly discuss them without any fear of repercussions. I don't think they should because inherently politics brings out discussion and debate, often vigorous forms of it, and that's not generally the best thing for the office, but because that discussion/debate is effectively banned here, it's completely fine to express leftist and socialist ideals publicly, even if in extremely poor taste. Secondly, if you were to decide to bring up issues with these programs with a person responsible (for instance in Google's case, this VP of diversity) you'd get a predictable dismissal, or they'd silently drop whatever issue you raise, which means you have no actual means with which to present these viewpoints. She publicly dismissed the entire thing without actually refuting any argument that was made, with language that effectively sounded something like "this is wrong think, and Google doesn't agree with this wrong think." You could do it outside of work, but you lose the context and the specifics of the program, and more importantly the impact any such discussion could have on your immediate environment. These discussions do need to be had, and where they're being had, the majority of even liberal minded people tend to agree with the author of this piece, but it's hard to know if that's a consensus (even at 500,000+ views for instance on each video on YouTube) or if it's just an echo chamber because even demanding rigor and evidence of the ideas behind diversity is taboo in far too many places. For instance tptacek can be found in these very comments essentially arguing that this topic of discussion isn't open because it's been decided. By whom? How can any discussion of highly debatable topics like this be had if people like him and Google are just going to say "it's not up for debate because I'm right" in order to shut down any discussion before it can even begin, hilariously in this case by likening this to discussing child labor or marital rape? It's nice to see logical fallacies are alive and very well with people who otherwise seem fairly intelligent.
- lurker69 9y ago
  This blog mentions some poll that was apparently made among google employees. But link to picture is broken :/ http://motls.blogspot.si/2017/08/james-damore-deserves-1-million-in.html http://motls.blogspot.si/2017/08/james-damore-deserves-1-mil... > As Damore reminded us, most of the people who agree with him only dare to agree privately. > What do they answer when their opinions are measured through a poll run on Google-plus – which the SJW officials in charge could still hypothetically access? Some other Google employees gave us the following pie chart: > 14% strongly agree, 22% almost agree with Damore's letter. That's some 36% if you combine it – over 20,000 employees of Google. If you add the 13% of neutral folks, you will get almost 49%, a slightly greater percentage than 48.5% of those who almost disagree or strongly disagree. Clearly, even if the participants of the poll face some risks that their vote could be used against them, the supporters of Damore's view are at least comparable in size to the opponents.
  - izacus 9y ago
    Any kind of article that uses term "SJW" (which is almost universally meant to be insulting) is suspect.
    - sverige 9y ago
      The "social justice warriors" coined the term. Now it is "meant to be insulting"?
    - angry_octet 9y ago
      Definitely, because it is code for signifying a particular worldview which is dismissive of minorities, and as such is a polemic, not a reasoned argument.
    - lurker69 9y ago
      Yes term is mostly used as an insult. But there just isnt any other term that would replace it and include all those counterproductive radical left groups that relay on character assassination when faced with logical points they cant refute. PC culture? regressive left? feminsts? LGBTQIAPK? lefties?
hyperdunc 9y ago
Many people take offense so easily these days that I doubt it is possible to have a decent discussion about these issues without offending quite a few people. Our mistake is prioritizing offense mitigation. So long as a person's primary intent isn't to offend then they should be able to say anything without being fired.
- shusson 9y ago
  Yeah I see your point, perhaps it's not so much about offending people but the way in which it was communicated.
- croon 9y ago
  > Our mistake is prioritizing offense mitigation. So long as a person's primary intent isn't to offend then they should be able to say anything without being fired. I strongly disagree. If I want to cement my advantages of being a white male I'll propose anything that furthers that goal. My aim wouldn't be to offend someone, but it is still very real side effect of my goal. Discussing gender differences should obviously not be taboo, nor should other topics, but the motives behind the discussions should likewise be freely scrutinized.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    It is very difficult to correctly ascertain motive, especially when looking through an ideological lens. Pandering to offense takers encourages them to seek motives they deem aggressive.
    - croon 9y ago
      You're right, but maybe I phrased it badly. What I mean isn't that I should be able to in practice be offended with what I disagree with, but that blatant agenda pushing behind science that doesn't quite fit your agenda should be questioned. I'm not offended by facts, I'm offended by dishonesty. We probably don't disagree in concept, but perhaps on this specific case.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
faceplanted 9y ago
I just don't want to hear some one's fucking opinions on an internal memo, that is so much not what internal communication tools are for.
- mason240 9y ago
  It wasn't an internal memo. Marked down for spreading alternative facts.
- yebyen 9y ago
  It was posted to a board called "pc-considered-harmful" Sounds like this memo is exactly what that board was for.
RealityNow 9y ago
I disagree. It's impossible to critique certain issues such as those pertaining to gender without offending people. But if someone is going to get offended because someone presented an alternative viewpoint to what they believe, than that's their problem. Imagine if we weren't allowed to debate, say, programming languages or SQL vs. NoSQL because one side needs to be coddled and can't take the heat. That's essentially what we're doing with "diversity" policies and gender dynamics.

someguydave 9y ago

>There are ways to present opposing viewpoints in a workplace without offending half of the people who work there. Ways like not sharing your opposing viewing at all? From a professional perspective Google's management should have ignored the note. It's unprofessional to become wrapped up in minor drama (posting a note to a message board threatens nobody) and to act in carelessly hurried manner.

vyhd 9y ago
Ways like described in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954802. No one should be surprised about the outcome of handling a nuanced, difficult, and highly culturally relevant topic so callously.

just2n 9y ago

That comes across as unfair by definition, but practically there are no such ways to do what you've claimed. It's unfair in the sense that this progressive or far left ideal is allowed to be pushed onto entire organizations and by the media as de facto "right" or "correct", which is inherently a political position and would likely offend anyone who disagrees with it. If these processes and programs should be publicly enacted on people who disagree with them, it's unfair then to disallow any discussion about them under an implicit threat of termination. Google just confirmed that threat is very real. I know many conservatives here (a classical liberal / libertarian mostly myself, which is far too "right leaning" for this area) who are actually scared of any political discussion due to this exact threat, even though those with the "correct" opinions can openly discuss them without any fear of repercussions. I don't think they should because inherently politics brings out discussion and debate, often vigorous forms of it, and that's not generally the best thing for the office, but because that discussion/debate is effectively banned here, it's completely fine to express leftist and socialist ideals publicly, even if in extremely poor taste. Secondly, if you were to decide to bring up issues with these programs with a person responsible (for instance in Google's case, this VP of diversity) you'd get a predictable dismissal, or they'd silently drop whatever issue you raise, which means you have no actual means with which to present these viewpoints. She publicly dismissed the entire thing without actually refuting any argument that was made, with language that effectively sounded something like "this is wrong think, and Google doesn't agree with this wrong think." You could do it outside of work, but you lose the context and the specifics of the program, and more importantly the impact any such discussion could have on your immediate environment. These discussions do need to be had, and where they're being had, the majority of even liberal minded people tend to agree with the author of this piece, but it's hard to know if that's a consensus (even at 500,000+ views for instance on each video on YouTube) or if it's just an echo chamber because even demanding rigor and evidence of the ideas behind diversity is taboo in far too many places. For instance tptacek can be found in these very comments essentially arguing that this topic of discussion isn't open because it's been decided. By whom? How can any discussion of highly debatable topics like this be had if people like him and Google are just going to say "it's not up for debate because I'm right" in order to shut down any discussion before it can even begin, hilariously in this case by likening this to discussing child labor or marital rape? It's nice to see logical fallacies are alive and very well with people who otherwise seem fairly intelligent.

lurker69 9y ago
This blog mentions some poll that was apparently made among google employees. But link to picture is broken :/ http://motls.blogspot.si/2017/08/james-damore-deserves-1-million-in.html http://motls.blogspot.si/2017/08/james-damore-deserves-1-mil... > As Damore reminded us, most of the people who agree with him only dare to agree privately. > What do they answer when their opinions are measured through a poll run on Google-plus – which the SJW officials in charge could still hypothetically access? Some other Google employees gave us the following pie chart: > 14% strongly agree, 22% almost agree with Damore's letter. That's some 36% if you combine it – over 20,000 employees of Google. If you add the 13% of neutral folks, you will get almost 49%, a slightly greater percentage than 48.5% of those who almost disagree or strongly disagree. Clearly, even if the participants of the poll face some risks that their vote could be used against them, the supporters of Damore's view are at least comparable in size to the opponents.
- izacus 9y ago
  Any kind of article that uses term "SJW" (which is almost universally meant to be insulting) is suspect.
  - sverige 9y ago
    The "social justice warriors" coined the term. Now it is "meant to be insulting"?
  - angry_octet 9y ago
    Definitely, because it is code for signifying a particular worldview which is dismissive of minorities, and as such is a polemic, not a reasoned argument.
  - lurker69 9y ago
    Yes term is mostly used as an insult. But there just isnt any other term that would replace it and include all those counterproductive radical left groups that relay on character assassination when faced with logical points they cant refute. PC culture? regressive left? feminsts? LGBTQIAPK? lefties?

hyperdunc 9y ago

Many people take offense so easily these days that I doubt it is possible to have a decent discussion about these issues without offending quite a few people. Our mistake is prioritizing offense mitigation. So long as a person's primary intent isn't to offend then they should be able to say anything without being fired.

shusson 9y ago
Yeah I see your point, perhaps it's not so much about offending people but the way in which it was communicated.
croon 9y ago
> Our mistake is prioritizing offense mitigation. So long as a person's primary intent isn't to offend then they should be able to say anything without being fired. I strongly disagree. If I want to cement my advantages of being a white male I'll propose anything that furthers that goal. My aim wouldn't be to offend someone, but it is still very real side effect of my goal. Discussing gender differences should obviously not be taboo, nor should other topics, but the motives behind the discussions should likewise be freely scrutinized.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  It is very difficult to correctly ascertain motive, especially when looking through an ideological lens. Pandering to offense takers encourages them to seek motives they deem aggressive.
  - croon 9y ago
    You're right, but maybe I phrased it badly. What I mean isn't that I should be able to in practice be offended with what I disagree with, but that blatant agenda pushing behind science that doesn't quite fit your agenda should be questioned. I'm not offended by facts, I'm offended by dishonesty. We probably don't disagree in concept, but perhaps on this specific case.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

faceplanted 9y ago

I just don't want to hear some one's fucking opinions on an internal memo, that is so much not what internal communication tools are for.

mason240 9y ago
It wasn't an internal memo. Marked down for spreading alternative facts.
yebyen 9y ago
It was posted to a board called "pc-considered-harmful" Sounds like this memo is exactly what that board was for.

RealityNow 9y ago

I disagree. It's impossible to critique certain issues such as those pertaining to gender without offending people. But if someone is going to get offended because someone presented an alternative viewpoint to what they believe, than that's their problem. Imagine if we weren't allowed to debate, say, programming languages or SQL vs. NoSQL because one side needs to be coddled and can't take the heat. That's essentially what we're doing with "diversity" policies and gender dynamics.