17 ms·

I was able to find no such suggestion. Perhaps you can point it out? Here's the full text of the memo: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Google

I was able to find no such suggestion. Perhaps you can point it out? Here's the full text of the memo: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... It starts with "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.", and has many suggestions on how to increase diversity (not just viewpoint diversity), all ideas attributed to the left†. †I feel compelled to mention I find that left/right are woefully inadequate labels, and serve better as a tool to divide and conquer people so they don't unite on common interests. But they work well-ish enough in this case, and a discussion on this would be long and orthogonal to the topic at hand. Edit: Reading your other reply, it seems you think any action at all done to increase diversity is affirmative action. That's not what's usually meant by the term.

kuschku 9y ago
Read the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14988905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14988905 I quote several paragraphs from the memo where he argues specifically for that.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  He has a very specifically and explicitly centrist position: "Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors." When he, in a centrist document, puts up arguments for and against both side, you only selectively quote the ones for the right and against the left. That is dishonest and so incredibly transparent that I wonder why you bother. Even if your goal were to discredit him with your dishonesty, it should be obvious that you won't achieve your goal, only damaging yourself in the process. [EDIT: I don't know his personal political views, so edited to say that the document is centrist]
  - kuschku 9y ago
    He never criticizes the right. Quote me a single argument from the document that criticizes the right, at all. I've given a dozen quotes criticizing or ridiculing the left from the memo. > That is dishonest and so incredibly transparent that I wonder why you bother. Even if your goal were to discredit him with your dishonesty, it should be obvious that you won't achieve your goal, only damaging yourself in the process. It's dishonest of you to claim he has a position when he only criticizes one side, and always defends and supports the other.
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      From the section I quoted in the very comment your responded to: "A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others." Just above that he has a table of "left biases" and "right biases", and both are equal in length. But yes, as a centrist who thinks that Google has too many left biases, he criticizes those left biases more. Which is something else that he states explicitly: "Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation."
      - kuschku 9y ago
        Google has basically no left biases. Most of the biases he mentions are authoritarian ones, which are on an entirely different axis. Many people can't visualize this concept, so we can take the political compass as a helpful tool: https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2016.png https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2016.png
        mpweiher 9y ago
        So you disagree with his analysis. That's OK. I think you're wrong, but reasonably people can disagree. What's not OK is simply dismissing and ignoring his analysis, treating it as if it didn't exist, and then misinterpreting the rest based on that. I'll try to illustrate it for you: I say "I love books so much that I have my entire apartment covered in bookshelves, with books three levels deep and it's still not enough, books are littering the floor so I can't walk and can't clean up any longer. I think I need to get rid of some books". So say you disagree with the first part. Say even that you are correct, that I had made some fundamental mistake and there were actually bookshelves I hadn't considered and if I only cleaned up and used them I wouldn't need to get rid of any books. Is it then OK to just remove that first part, only cite "I think I need to get rid of some books" and then conclude that I must hate books because I want to get rid of them? I think not. (And no, he didn't argue that he wanted to get rid of anyone, just to clip that potential willful misinterpretation)

kuschku 9y ago

Read the comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14988905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14988905 I quote several paragraphs from the memo where he argues specifically for that.

mpweiher 9y ago
He has a very specifically and explicitly centrist position: "Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors." When he, in a centrist document, puts up arguments for and against both side, you only selectively quote the ones for the right and against the left. That is dishonest and so incredibly transparent that I wonder why you bother. Even if your goal were to discredit him with your dishonesty, it should be obvious that you won't achieve your goal, only damaging yourself in the process. [EDIT: I don't know his personal political views, so edited to say that the document is centrist]
- kuschku 9y ago
  He never criticizes the right. Quote me a single argument from the document that criticizes the right, at all. I've given a dozen quotes criticizing or ridiculing the left from the memo. > That is dishonest and so incredibly transparent that I wonder why you bother. Even if your goal were to discredit him with your dishonesty, it should be obvious that you won't achieve your goal, only damaging yourself in the process. It's dishonest of you to claim he has a position when he only criticizes one side, and always defends and supports the other.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    From the section I quoted in the very comment your responded to: "A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others." Just above that he has a table of "left biases" and "right biases", and both are equal in length. But yes, as a centrist who thinks that Google has too many left biases, he criticizes those left biases more. Which is something else that he states explicitly: "Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation."
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Google has basically no left biases. Most of the biases he mentions are authoritarian ones, which are on an entirely different axis. Many people can't visualize this concept, so we can take the political compass as a helpful tool: https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2016.png https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2016.png
      - mpweiher 9y ago
        So you disagree with his analysis. That's OK. I think you're wrong, but reasonably people can disagree. What's not OK is simply dismissing and ignoring his analysis, treating it as if it didn't exist, and then misinterpreting the rest based on that. I'll try to illustrate it for you: I say "I love books so much that I have my entire apartment covered in bookshelves, with books three levels deep and it's still not enough, books are littering the floor so I can't walk and can't clean up any longer. I think I need to get rid of some books". So say you disagree with the first part. Say even that you are correct, that I had made some fundamental mistake and there were actually bookshelves I hadn't considered and if I only cleaned up and used them I wouldn't need to get rid of any books. Is it then OK to just remove that first part, only cite "I think I need to get rid of some books" and then conclude that I must hate books because I want to get rid of them? I think not. (And no, he didn't argue that he wanted to get rid of anyone, just to clip that potential willful misinterpretation)