2 ms·
> The problem is that you can use unprovable statements to justify anything. This is exactly why we can't shut down conversations the way Google did. Saying li
by humanrebar 9y ago
> The problem is that you can use unprovable statements to justify anything.
This is exactly why we can't shut down conversations the way Google did. Saying line employees are unqualified but Google executives are qualified to judge truth is very stifling to rational thinking and, yes, diversity that actually means something.
But nobody really believe that Google leadership is the best arbiter of diversity. Otherwise, everyone would be telling those class action discrimination lawsuits to pack up and go home.
So what do you think? Does Google leadership have a monopoly on public thought? Do the employees release all expectations of fair treatment when they sign an employment agreements?
- Frondo 9y agoDo we want the Google execs to sit there and make line-by-line technical decisions? Would you want the head of HR to tell this guy what kind of sort algorithm he should be using, or get into arguments about Go's lack of generics? Or do we expect them to defer to the smart engineers they hire? This guy is probably a very smart software writing dude, but why would that make us want to listen to what he has to say on any other subject, whether it's biology, evolutionary psychology, running a business, or hiring practices?
- biofox 9y agoShould employees be allowed to raise concerns about practices that appear to waste resources or lower morale? (I'm thinking of things like compulsory diversity / bias training)