4 ms·
The burden of responding to something that is (at the very least presented as) evidence? I don't think it's possible to have a discussion if you don't expect an
by totalZero 9y ago
The burden of responding to something that is (at the very least presented as) evidence? I don't think it's possible to have a discussion if you don't expect and allow pro-affirmative-action stakeholders to respond with their own evidence and reasoning, in turn.
- Blackthorn 9y agoHe could have brought up his concerns to hiring authorities in the company, whose job it is to refute diversity myths. Not expect people who have had this burden placed on them for their entire adult life to do it yet again.
- lliamander 9y agoHe did, a month or more before the fiasco.
- Blackthorn 9y agoAnd that's exactly where he should have stopped. If he did not like the result, he should have resigned in a much less public manner.
- lliamander 9y agoThe result from HR was silence. He never intended for the memo to go public, but he did want feedback from his colleagues. If HR didn't want the issue going further, they should have actually responded to him.
- cityhall 9y ago"Everyone who doesn't agree with me should shut up and go away."
- dang 9y agoPlease don't post snarky one-liners to HN, especially not in divisive discussions, where they make things significantly worse. Also, please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not.
- rakoo 9y agoBut he saw a problem and wanted to fix it. You're basically saying he should have left the problem where it is and pretend itsr not there, which is not what engineers typically do. Can you blame him for that?
- fma 9y agoNot just engineers...That kind of mentality does not advance society. Imagine..."She thought black people should not have to sit at the back of the bus. She told authorities who just remained silent. She should have sucked it up and moved to the north!"
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mejari 9y agoIt's not just "pro-affirmative-action stakeholders" that are expected to respond. _As referenced in the article_, it's extending to expecting women to come up with responses just because they are women. You're talking about a situation where one side (the side of the manifesto) has dropped an "evidence bomb", some of which may be valid, some not, and is now complaining "why won't you have a discussion?" They weren't invited to a discussion, they weren't talked _to_, they were talked _at_, and are now being looked to as the defenders of their gender when they just want to do their damn job.
- nyolfen 9y agothis is textbook tone policing. it's an essay, not a spoken dialogue. you could say this about, say, a published study about climate change projections.
- mejari 9y agoYou can throw buzzwords designed to shut down discussion at me all you want, that's irrelevant. He claims his goal was to have a dialogue, the fact is that he chose a very poor way of doing that. Either his goals aren't what he claims or he misunderstood how to accomplish them.
- smallnamespace 9y agoIn all fairness, we it did at least provoke an internal debate, e.g. this discussion.
- matt_wulfeck 9y agoConsidering this is one of the most explosively discussed topics on HN and in the industry I would say he's been wildly successful at starting a discussion.
- mejari 9y agoI can start a discussion about racism in the US by going on TV and yelling the n-word, that doesn't mean that I did a good job of opening a constructive dialogue.