9 ms·
Google diversity head in 2007: Jews have ‘insatiable appetite for war’
- trappist 5y agoIt doesn't say Jews have an appetite for war, it says Israel does.
- gtf21 5y agoNo, it literally says "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war".
- happytoexplain 5y agoThe broader context makes it clear that he's using the terms "Jew" and "Israeli" synonymously. I think choosing the word "Jew" alone for the headline version of the opinion is unnecessarily provocative, but not outright wrong.
- gtf21 5y agoI'm sorry but that's just not borne out by the rest of the blog post, at no point is it clear that he is using the terms interchangeably. Furthermore, even were he to be doing so, that in itself is anti-Semitic, and the entire blogpost is full of anti-Semitic devices. Your reply is contradictory: on the one hand, in response to a direct quotation from the blog post you claim that it is "clear" that one can swap "Jew" for "Israeli" in that quotation, and on the other you go on to say that using the word Jew is "provocative, but not outright wrong", which implies that this post is directed therefore at all Jews, and that's basically fine by you in this context.
- chitowneats 5y agoThe mental gymnastics required to make this comment are world class.
- pepperonipizza 5y agoSorry for the source, but it's only them and the dailymail for now. The dailymail link was removed. I think this is relevant for HN because of the unease of being jewish in the field recently. Bitter irony that Google was founded by 2 jews.
- lupire 5y agoWhat unease is that?
- chitowneats 5y agoThe main thrust of the "antiracist" movement that is gaining steam in many sectors of society, including the tech industry, can be summarized as: "whites are perpetuating a global racist conspiracy against people of color." They see Israel/Palestine through this lens, as well as the racial justice issues in the US. It doesn't take much of a leap to get to, "Jews are perpetuating a global racist conspiracy..." Sound familiar?
- notduncansmith 5y agoI think one could do a lot more justice to the nuances of the situation than your summary. 1. Saying “whites” like it’s the 20th century is unnecessarily evocative of pre-civil-rights-era vibes. 2. To call it a “global conspiracy” implies there are far more people in on it than actually are. 3. When you choose a word like “perpetuating”, it doesn’t make sense to call out white people alone: the antiracist movement makes it clear that people of all shades “perpetuate” our society’s systemic injustices. 4. Finally, “against people of color” is not even the full scope of the issue: homogeneity breeds weakness, and another pillar of antiracism is a recognition of the strength in diversity. 5. The “sound familiar?” bit at the end is inviting a comparison that would be in incredibly poor taste IMO and smacks of DARVO tactics Antiracism is a self-serving strategy if one identifies with humanity as a whole. It’s not a wild idea that’s “gaining steam” - people have been writing and speaking these truths for many years.
- 5y ago
- rvz 5y agoIs this going to get flagged because Google knows those past comments are true and they won't disavow them? The doors to the lost and banned is open to all hypocrites I guess if one loves to call to cancel those for past comments and 'crimes'. Downvoters: Goodness me, don't downvote the messenger.
- chitowneats 5y agoYep. Already flagged.
- rvz 5y agoRight, so it has been admitted and it's true then.
- simondotau 5y agoFlagged and functionally buried. Isn't it convenient to have an army of employees who love their employer!
- Daho0n 5y agoDo you really believe only people paid by Google would flag this?
- happytoexplain 5y agoI flagged it because the submitted headlines and news outlets are reductive and provocative, and have been producing a lot of comments that are just general political snideness. I absolutely think it's reasonable to discuss the original blog post.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- COGlory 5y agoWhat exactly is the function of a diversity head?
- CydeWeys 5y agoIncreasing diversity of the employees of the company to better match the demographics of the country of the whole. In other words, doing a better job of outreach to the underrepresented groups, particularly African Americans and Latinos.
- simondotau 5y agoMatching the demographics of the country as a whole? Hopefully the Google team is diverse enough to include an appropriate spread of nonagenarians and toddlers. Especially in senior leadership.
- CydeWeys 5y agoThese kinds of snarky, unserious comments are tiresome.
- simondotau 5y agoI’m being perfectly serious, even if it’s not conveyed in the dry, literal manner you evidently prefer. If you want to have demographics that “represent” the country, you need to be clear about which demographic axes are being privileged with special consideration. Peel back the covers of prejudice and you’ll find a lot more than sex and race.
- benwad 5y agoBut you see why hiring people of colour is different from hiring toddlers right? In one case you're expanding your talent pool to a group who haven't had the same chance to contribute as other groups, and in the other case you're hiring a toddler.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- CydeWeys 5y agoRead the original blog post they're trying to cancel this guy over and then make up your own mind: https://www.kamaubobb.com/hidden-blogs/2007/12/if-i-were-a-jew https://www.kamaubobb.com/hidden-blogs/2007/12/if-i-were-a-j... Speaking as a Jew, the worst thing about it is the atrociously thin font choice. The "If I were a Jew" framing is a little strange (I would never in a million years write an "If I were a black man" essay), but I find myself agreeing with everything he's saying. This was also written 14 years ago, and a lot has changed in the cultural discourse since then. I suspect he wouldn't again use this framing if he were to write said post now.
- simondotau 5y agoYou’re asking a mob to engage in objective textual analysis prior to forming a conclusion about someone? Sounds like a good idea, but recent events might suggest not getting your hopes up.
- CyanTas 5y agoI'm also Jewish, and I have to say the last paragraph at of that blog at least is blatantly antisemitic. On the other hand, it is from 2007, so I don't think we need to destroy this guy's career over it. An apology would go a long way.
- CydeWeys 5y agoI agree with you that it's the worst part, though I'm not quite willing to call it "blatantly antisemitic". I'm curious to see what if anything he says publicly in response. I suspect there might be some kind of apology forthcoming.
- nla 5y agoTwo words: James Damore.
- CydeWeys 5y agoWhat does he have to do with this?
- happytoexplain 5y agoNot the most information-laden two words.
- aphextron 5y ago"Under fire" from whom? A random twitter user? NYPost is literally a tabloid on the order of National Enquirer.
- Ancapistani 5y agoIs the Simon Wiesenthal Center a “random Twitter user”?
- hajile 5y agoAd Hominem It doesn't matter who reported it if it's true. You can literally still read the blog post on his blog. The real question should be why other media would see a verifiably true story and refuse to cover it. It wouldn't be news if it were about the guy serving burgers down the street, but it is certainly newsworthy when it's the anti-racist head of one of the largest companies on the planet being explicitly racist.
- happytoexplain 5y agoWhile obviously a whole topic should not be disregarded because of one source reporting on it, this doesn't make sense: >It doesn't matter who reported it if it's true. The entity reporting on a topic absolutely matters. Trust matters, and history matters. It's unrealistic to say an entire article "is true". That's not a reflection of reality. E.g. a headline or a sentence may be objectively true or false, or subjectively true or false, or misleading, or omitting context, or cherry-picking, etc. Yes, we should mostly pay attention to the more salient things we have access to, in this case the actual blog post, but the act of criticizing an article is absolutely valid regardless of that.
- zonnard 5y agoTrue, if it's true we cannot deny it. I agree with you, that he used the wrong and generalised the jews but most of what he said is still correct in essence apart generalising. You cannot label all his talk antisemetic. He generalised them with saying if I were a x. But apart of that everything else he said sounds right to me, the violence, the history, the apartheid , it's just people who focus on one thing. And then change it into a click bait title, then reports it in a way that makes all xxx sound bad. He asked for compassion if I'm not wrong?
- Flatcircle 5y agoI didn’t realize this was from 2007. Past thoughts or beliefs shouldn’t be used to get people fired. The people that complain there’s a double standard when a minority says something racist about someone that’s white, are the same ones that think you shouldn’t be cancelled for saying things decades ago, and yet they see this type of thing, where a thing was put in writing in 2007, and now they want to cancel him. I don’t agree with the his statement, but it was from 14 years ago.
- hajile 5y agoIf you embezzled millions at your last company, should I make you CEO? If you have a track record of racism, how can I put you in charge of anti-racism? Could a Jew working at Google approach him and trust he has their best interests at heart? There must certainly be better candidates out there.
- happytoexplain 5y agoPast thoughts or beliefs shouldn’t be used to get people fired if they are not also current thoughts or beliefs. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the blog post in question is fire-worthy - I just think your line of reasoning is often misguided, and wanted to provide the piece that's frequently missing.
- zonnard 5y agoI Agree Why is it so hard to see his intention? He generalised to them that was wrong , it's like saying black people are x y z. However, the rest of his talk is pretty much true.
- h2odragon 5y agoThis has very little relevance today, especially if this person's views have grown and changed since then... But then, if we say that, we have to apply it to RMS too, don't we?
- gher-shyu3i 5y agoThe cancel culture mob doesn't care, one mistake is all it takes to destroy someone.
- happytoexplain 5y agoAs far as I saw, he was given that consideration. People seem to disagree that he changed (this is my observation, not my opinion on RMS). I.e. people were not, in any numbers, claiming that any change in him should be disregarded. However, that topic seems to be 100% cemented (i.e. you're either on one side or the other, and nothing else seems to matter).
- Connect12A22 5y ago"If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself." Could you say something like that about any other group of people and not get fired?
- happytoexplain 5y agoThe problem is the somewhat uniquely strong correlation between "Jews" and "Israel". You can usually bet money that somebody saying "X race/religion is hungry for violence" isn't saying much that's useful, and is mostly expressing hatred. But replace "X" with a country or government, and there's a higher chance they're making a legitimate point (disregarding how provocative the words they've chosen are, and how appropriate that choice is). In either case, one should of course try to get more context, but the unity of race + religion + nation + historical persecution into a single word, "Jew", makes it extremely difficult to filter the noise out on this topic. It doesn't help that the choice of headline wording I've seen on every single instance of this report is, while not absolutely a lie, certainly misleading and clickbaity, and should be changed.
- zonnard 5y agoI agree, he should have been more precise on who he blames. he generalized a bit with saying the jews. However, the essence of his writing is somewhat true. He talks about different jews that suffered and asked us to see the compassion in them and what they went through, surely we should be more humanists, I agree with most he said. apart from the generalising part