Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more micahbright's comments login

Ironic, coming at the heels of Google firing someone for being "anti-diversity".


That's because diversity doesn't actually mean diversity. It's mostly newspeak, but it amounts to a dynamic set whose members are defined by the fashionable morality of PC culture.


what now we're claiming google is some champion for PC culture? they're in the middle of a massive investigation by the department of labor for systemic wage discrimination against their female employees, I don't see how that's exactly championing the kind of PC culture you're talking about.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/dol-goo...


No, Google is not championing PC culture, Google is championing "diversity" which is then defined by PC culture. Also, the wage gap argument is a different argument from the diversity argument. I'm happy to discuss either, but would you mind stating your point more clearly? Lastly, please use your real account when discussing hot button issues because it's hard to differentiate trolls from new accounts.

Edit: For those who disagree then ask yourself this, are all religions equally represented at Google? Are all age groups? All political affiliations? All body types? Are all ability types equally represented at Google? Etc, etc. If not, then why not? And more importantly, why is there no industry-wide effort to correct the injustice that stems from these differences?


yeah, so's the fact that they're under investigation by the DoL for wage discrimination against their female employees but I'm pretty sure everyone who agrees with that rant probably thinks it's just because of some supposed biological reason.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/dol-goo...


> At what point does saying things ... starts becoming 'creating a hostile work environment'?

Certainly well known, supported, and referenced scientific facts, are not creating a hostile work environment. The fact that he was treated that way suggests that it is in fact a "thought crime".


It's weird, but this is all pretty well known stuff in the fields from which he refers. And, as obsessed as we are with instilling diversity in everything, why even common people don't know these things who knows?


>and then present the conclusions that asians in professional basketball perform worse than others (exactly what this individual attempted to do with women)

Could you quote exactly the line where he "attempted to do the same with women who work at Google"?

That would be pure gold. I read the memo, but I don't recall that part.

I'm thinking, one of us may have our blinders one. I just want you to do the work since it is your claim, and it's a 10 page memo.


It's implicit in the thesis. It's there in the very first fucking line if you use [0] source.

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

The fundamental disconnect between people like the OP and companies like google is over the the idea that there is an untapped well of talent locked away in groups under represented in the space. That's the whole reason these diversity programs exist.

You can look no farther than the countless blog posts on how hard interviewing and sourcing candidates that get upvoted here. Candidate acquisition is hard and expensive and it is not helped by exclusionary hiring practices. [1]

As much as we'd love to live in a world where we all spoke lojban and full meaning in language was implicitly clear, we're stuck with English so context and tone matter.

At best you have a tone deaf person writing a tasteless memo full of bad science and incorrect assertions, at worst you have all the toxic thinking that makes a lot tech such awful places to work. Engineering deserves better than bad math and dog whistles. It's really hard to argue "discrimination" when as a white guy in tech every team you're on will be full of people like you, think like you, hire like you and all the existing metrics are designed based around how you were raised. Like, there really is nothing in this world easier, than being a white dude in tech in my experience so it's very difficult to take any thing said there in good faith.


So the answer to the question: Could you quote exactly the line where he 'attempted to do the same with women who work at Google'?

is, "no, I cannot quote that, because I just made it up."

> It's implicit in the thesis.

You lie.

> It's there in the very first fucking line if you use [0] source.

No, it's not. You have no rebuttal, and you're just making things up. You're wrong, and you're attempting to conceal it with lies.


> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.

You're saying this implies that the author thinks women working at Google perform worse than men at Google?

I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you mean, and for anyone who is reading what was written above, this might clarify.


> Employment isn't a protected right.

Nice - you just proved that diversity programs are unnecessary with far fewer words than James Damore.


> Nice - you just proved that diversity programs are unnecessary

This merely shows why they're not legally mandated. "Necessary", or "desirable" is another matter entirely.


So, to bring things full circle:

Are you saying it's necessary or desirable to lower the bar for people to fill quotas, however, when someone writes something that you obviously haven't read or understood, it's rightful that they should be terminated for those opinions that you don't even seem to have grasped. I mean, you do realize that "trying to use provable false statements to create a toxic work environment for one third of your coworkers is a PR disaster" is utterly false.


> Are you saying it's necessary or desirable to lower the bar for people to fill quotas

What do you mean by "lower the bar"?


Actually, there is some research showing women are equally physically violent in domestic situations. Men just go to jail more. But, anyone will point out that if black men go to jail more than white men, it means there is a systemic bias against black men.


According to Dr. B. H. Hoff's (2012, National Study CDC/DOJ) Report on the National Violence Against Women Survey (notice there's no report on violence against men as anyone who spent money on such research would never be funded again - that's not an assumption, it's spelled out in print), 42.3% of victimized men, over 2 million men, are subjected to "severe physical violence" every year.


Anyone can be the perpetrator of domestic violence; and anyone can be the victim; and we need more support for male victims and more recognition of female perpetrators.

But, you're wrong. Far more men than women are perpetrators of domestic violence, and far more women than men are the victims of domestic violence. This is true for crimes of sexual violence, and for stalking.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization — National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid...

Intimate Partner Violence:

> The lifetime and 12-month prevalence of rape by an intimate partner for women was an estimated 8.8% and 0.8%, respectively (Table 6). Nationally, an estimated 15.8% of women experienced other forms of sexual violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, while an estimated 2.1% of women experienced other forms of sexual violence by a partner in the 12 months before taking the survey. The lifetime prevalence of physical violence by an intimate partner was an estimated 31.5% among women and in the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.0% of women experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner. An estimated 22.3% of women experienced at least one act of severe physical violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes. With respect to individual severe physical violence behaviors, being slammed against something was experienced by an estimated 15.4% of women, and being hit with a fist or something hard was experienced by 13.2% of women. In the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 2.3% of women experienced at least one form of severe physical violence by an intimate partner. The lifetime and 12-month prevalence of stalking by an intimate partner for women was an estimated 9.2% and 2.4%, respectively. Finally, an estimated 47.1% of women experienced at least one act of psychological aggression by an intimate partner during their lifetimes; an estimated 14.2% of women experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey.

> Nationally, an estimated 0.5% of men experienced rape by an intimate partner during their lifetimes. However, the case count for men reporting rape by an intimate partner in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 9.5% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, while an estimated 2.1% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence by an intimate partner in the 12 months before taking the survey. The lifetime prevalence of physical violence by an intimate partner was an estimated 27.5% for men, and in the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.8% of men experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner. An estimated 14.0% of men experienced at least one act of severe physical violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes. With respect to individual severe physical violence behaviors, being hit with a fist or something hard was experienced by an estimated 10.1% of men, and 4.6% of men have been kicked by an intimate partner. In the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 2.1% of men experienced at least one form of severe physical violence by an intimate partner. The lifetime and 12-month prevalence of stalking by an intimate partner for men was an estimated 2.5% and 0.8%, respectively. Finally, an estimated 46.5% of men experienced at least one act of psychological aggression by an intimate partner during their lifetimes; an estimated 18.0% of men experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey.

Sexual violence:

> Results: In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.

Stalking:

> In the United States, an estimated 15.2% of women (18.3 million women) have experienced stalking during their lifetimes that made them feel very fearful or made them believe that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed (Table 4). In addition, an estimated 4.2% of women (approximately 5.1 million women) were stalked in the 12 months before taking the survey.

> Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of men (or nearly 6.5 million) have experienced stalking victimization during their lifetimes, while an estimated 2.1% of men (or 2.4 million) were stalked in the 12 months before taking the survey

> Among female stalking victims, an estimated 88.3% were stalked by only male perpetrators; an estimated 7.1% had only female perpetrators. Among male stalking victims, almost half (an estimated 48.0%) were stalked by only male perpetrators while a similar proportion (an estimated 44.6%) were stalked by only female perpetrators.


http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-...

But like I said - if you use funding to report violence against men, you won't ever get any more funding. So, you can bring out all the statistics funded for violence against women, but you have a systemic imbalance here. And there is sufficient evidence that it needs further investigation.


You keep "quoting" CDC studies.

So far I'm the only one who's posted a link to a CDC study and it says precisely the opposite of what you've said.


"But, you're wrong. Far more men than women are perpetrators of domestic violence, and far more women than men are the victims of domestic violence. This is true for crimes of sexual violence, and for stalking." I refuted your claim with a well sourced article(it is quoting more than just the CDC, which I have already pointed out is highly biased).


I've seen several comments flagged for no reason - what they have in common is that they cogently refute liberal ideology


Because paternity leave is far less common than maternity leave. Because women expect to be supported during and after pregnancy.


Whoa, people value things higher than or equal to what they pay for them(unless there is coercion as in the case of paying health insurance premiums in the US). In other words, price must be lower than or equal to value.


I haven't. Just wanted to add my anecdote, so that it gets counted when they do a meta-study of hacker news comments.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: