5 ms·

I don't have any experience with Google in this regard (beyond looking into the Damore case, which is a bit muddy because of the amount of public pressure Googl

I don't have any experience with Google in this regard (beyond looking into the Damore case, which is a bit muddy because of the amount of public pressure Google was facing [0]). However, in my experience, diversity programs and officers tend to be about liability and checkboxes; and there is no legal checkbox for diversity of ideas. Plus, surface diversity is much easier to measure; and you optimize for your metrics. [0] Ideally a diversity officer would stand up for Damore. But I have no idea what went on behind the scenes of that decidion.

munificent 8y ago
> [0] Ideally a diversity officer would stand up for Damore. That claim depends entirely on how you interpret Damore's behavior. Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance [0]. I'm not stating a claim as to whether or not Damore's behavior should be considered intolerance. I don't have a take on that. But without having some opinion on that, you can't claim a priori that a diversity officer is obligated to enable his views. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- gizmo686 8y ago
  I don't want to relitigate the entire Damore saga. But for the sake of conversation, I will state that my view was that he was engaging in good faith with the diversity program Google was running. The statement I made in my previous comment does not actually require this however. Even if Damore was actually acting in bad faith, fireing him would still have a chilling effect unless it was thought by every Googler that he was clearly acting in bad faith. Further, I would excpect a Chief Diversity Officer to understand how perception alone can create a hostile environment, so ignorance of this (or disagreemrnent about the facts of the case) is not a good excuse.
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    > Even if Damore was actually acting in bad faith, fireing him would still have a chilling effect unless it was thought by every Googler that he was clearly acting in bad faith. You can't help side effects. If someone is acting in a way that is detrimental to the company, you have to fire them, even if you know it will upset some other people in the company.
- jerf 8y ago
  "Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance" On the other hand, it's rather convenient how much intolerance can itself be justified by simply quoting that and just a bit of rules lawyering.
  - LanceH 8y ago
    I feel a proof by induction coming.
- naasking 8y ago
  > Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance [0] I honestly hate how often this is trotted out. Does no one realize that this claim is not based on any evidence whatsoever? Why prefer Popper's claim over Rawls' or Jefferson's? This is typically used to justify yet more intolerance, and around and around we go.
  - uxp100 8y ago
    Especially since in the full context it's a bit more measured. This portion follows what is typically quoted: "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;" Seems Popper would not have much issue with tolerating Damore, but tolerating things like Neo-nazi marches probably crosses his line.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > Seems Popper would not have much issue with tolerating Damore, but tolerating things like Neo-nazi marches probably crosses his line. Probably not even then! Neo-nazis are a tiny minority that's suppressed by public opinion. Now if they were to suddenly start gaining political power, then we have a real problem.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >Does no one realize that this claim is not based on any evidence whatsoever? And yet it remains an interesting thought experiment, doesn't it? Didn't it work on Reddit, in which they found that driving hateful communities out raised the level of discourse? And a possible way to structure society. Hitler himself admitted that had the Nazis not been tolerated, they wouldn't have gained the foothold they did. Not only do I prefer Popper's claim, but I prefer the Frankfurt School's claim too[0]. Which, in my view, stands firmly in line with the democratic functions of society envisioned by such liberals as J.S. Mill for instance. But it comes down to ideology; it is not a crime nor an intellectual failing to dismiss liberalism on ideological grounds. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18368318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18368318
commandlinefan 8y ago
Ideally a diversity officer would BE Damore.
ianamartin 8y ago
It's basically the same role that chief security officers fill at large companies. The point isn't to actually secure anything. The point is to avoid getting sued for not securing things.
- Angostura 8y ago
  You need to get a better chief security officer.
706f6f70 8y ago
> Plus, surface diversity is much easier to measure; and you optimize for your metrics. I think this is key. Until "diversity" becomes so absolutely fragmented that you get back down to the level of the individual (e.g.you need a non-Hispanic Latino coder, who is Christian but not Catholic, was born poor but still got into an Ivy League, must be over 6 feet tall, and her name must begin with "A"), we will continue to burn resources, mental energy, and time on ensuring that we can't get sued.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Non Hispanic Latino ? isn't that a moot point at his point in history un less you ant to go back to the Spanish/French system of race classification
  - gweinberg 8y ago
    I think Non Hispanic Latino means Brazilian.

munificent 8y ago

> [0] Ideally a diversity officer would stand up for Damore. That claim depends entirely on how you interpret Damore's behavior. Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance [0]. I'm not stating a claim as to whether or not Damore's behavior should be considered intolerance. I don't have a take on that. But without having some opinion on that, you can't claim a priori that a diversity officer is obligated to enable his views. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

gizmo686 8y ago
I don't want to relitigate the entire Damore saga. But for the sake of conversation, I will state that my view was that he was engaging in good faith with the diversity program Google was running. The statement I made in my previous comment does not actually require this however. Even if Damore was actually acting in bad faith, fireing him would still have a chilling effect unless it was thought by every Googler that he was clearly acting in bad faith. Further, I would excpect a Chief Diversity Officer to understand how perception alone can create a hostile environment, so ignorance of this (or disagreemrnent about the facts of the case) is not a good excuse.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  > Even if Damore was actually acting in bad faith, fireing him would still have a chilling effect unless it was thought by every Googler that he was clearly acting in bad faith. You can't help side effects. If someone is acting in a way that is detrimental to the company, you have to fire them, even if you know it will upset some other people in the company.
jerf 8y ago
"Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance" On the other hand, it's rather convenient how much intolerance can itself be justified by simply quoting that and just a bit of rules lawyering.
- LanceH 8y ago
  I feel a proof by induction coming.
naasking 8y ago
> Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance [0] I honestly hate how often this is trotted out. Does no one realize that this claim is not based on any evidence whatsoever? Why prefer Popper's claim over Rawls' or Jefferson's? This is typically used to justify yet more intolerance, and around and around we go.
- uxp100 8y ago
  Especially since in the full context it's a bit more measured. This portion follows what is typically quoted: "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;" Seems Popper would not have much issue with tolerating Damore, but tolerating things like Neo-nazi marches probably crosses his line.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > Seems Popper would not have much issue with tolerating Damore, but tolerating things like Neo-nazi marches probably crosses his line. Probably not even then! Neo-nazis are a tiny minority that's suppressed by public opinion. Now if they were to suddenly start gaining political power, then we have a real problem.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >Does no one realize that this claim is not based on any evidence whatsoever? And yet it remains an interesting thought experiment, doesn't it? Didn't it work on Reddit, in which they found that driving hateful communities out raised the level of discourse? And a possible way to structure society. Hitler himself admitted that had the Nazis not been tolerated, they wouldn't have gained the foothold they did. Not only do I prefer Popper's claim, but I prefer the Frankfurt School's claim too[0]. Which, in my view, stands firmly in line with the democratic functions of society envisioned by such liberals as J.S. Mill for instance. But it comes down to ideology; it is not a crime nor an intellectual failing to dismiss liberalism on ideological grounds. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18368318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18368318

commandlinefan 8y ago

Ideally a diversity officer would BE Damore.

ianamartin 8y ago

It's basically the same role that chief security officers fill at large companies. The point isn't to actually secure anything. The point is to avoid getting sued for not securing things.

Angostura 8y ago
You need to get a better chief security officer.

706f6f70 8y ago

> Plus, surface diversity is much easier to measure; and you optimize for your metrics. I think this is key. Until "diversity" becomes so absolutely fragmented that you get back down to the level of the individual (e.g.you need a non-Hispanic Latino coder, who is Christian but not Catholic, was born poor but still got into an Ivy League, must be over 6 feet tall, and her name must begin with "A"), we will continue to burn resources, mental energy, and time on ensuring that we can't get sued.

walshemj 8y ago
Non Hispanic Latino ? isn't that a moot point at his point in history un less you ant to go back to the Spanish/French system of race classification
- gweinberg 8y ago
  I think Non Hispanic Latino means Brazilian.