Google Grapples with Fallout After Employee Slams Diversity Efforts (opens in new tab)

I find it difficult to substantively argue against the author because it's such a hodgepodge of assertions, including a bulleted list of what the a author considers "left" and "right" biases.

> Most negative reactions I have seen to the memo attempt to shame the author without engaging in any sort of rational counter or discourse.

Likely because it's the same old pseudoscientific Gish Gallop of claims that've been addressed a thousand times before.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

The author's claims are not factual. The "biological" bases he asserts as fact are debunked, and not even recently. You say that we should engage with him, but there's nothing of substance there to engage with.

So then, we shouldn't tolerate his breach of the "peace treaty" of tolerance. He stepped over a line, and should be socially stigmatized for it. https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

The person essentially gave ANY woman he works with a gender descrimination suit slam-dunk.

Are you a woman? Does he review your code poorly? Did you possibly lose a promotion/bonus because of review scores? You've got a great case.

Is he your manager? WOW do you have a great case.

Your career is based on peer reviews and he is one of your reviewers? Google is in trouble.

I don't think it IS up for debate but no matter what what he did is a NIGHTMARE for Google internally, let alone the PR and recruiting disasters it has become.

Can confirm, the headlines/summary articles are generally sensationalist/clickbaity. The actual document is more evenhanded than breathless journalists would have you believe.

This guy has PHD. I don't think education will solve the issues he has. Just like education would not have resolved any issues Hitler had. The ideas he espouses are hateful. I think examining his psychic would be more useful.

It may appear that way on the surface, but that's because it follows a typical pseudo-scientific formula of citing some a few specific results as evidence to give the argument an air of credibility, and then drawing broad and profound conclusions that are at best vaguely related to the evidence. He basically went from "there are biological differences between men and women that affect their preferences" (okay, I can maybe buy that) straight to "women may not be as good a fit as men for these roles" and "Google should consider ending all of its diversity efforts". The evidence he cited (some of which is research that's been debunked) doesn't even come CLOSE to justifying his conclusions.

The reason there's such an uproar within Google is that the place is full of people with extensive training in mathematics and logic, who can easily spot when you submit a "proof" that is missing about 10,000 steps between the low level lemmas and the top level claims. Combine this with the fact that the claims are questioning the right of 1/3 of the company to exist there, and of course the reaction is going to be incredibly visceral. I honestly don't know how anyone could read more than a paragraph of that document without their bullshit detector exploding.

I suspect the pretend-polite tone makes it even worse. Women are tired of hearing these prejudices, but they're often abrupt, poorly spelled missives that are easy to ignore.

When somebody wraps it into a careful sandwich of "But have you considered testosterone? Just asking..." for 10 pages long, it feels like the author is seriously working hard to undermine your professional status, not just spouting on a drunk night.

Ultra mild sexism is great, but still sexism.

How do you mean? Aside from being the literal headline of the NPR article and thus being right for HN, what would you suggest?

The memo did slam the diversity efforts at Google. If the headline had been something like "Anti-diversity memo" you might be able to claim a lack of impartiality, but I think even the author of the memo would agree that it specifically called out some of the diversity efforts at Google.

You may find it boring, but there are many people who's daily lives are affected by this type of behavior. Having it displayed so broadly at a company viewed as progressive as Google validates what marginalized people in these groups have been saying for years but keeps getting dismissed.

There are many viewpoints expressed on reddit that, if someone condenses into a manifesto, and sends out to their workplace, will, if all things are right in that workplace, result in swift termination.

Your job is not a debate club, nor does it exist as a platform for free speech.

Further, since we've had at least 5 gigantic shitshow threads about this on HN, it's not just boring but repetitive. This is exactly what the "flag" button under the headlines on stories here is for.

You can't discuss anything on the Internet anymore, everything is politicized ax-grinding by dishonest people fishing for clicks, personal celebrity, and Patreon money who just ruin the discussion.

Do real journalists still exist that can actually interview some of the parties involved, cut through the tweets and personality, and get both sides of this?