5 ms·

From below (I wanted to make sure this didn't get hidden under a downvoted comment): >I fail to understand how a memo calling for MORE diversity can get headli

From below (I wanted to make sure this didn't get hidden under a downvoted comment): >I fail to understand how a memo calling for MORE diversity can get headlined as "anti-diversity memo" on all big media outlets. Do journalists even do independent research anymore or are they just regurgitating whatever reuters send their way without scrutiny? The author is referring to psychological diversity, in other words, Google should be more receptive to diverse viewpoints. This is both true and not true. Yes, we should listen to others and understand, but that does not mean we should accept and value everyone's viewpoints. To invoke Goodwin's Law, perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists? There are viewpoints that do harm people within society, and this is one of them. Strip this down, this is the basic "woman's nature" argument that was used for years in the past to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen. The underlying claim that women are bad at tech is ridiculous. As mentioned below, the early programmers and data entry workers were women as it was considered "office work". I'll also throw out names like Grace Hopper and Ada Lovelace. Read a site like Godel's Lost Letter, and Lipton always points out women who have made contributions to the field. I even recall an article about a house wife who researched new fractals. Women have been engaged in science, technology, engineering, and math (and medicine) since the beginning. They were male dominated because people held the viewpoint the author does, which is essentially, "It's not a woman' place". Bullshit, plain and simple. This memo does not call for more diversity. It may cite scientific research (yes, men and women are different physically and psychologically), but it calls for the same status quo that initiatives like the ones the author lambasts are trying to overcome. Are they perfect? No. but they are a step in the right direction. We need to understand these difference and adapt to them not use those differences as a way to exclude.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago
> To invoke Goodwin's Law, perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists? There's a movie on Netflix at the moment, a German movie called "Er Ist Wieder Da" ("look who's back") about Hitler returning in modern-day Germany. It's part movie, part documentary - the actor playing Hitler travels around the country and talks to people about politics and the like, and finds there's a lot of people agreeing with some of the standpoints. The nazis crossed a huge number of lines and had some batshit people at the helm, but I'm sure you could find some points that a lot of people would agree with even in these days. Same with white supremacists, some of which have toned down their racism and become more politically correct.
- Mangalor 9y ago
  So...we should value the opinions of Nazis? Are we really at that level?
  - throwaway15066 9y ago
    It depends what the opinion is about. The National Socialists boosted Germany's economy massively, so a discussion of their economic policy might be useful (this is a simplification, in actuality the economics of post-WW1 Germany was boosted by a multitude of factors and the Nazis were not the only major one, but my point stands -- they legitimately did a lot of good to Germany before WW2). A discussion of their opinions on racial purity is definitely not going to be useful to anyone involved. If you found out that the barista at your favourite coffee shop was racist, would that change whether they make good coffee? Is the value of the coffee inextricably linked to their views? If someone has a disgusting view in one aspect of their life, their other views appear to be tainted even if they are entirely orthogonal.
brighteyes 9y ago
> perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists? Practically no one is saying that. We should cast out the tiny minority of Nazis. What people are saying is that the views in the memo are not of a tiny minority. They are accepted by a significant part of society, by reasonable people. They are considered factual or at least debatable by many scientists. And many of the core principles are accepted by conservatives, i.e., a large wing of US politics. What will happen to society if we aren't willing to listen across the political aisle? And if we aren't willing to listen to reasonable scientific debate? > This memo does not call for more diversity. It literally does call for more, including of gender and racial minorities: > I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more You can disagree with its practical suggestions - I do, I think many of them are harmful - but it's unfair to say it's not calling for more diversity.
TACIXAT 9y ago
>To invoke Goodwin's Law, perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists? Honestly, I would argue yes (with a big asterisk on your word choice of sympathetic). You need to engage with people and discuss their views in order to change them. Most people when attacked will double down on their views. If you can engage with those people, present evidence, and change their opinions then you are doing something meaningful to remove a piece of hate from the world.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

> To invoke Goodwin's Law, perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists? There's a movie on Netflix at the moment, a German movie called "Er Ist Wieder Da" ("look who's back") about Hitler returning in modern-day Germany. It's part movie, part documentary - the actor playing Hitler travels around the country and talks to people about politics and the like, and finds there's a lot of people agreeing with some of the standpoints. The nazis crossed a huge number of lines and had some batshit people at the helm, but I'm sure you could find some points that a lot of people would agree with even in these days. Same with white supremacists, some of which have toned down their racism and become more politically correct.

Mangalor 9y ago
So...we should value the opinions of Nazis? Are we really at that level?
- throwaway15066 9y ago
  It depends what the opinion is about. The National Socialists boosted Germany's economy massively, so a discussion of their economic policy might be useful (this is a simplification, in actuality the economics of post-WW1 Germany was boosted by a multitude of factors and the Nazis were not the only major one, but my point stands -- they legitimately did a lot of good to Germany before WW2). A discussion of their opinions on racial purity is definitely not going to be useful to anyone involved. If you found out that the barista at your favourite coffee shop was racist, would that change whether they make good coffee? Is the value of the coffee inextricably linked to their views? If someone has a disgusting view in one aspect of their life, their other views appear to be tainted even if they are entirely orthogonal.

brighteyes 9y ago

> perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists? Practically no one is saying that. We should cast out the tiny minority of Nazis. What people are saying is that the views in the memo are not of a tiny minority. They are accepted by a significant part of society, by reasonable people. They are considered factual or at least debatable by many scientists. And many of the core principles are accepted by conservatives, i.e., a large wing of US politics. What will happen to society if we aren't willing to listen across the political aisle? And if we aren't willing to listen to reasonable scientific debate? > This memo does not call for more diversity. It literally does call for more, including of gender and racial minorities: > I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more You can disagree with its practical suggestions - I do, I think many of them are harmful - but it's unfair to say it's not calling for more diversity.

TACIXAT 9y ago

>To invoke Goodwin's Law, perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists? Honestly, I would argue yes (with a big asterisk on your word choice of sympathetic). You need to engage with people and discuss their views in order to change them. Most people when attacked will double down on their views. If you can engage with those people, present evidence, and change their opinions then you are doing something meaningful to remove a piece of hate from the world.