5 ms·

I would disagree. While he obviously sees the diversity programs as misguided, he stops short of calling for an end to them. To quote: > Have an open and hones

by gopz 9y ago

I would disagree. While he obviously sees the diversity programs as misguided, he stops short of calling for an end to them. To quote: > Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. I understand that discussions within a business are different than talking with friends around the kitchen table, but I still think that you should go as far as you possibly can to have open discussions about sensitive topics like this. Of course you aren't going to open a dialogue about the benefits of white power, but there is still a lot of ground to cover between that and what people are doing this weekend. I think that the original article fits into that realm of what is acceptable to at least talk about, regardless of whether you disagree or not.

josteink 9y ago
> > Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. To which the diversity proponents are quick to rally a mob and get the guy fired. Open and honest discussion indeed. If you are so insecure in your ideological position that you can't even have a discussion about it without calling foul, I'd consider that the best possible sign that you actually need to have that discussion. It's the only way to make sure that it's properly rooted and based on fact, and to legitimize it, and by proxy, the means you use to further it. Sticking your head in the sand to avoid criticism will probably do the exact opposite, and sure as hell wont further your cause.
- faceplanted 9y ago
  Except it wasn't a call to open discussion, it was an anonymously published manifesto that directly affected other members of the company. You can't just publish a manifesto about the benefits of slavery without some backlash, you can't publish your opinion that we should repeal the laws against religious discrimination without backlash either, nor can you publish your opinions about race or gender without expecting backlash because publishing those opinions inside a company where those groups are present is inherently threatening. It's been accepted for a long time that the place for arguments against racial, religious, or gender programs is not the workplace. I'm a man and I find his manifesto an issue, he said things about men that are blatantly untrue, and frankly unhealthy as well, and I wouldn't want to work with him. People's opinion on their coworkers is for private discussions with their manager and HR, and don't get precedence over their colleagues comfort and security at work. It's been that way since black people got rights and women got the vote.
  - gopz 9y ago
    Give me a break. 1. It wasn't published anonymously 2. What he's saying is not even close to promoting slavery or legally allowing religious discrimination 3. The entire point of the screed was that the diversity issue isn't talked about openly but should be. The response by Google's diversity chief literally says: > Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. So your assumption that these things should not be discussed at Google is wrong, at least in the eyes of their Diversity chief, who's opinion I would think is highly relevant in this case Finally, like many others in this thread deride what's said in this article as untrue and unhealthy without ever backing it up. Obviously I'm not saying the article is 100% right, but most the claims he makes about men and women have scientific backing, they are just not regularly discussed. As others have noted his premises about men and women being biologically different are basically a summary of this study: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x
  - lagadu 9y ago
    > You can't just publish a manifesto about the benefits of slavery without some backlash And that's the problem. In a truly open forum for ideas and discussion I would expect ideas about, like your example cites, the benefits of slavery to be actually freely discussed without negative consequence to the people involved. We don't get better as a society by not examining ideas in detail frequently.
    - GrantSolar 9y ago
      I think your point was already addressed with: >People's opinion on their coworkers is for private discussions with their manager and HR, and don't get precedence over their colleagues comfort and security at work.
  - pyroinferno 9y ago
    Lmao you make it pretty apparent you didn't even read it. >anonymously Oh, please, you are an idiot.
vertex-four 9y ago
"Have an honest discussion", "review", etc, are all weasel words for "cut down on". This is the same across industries, it's bog-standard doublespeak. To "have an honest discussion" about a diversity program that we're not already having means that at least one party has a strong belief that they should be ended or seriously cut down.
- josteink 9y ago
  > To "have an honest discussion" about a diversity program that we're not already having means that at least one party has a strong belief that they should be ended or seriously cut down. Stated differently: Someone has an opinion that the system currently in place doesn't fully work and wants to discuss change. If we're not allowed to invite to a discussion, how else do you suggest we facilitate change, or investigate the need for such change? You don't seriously imply that there's never a need to review the basis for existing programs? Or are you just ignoring the general principle of things "because diversity"?
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    No, my point is solely in response to that post - to say "we need to have an honest discussion" is quite specifically to say "we need to end/severely cut down on it". If you wanted to suggest another path to hiring women - say, apprenticeships - you could do that without needing to prefix that with "we need an honest discussion". Whether we actually do or not is irrelevant, but suggesting that it's somehow not saying that is at the very least confused and misguided.
    - josteink 9y ago
      > No, my point is solely in response to that post - to say "we need to have an honest discussion" is quite specifically to say "we need to end/severely cut down on it" That's not how I read it. I read it as trying as carefully as possible to start a discussion about having a discussion about a topic by many deemed to be sensitive. And change doesn't have to merely be cutting something, as you suggest. It can be replacing something ineffective/unfair with something more effective or less unfair. There's literally nothing in that sentence which says "we need to remove/cut down on all programs related to subject $x". I'm not sure where you're getting that from. To me, your response to this fairly harmless email seems overly defensive. Are you acting rationally based on what has been said, or are overreacting based on things you assume to be said? Maybe this would be a good time to (re?)-read the original email[1]? [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

by gopz 9y ago

josteink 9y ago

> > Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. To which the diversity proponents are quick to rally a mob and get the guy fired. Open and honest discussion indeed. If you are so insecure in your ideological position that you can't even have a discussion about it without calling foul, I'd consider that the best possible sign that you actually need to have that discussion. It's the only way to make sure that it's properly rooted and based on fact, and to legitimize it, and by proxy, the means you use to further it. Sticking your head in the sand to avoid criticism will probably do the exact opposite, and sure as hell wont further your cause.

faceplanted 9y ago
Except it wasn't a call to open discussion, it was an anonymously published manifesto that directly affected other members of the company. You can't just publish a manifesto about the benefits of slavery without some backlash, you can't publish your opinion that we should repeal the laws against religious discrimination without backlash either, nor can you publish your opinions about race or gender without expecting backlash because publishing those opinions inside a company where those groups are present is inherently threatening. It's been accepted for a long time that the place for arguments against racial, religious, or gender programs is not the workplace. I'm a man and I find his manifesto an issue, he said things about men that are blatantly untrue, and frankly unhealthy as well, and I wouldn't want to work with him. People's opinion on their coworkers is for private discussions with their manager and HR, and don't get precedence over their colleagues comfort and security at work. It's been that way since black people got rights and women got the vote.
- gopz 9y ago
  Give me a break. 1. It wasn't published anonymously 2. What he's saying is not even close to promoting slavery or legally allowing religious discrimination 3. The entire point of the screed was that the diversity issue isn't talked about openly but should be. The response by Google's diversity chief literally says: > Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. So your assumption that these things should not be discussed at Google is wrong, at least in the eyes of their Diversity chief, who's opinion I would think is highly relevant in this case Finally, like many others in this thread deride what's said in this article as untrue and unhealthy without ever backing it up. Obviously I'm not saying the article is 100% right, but most the claims he makes about men and women have scientific backing, they are just not regularly discussed. As others have noted his premises about men and women being biologically different are basically a summary of this study: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x
- lagadu 9y ago
  > You can't just publish a manifesto about the benefits of slavery without some backlash And that's the problem. In a truly open forum for ideas and discussion I would expect ideas about, like your example cites, the benefits of slavery to be actually freely discussed without negative consequence to the people involved. We don't get better as a society by not examining ideas in detail frequently.
  - GrantSolar 9y ago
    I think your point was already addressed with: >People's opinion on their coworkers is for private discussions with their manager and HR, and don't get precedence over their colleagues comfort and security at work.
- pyroinferno 9y ago
  Lmao you make it pretty apparent you didn't even read it. >anonymously Oh, please, you are an idiot.

vertex-four 9y ago

"Have an honest discussion", "review", etc, are all weasel words for "cut down on". This is the same across industries, it's bog-standard doublespeak. To "have an honest discussion" about a diversity program that we're not already having means that at least one party has a strong belief that they should be ended or seriously cut down.

josteink 9y ago
> To "have an honest discussion" about a diversity program that we're not already having means that at least one party has a strong belief that they should be ended or seriously cut down. Stated differently: Someone has an opinion that the system currently in place doesn't fully work and wants to discuss change. If we're not allowed to invite to a discussion, how else do you suggest we facilitate change, or investigate the need for such change? You don't seriously imply that there's never a need to review the basis for existing programs? Or are you just ignoring the general principle of things "because diversity"?
- vertex-four 9y ago
  No, my point is solely in response to that post - to say "we need to have an honest discussion" is quite specifically to say "we need to end/severely cut down on it". If you wanted to suggest another path to hiring women - say, apprenticeships - you could do that without needing to prefix that with "we need an honest discussion". Whether we actually do or not is irrelevant, but suggesting that it's somehow not saying that is at the very least confused and misguided.
  - josteink 9y ago
    > No, my point is solely in response to that post - to say "we need to have an honest discussion" is quite specifically to say "we need to end/severely cut down on it" That's not how I read it. I read it as trying as carefully as possible to start a discussion about having a discussion about a topic by many deemed to be sensitive. And change doesn't have to merely be cutting something, as you suggest. It can be replacing something ineffective/unfair with something more effective or less unfair. There's literally nothing in that sentence which says "we need to remove/cut down on all programs related to subject $x". I'm not sure where you're getting that from. To me, your response to this fairly harmless email seems overly defensive. Are you acting rationally based on what has been said, or are overreacting based on things you assume to be said? Maybe this would be a good time to (re?)-read the original email[1]? [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...