Google's "Anti-Diversity" Screed

cbi1972 · Aug 11, 2017

Jon said:
read the Vox column 92 posted and pay particular attention to Reason 3 and 5 she is a much better writer than me and she nails my thoughts here

In reason 3, she cites "Google’s attempts at creating a fair and broadly welcoming working environment."
Seems like this is true if you share a specific point of view regarding the value of their diversity initiatives. Their response to dissent is the opposite of broadly welcoming.

In other words, it is clear that we are still operating in an environment where it is much more likely that women who are biologically able to work in tech are chased away from tech by sociological and other factors, than that biologically unsuited women are somehow brought in by overzealous diversity programs.

Too much is being made here of "biological differences" A whole lot more than biological differences are driving the characteristics of Google's applicant pool, and nothing in the 10 pages denies that. Several pages are devoted to discussing these other factors.

In the end, focusing the conversation on the minutiae of the scientific claims in the manifesto is a red herring.

Now this, I can get behind. Which is why I asked specifically for evidence of being dismissive to ALL WOMEN. It isn't true, and there are far more useful criticisms to be made.

crimsonaudio · Aug 11, 2017

Jon said:
read the Vox column 92 posted and pay particular attention to Reason 3 and 5 she is a much better writer than me and she nails my thoughts here

Seems like he proposed that google do away with 'diversification initiative' and simply hire the best applicant in each case, which seems like a perfectly valid answer to #5.

If one simply hires the best individual for each job, there's no need for purposeful diversification. In fact, i'd argue that purposeful diversification by definition means there's a fair chance a company won't be hiring the best / most qualified individual for every position.

He can have a valid point without being misogynistic.

cbi1972 · Aug 11, 2017

crimsonaudio said:
He can have a valid point without being misogynistic.

The rejection of the assumption that it is solely bias that causes a lack of diversity being chief among them.

Tide1986 · Aug 11, 2017

Jon said:
I agree and assume you mean Damore

but even though Damore claims he wants to treat people as individuals he then broad brushes women using over reaching generalizations. See the problem?

No, not really. It seems that you are selectively reading portions of the memo instead of taking into account the entire text. The so-called "broad brush" is intended to explain why the numbers might be like they are at Google and why Google's extreme efforts might be somewhat pointless, not to say that all women are incapable of working at Google.

Tide1986 · Aug 11, 2017

92tide said:
if interested, here is a response from a woman in tech

link to vox article

and another segment about something that is all too common in discussions such as this

Regarding #5, the "woman in tech" appears to be assuming the worst since the author of the memo does not offer the specifics of a diversity-enhancing program with a plausible chance of being effective. Regarding the remainder of the cited response, the "woman in tech" appears to have hurt feelings mixed with a lack of self-confidence.

Tide1986 · Aug 12, 2017

Damore's response to his firing:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

Echo chambers maintain themselves by creating a shared spirit and keeping discussion confined within certain limits. As Noam Chomsky once observed, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

But echo chambers also have to guard against dissent and opposition. Whether it’s in our homes, online or in our workplaces, a consensus is maintained by shaming people into conformity or excommunicating them if they persist in violating taboos. Public shaming serves not only to display the virtue of those doing the shaming but also warns others that the same punishment awaits them if they don’t conform.

cuda.1973 · Aug 15, 2017

Should Google be declared a "public utility", and regulated?

Well, one guy thinks so:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/08/15/tucker-carlson-google-regulated-like-public-utility/

As much as I despise Google, and their lack of diversity, in terms of differing viewpoints, but to make them a public utility?

Seriously?

Uh, no.

Yes, I know they are "de-monetizing" lots of "conservative channels, on YouBoob, but does that justify this reaction? Nope, can't go along with it.

Search

Google's "Anti-Diversity" Screed

cbi1972

Hall of Fame

crimsonaudio

Administrator

cbi1972

Hall of Fame

Tide1986

Suspended

Tide1986

Suspended

Tide1986

Suspended

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!