4 ms·

The blanket statement that Google leans left is empirically true. You also seem to have misread his comments about violence, as he claims the left tends to be m

by rpiguy 9y ago

The blanket statement that Google leans left is empirically true. You also seem to have misread his comments about violence, as he claims the left tends to be more compassionate. Did you read the memo?

mempko 9y ago
An advertising company cannot lean left by construction.
- mantas 9y ago
  Today's left has went a far way from socialism and whatnot. It's funny how today's far right cares about "common man" and labour rights more than far left which is busy with identity politics. For example, in Europe more and more labour is voting for right wing parties. While left is becoming more and more rich/educated urbanite.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    I don't want to go into a whole politics discussion about it, but while I do agree with you regarding the left/right switch on the working class voters, I don't necessarily agree that it comes from the right being about "working people" but rather about working people feeling threatened by recent cultural/economic changes brought by globalization. It's not a coincidence that both American and British people voted against their own interests because they were concerned about "immigration". In any case, it's not a discussion for HN, but I wouldn't mind having it over a few beers/coffees.
    - mantas 9y ago
      Eh, HN has went enough political recently... But personally I enjoy a diverse set of reasonable people to talk politics with. There're little places with not much echo chamber AND not much shouting at each other at the same time... The major question is what does count as being "about working people". Is it claiming you're for equality/diversity/whatever? Or working to make working people life better? Labour feel threatened by globalisation, migrants and so on. Today's left is very clearly for that. Thus labour feels left is no longer working for their interests. The right, which is against migrants, feel much ore for their interests. Of course, there's an economic theory that migrants help the host country's economy and everyone end up being better off. But a "working man" only see his wage stagnate due to increased competition and his rent raise. Or his work place gone completely due to outsourcing. The left just declaring that they're for the working man is not enough. Their recent actions very clearly don't ring a bell for the working man. The feels (as much as I don't like that) is very important in politics. People are tired of politicians talking about several-degrees-removed benefits. Although sometimes (but, as we can see, not always) politicians are totally right and it is actually the right thing to do, public needs at least some direct benefits right away. Although this is frequently called as populism in a derogatory way, I believe it's a crucial part of democracy. And it especially rings true to less educated and less well off people which happened to be core electorate of the left. Which is not a sign of "bigotry" or being "backwards" or whatever. Better off people have more wiggle room, can take more risks (e.g. voting for people who offer few-degrees-removed benefits in the future) and generally care about higher level stuff in Maslow pyramid. The labour don't have this luxury.
dguaraglia 9y ago
No, I didn't misread the memo: > While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment. What he does is list "compassion for the weak" as a "left bias". That's not necessarily a statement in support of leftist ideals when combined with this two assertions: > In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. > The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause (Which, BTW, is right before the first thing I quoted.)
- nailer 9y ago
  Referring to incidents of left wing violence does not imply all leftists are violent.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    What's your point? The same could be said of "conservative parties are a platform to neo-Nazis and white supremacists" it doesn't imply all conservatives are neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but... "the implication."
    - weberc2 9y ago
      Those are different statements. The memo didn't say "liberal parties are a platform to authoritarians and antifascists". If it had, I would agree with your characterization. The strawman arguments in this drama are staggering. I guess Damore couldn't have been all wrong if his critics depend on mischaracterizations and other fallacies.
    - nailer 9y ago
      My point is that you wrote: > the memo makes a whole case... how "leftists" are violent. Which isn't true.
InclinedPlane 9y ago
Oh really? Left and right imply different sides from a center. Do you have evidence that google "leans left" versus merely embracing majority positions? A sizeable majority of Americans believe in things like LGBT rights and the value of diversity. Those aren't "leftist" positions, they're widely popular American values.
- rpiguy 9y ago
  Damore's memo was in favor of diversity. Left and Right alike favor diversity, it how you get there where they disagree. Diversity does not mean supporting the thought police, encouraging mob mentalities, and adopting zero tolerance attitudes. A sizable majority of Americans do support gay marriage by almost 2:1, but they are very closely divided on other LGBT issues, particularly around what should and shouldn't be funded by the tax payer, etc. And while Americans value diversity they also value freedom. Scientifically the role of biology in gender behavior is not a settled issue, despite the many wishing to declare it so. I do not agree with the conclusions to which Damore jumped, nor do I feel strongly that biology was particularly relevant to the point he was trying to make. But it amazes me how even broaching the discussion triggers people.

by rpiguy 9y ago

mempko 9y ago

An advertising company cannot lean left by construction.

mantas 9y ago
Today's left has went a far way from socialism and whatnot. It's funny how today's far right cares about "common man" and labour rights more than far left which is busy with identity politics. For example, in Europe more and more labour is voting for right wing parties. While left is becoming more and more rich/educated urbanite.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  I don't want to go into a whole politics discussion about it, but while I do agree with you regarding the left/right switch on the working class voters, I don't necessarily agree that it comes from the right being about "working people" but rather about working people feeling threatened by recent cultural/economic changes brought by globalization. It's not a coincidence that both American and British people voted against their own interests because they were concerned about "immigration". In any case, it's not a discussion for HN, but I wouldn't mind having it over a few beers/coffees.
  - mantas 9y ago
    Eh, HN has went enough political recently... But personally I enjoy a diverse set of reasonable people to talk politics with. There're little places with not much echo chamber AND not much shouting at each other at the same time... The major question is what does count as being "about working people". Is it claiming you're for equality/diversity/whatever? Or working to make working people life better? Labour feel threatened by globalisation, migrants and so on. Today's left is very clearly for that. Thus labour feels left is no longer working for their interests. The right, which is against migrants, feel much ore for their interests. Of course, there's an economic theory that migrants help the host country's economy and everyone end up being better off. But a "working man" only see his wage stagnate due to increased competition and his rent raise. Or his work place gone completely due to outsourcing. The left just declaring that they're for the working man is not enough. Their recent actions very clearly don't ring a bell for the working man. The feels (as much as I don't like that) is very important in politics. People are tired of politicians talking about several-degrees-removed benefits. Although sometimes (but, as we can see, not always) politicians are totally right and it is actually the right thing to do, public needs at least some direct benefits right away. Although this is frequently called as populism in a derogatory way, I believe it's a crucial part of democracy. And it especially rings true to less educated and less well off people which happened to be core electorate of the left. Which is not a sign of "bigotry" or being "backwards" or whatever. Better off people have more wiggle room, can take more risks (e.g. voting for people who offer few-degrees-removed benefits in the future) and generally care about higher level stuff in Maslow pyramid. The labour don't have this luxury.

dguaraglia 9y ago

No, I didn't misread the memo: > While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment. What he does is list "compassion for the weak" as a "left bias". That's not necessarily a statement in support of leftist ideals when combined with this two assertions: > In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. > The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause (Which, BTW, is right before the first thing I quoted.)

nailer 9y ago
Referring to incidents of left wing violence does not imply all leftists are violent.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  What's your point? The same could be said of "conservative parties are a platform to neo-Nazis and white supremacists" it doesn't imply all conservatives are neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but... "the implication."
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Those are different statements. The memo didn't say "liberal parties are a platform to authoritarians and antifascists". If it had, I would agree with your characterization. The strawman arguments in this drama are staggering. I guess Damore couldn't have been all wrong if his critics depend on mischaracterizations and other fallacies.
  - nailer 9y ago
    My point is that you wrote: > the memo makes a whole case... how "leftists" are violent. Which isn't true.

InclinedPlane 9y ago

Oh really? Left and right imply different sides from a center. Do you have evidence that google "leans left" versus merely embracing majority positions? A sizeable majority of Americans believe in things like LGBT rights and the value of diversity. Those aren't "leftist" positions, they're widely popular American values.

rpiguy 9y ago
Damore's memo was in favor of diversity. Left and Right alike favor diversity, it how you get there where they disagree. Diversity does not mean supporting the thought police, encouraging mob mentalities, and adopting zero tolerance attitudes. A sizable majority of Americans do support gay marriage by almost 2:1, but they are very closely divided on other LGBT issues, particularly around what should and shouldn't be funded by the tax payer, etc. And while Americans value diversity they also value freedom. Scientifically the role of biology in gender behavior is not a settled issue, despite the many wishing to declare it so. I do not agree with the conclusions to which Damore jumped, nor do I feel strongly that biology was particularly relevant to the point he was trying to make. But it amazes me how even broaching the discussion triggers people.