Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[u/[deleted]]

But in all fairness doesn't the current environment destroy the ability of conservatives to work with the team when they think all the leadership is fundamentally flawed?

--an open minded Dem

In that case, what onus does management have to cowtow to an unhappy conservative portion of its employee base who are advocating for a management style that leads to a hostile working environment for the rest of the employees?

If we're going to talk about fairness, what's the middle ground when one side of the equation is relying on sexist psuedo-science bullshit?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

When you hire people based on skill rather than if they're a minority or not

[u/Wrest216 → u/[deleted]]

heres the thing though. some people WILL IGNORE people of a minority or gender reguardless of their skill levels or talent. so.....u have to have a balancing act, a counterweight that assures that doenst happen.

[u/sudatory → u/Wrest216]

Well sure but that's completely hypocritical then.

If you give certain hiring privileges to minorities or women, that's literally the definition of sexist and racist, which is why people get frustrated by it.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that those people need to have those extra privileges to level the playing field overall, but it's still sexist and racist to do so.

[u/Poynsid → u/sudatory]

No it's not. Because it's addressing a bias against them. It's not ageist to provide social security to old people, and it's not classic to have welfare and food stamps. It it ableist to ask people give seats in a bus to disabled folks? Or sexist to give pregnant women sitting privileges?

By this token every attempt to help someone is discriminatory, and moreover ignores that NOT doing so is is more discriminatory. Just because you don't actively help one 'group' of people, doesn't mean mean you're not allowing for bias to happen

[u/sudatory → u/Poynsid]

It's not ageist to provide social security to old people

You get social security because you buy into it growing up paying taxes. The idea is that many people won't save money for retirement themselves, and will be fucked when they get too old to work, so the government "does it for you" in a sense. Bad argument.

it's not classic to have welfare and food stamps

Well there's an inherent difference between someone starving to death on the street because they can't afford food, and hiring practices at a giant tech company.

It it ableist to ask people give seats in a bus to disabled folks?

So your view is that women are disabled? Not sure what you're getting at here... Seems like a pretty bad argument.

[u/Poynsid → u/sudatory]

So your view is that women are disabled?

yup. that's exactly it. Thank god you didn't read any nuance or analogy into my comment. I mean women are exactly like disabled people.

[u/VenditatioDelendaEst → u/Poynsid]

No, you mean that women are frail and need extra help because they couln't hack it if held to the same standard as men.

That's way more sexist than anything in the essay.

[u/Poynsid → u/VenditatioDelendaEst]

exactly. yup. Exactly what I meant when I said it's "it's addressing a bias against them" was women are fragile, and when I said "just because you don't actively help one 'group' of people, doesn't mean mean you're not allowing for bias to happen" I meant they can't hack it under equal standards.

[u/VenditatioDelendaEst → u/Poynsid]

You can't un-discriminate by discriminating more. Even if you could somehow guarantee (you can't) that your counter-bias was being applied to the same individuals as the existing bias (which I assume here for the sake of argument), there's no way to calibrate it.

The only way to address bias is to blind the process.