5 ms·

Let's be frank, here. This is not someone merely "expressing an opinion." This is someone rallying against diversity, using pseudoscience to back up claims that

by s73ver 9y ago

Let's be frank, here. This is not someone merely "expressing an opinion." This is someone rallying against diversity, using pseudoscience to back up claims that women and minorities are inferior, and thus shouldn't have been hired. On top of that, they ranted about how Google had not done enough to make conservatives feel they have a safe space, when the only thing Google has done on the subject is to make others feel safe at Google.

amazingman 9y ago
I looked for claims in the manifesto that women and/or minorities are inferior, and I failed to find them. Would you mind providing an example of what I seem to have missed?
- drewrv 9y ago
  Believing that diversity requires "lowing the bar" means believing "diverse" candidates are inferior.
  - amazingman 9y ago
    Again, I failed to find this claim. The one instance I found of this phrase arises explicitly within a claim about a specific hiring practice being discriminatory: >Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Is this what you're referring to?
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    No, it just means that ones that meet the current requirements are not available in sufficient quantity.
wanderingshi 9y ago
actually, I think the author was pro-diversity but anti-diversity programs. in other words, he's rallying against diversity programs, not diversity. he also didn't outright claim women/minorities are "inferior" but that biological differences mean they are good at different things and maybe driving them into tech isn't necessarily a good thing. he also further claims we should be looking at each candidate and evaluate their skills as an individual and not because of one of their attributes (i.e. race, gender, religion) I'd urge you to reread the manifesto and not get too focused on the part with bad science. the author makes some other interesting points.
shaftoe 9y ago
He didn't rail against diversity, he railed against what are effectively affirmative action policies. Several times he went to pains to point out he wasn't against diversity of people, just the initiatives at Google. He railed against the idea that pay and hiring gaps must be caused by biases and, once you rule out bias, what you're left with must be some combination of cultural, biological, and personal factors. Better to discuss and address real issues and not perpetually pretend that everyone is a closet racist and sexist.
- s73ver 9y ago
  I am discussing real issues. He was using junk science and pseudoscience to justify his claims. That means he's not doing it in good faith, and is more likely than not using those things to justify his bigotry. His post was filled with dog whistles. His part about castration and feminimity is an example. If you want to address real issues, then you need to address how a team can cope with one of their members, a member who likely is one of the people who is giving reviews of them, has come out saying that they do not deserve to be there simply because of their gender or their race.
  - shaftoe 9y ago
    In that scenario, I don't know anyone who would defend the prejudiced team member. Can I give you another that I've experienced? "You rejected this interviewee? Can you give them another look? We need more diversity." What is the proper way to proceed in this situation?
    - s73ver 9y ago
      To re-examine why you rejected them, and see if other candidates were rejected for similar reasons or not. There are several studies that show that women and minorities are simply judged harsher than their peers despite having similar levels of talent and ability[1]. Examine if perhaps you fell into that trap. Obviously if someone couldn't do fizzbuzz, they shouldn't be hired. But I would wager that in many cases, there are those candidates that are very close, and they end up getting picked or rejected based on these unconscious factors. And, also, to look at why diverse candidates are not applying to work at your company is decent numbers. [1]One such article: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/ http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias...
lawnchair_larry 9y ago
Did you miss the part where he was promoting diversity and proposing strategies to improve it? Weirdest rally "against" diversity I've ever heard of.

by s73ver 9y ago

amazingman 9y ago

I looked for claims in the manifesto that women and/or minorities are inferior, and I failed to find them. Would you mind providing an example of what I seem to have missed?

drewrv 9y ago
Believing that diversity requires "lowing the bar" means believing "diverse" candidates are inferior.
- amazingman 9y ago
  Again, I failed to find this claim. The one instance I found of this phrase arises explicitly within a claim about a specific hiring practice being discriminatory: >Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Is this what you're referring to?
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  No, it just means that ones that meet the current requirements are not available in sufficient quantity.

wanderingshi 9y ago

actually, I think the author was pro-diversity but anti-diversity programs. in other words, he's rallying against diversity programs, not diversity. he also didn't outright claim women/minorities are "inferior" but that biological differences mean they are good at different things and maybe driving them into tech isn't necessarily a good thing. he also further claims we should be looking at each candidate and evaluate their skills as an individual and not because of one of their attributes (i.e. race, gender, religion) I'd urge you to reread the manifesto and not get too focused on the part with bad science. the author makes some other interesting points.

shaftoe 9y ago

He didn't rail against diversity, he railed against what are effectively affirmative action policies. Several times he went to pains to point out he wasn't against diversity of people, just the initiatives at Google. He railed against the idea that pay and hiring gaps must be caused by biases and, once you rule out bias, what you're left with must be some combination of cultural, biological, and personal factors. Better to discuss and address real issues and not perpetually pretend that everyone is a closet racist and sexist.

s73ver 9y ago
I am discussing real issues. He was using junk science and pseudoscience to justify his claims. That means he's not doing it in good faith, and is more likely than not using those things to justify his bigotry. His post was filled with dog whistles. His part about castration and feminimity is an example. If you want to address real issues, then you need to address how a team can cope with one of their members, a member who likely is one of the people who is giving reviews of them, has come out saying that they do not deserve to be there simply because of their gender or their race.
- shaftoe 9y ago
  In that scenario, I don't know anyone who would defend the prejudiced team member. Can I give you another that I've experienced? "You rejected this interviewee? Can you give them another look? We need more diversity." What is the proper way to proceed in this situation?
  - s73ver 9y ago
    To re-examine why you rejected them, and see if other candidates were rejected for similar reasons or not. There are several studies that show that women and minorities are simply judged harsher than their peers despite having similar levels of talent and ability[1]. Examine if perhaps you fell into that trap. Obviously if someone couldn't do fizzbuzz, they shouldn't be hired. But I would wager that in many cases, there are those candidates that are very close, and they end up getting picked or rejected based on these unconscious factors. And, also, to look at why diverse candidates are not applying to work at your company is decent numbers. [1]One such article: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/ http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias...

lawnchair_larry 9y ago

Did you miss the part where he was promoting diversity and proposing strategies to improve it? Weirdest rally "against" diversity I've ever heard of.