Most active commenters
  • tracker1(5)
  • nodamage(4)
  • dguaraglia(3)

←back to thread

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

(blog.ycombinator.com)
1080 points cbcowans | 14 comments | 15 Aug 17 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
hedgew ◴[15 Aug 17 19:57 UTC] No.15021772[source]▶
Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even if I practiced for years to try and catch up.

I do not think that anyone's ability to write should disbar them from discussion. We can not expect perfection from others. Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness.

replies(31): >>15021858 #>>15021871 #>>15021893 #>>15021907 #>>15021914 #>>15021963 #>>15021998 #>>15022264 #>>15022369 #>>15022372 #>>15022389 #>>15022448 #>>15022883 #>>15022898 #>>15022932 #>>15022997 #>>15023149 #>>15023177 #>>15023435 #>>15023742 #>>15023755 #>>15023819 #>>15023909 #>>15024938 #>>15025044 #>>15025144 #>>15025251 #>>15026052 #>>15026111 #>>15027621 #>>15028052 #
joe_the_user ◴[15 Aug 17 20:10 UTC] No.15021907[source]▶
I'd actually say just the opposite - the memo seemed to be written as well and in as conciliatory manner as it could be written and the memo made good (or at least plausible) point and bad points. But the bad points were so bad that it was appropriate and necessary to fire Damore.

Essentially, as analogy, there's no way for a person to say "Black people are inferior and shouldn't be hired", as a message broadcast through their entire workplace, and not have that person be creating a hostile work environment for African Americans. If that person says "I don't mean in general, I mean inferior just for this occupation, I don't mean inferior, just 'differently talented, they've got great rhythm'", it doesn't matter, if that person says "here's a study which says this, we should consider this in an open minded fashion" it doesn't matter. The message is unacceptable. That person is done, that person should be done.

replies(13): >>15021984 #>>15022012 #>>15022025 #>>15022035 #>>15022047 #>>15022101 #>>15022180 #>>15022225 #>>15022271 #>>15022321 #>>15024376 #>>15025796 #>>15026104 #
1. nodamage ◴[15 Aug 17 20:41 UTC] No.15022271[source]▶
"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."

This is conciliatory to you? Implying that the opposing side is blind to the truth and such blindness is preventing them from actually solving problems? Because to me this comes across as hostile and condescending.

replies(1): >>15022664 #
2. tracker1 ◴[15 Aug 17 21:14 UTC] No.15022664[source]▶
So, you're saying that all differences are either "socially constructed or due to discrimination?"
replies(1): >>15022807 #
3. nodamage ◴[15 Aug 17 21:29 UTC] No.15022807[source]▶
No. Note that my post makes no argument as to whether the claim "all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination" is accurate or not. I could have left that part out, but didn't want to only quote half a sentence.

My only point was that the sentence, as written, was hostile and condescending and does not represent a conciliatory approach to conversation.

replies(1): >>15022943 #
4. tracker1 ◴[15 Aug 17 21:43 UTC] No.15022943{3}[source]▶
you were opposing "not all ..." as a construct that was hostile and condescending.

I don't think that cherry picking one line out of a 10 page document with significant number of disclaimers, and which was originally presented in a way and desire to evolve and gather opinions represents the overall intent and tone of the document.

replies(2): >>15023101 #>>15023110 #
5. dguaraglia ◴[15 Aug 17 22:01 UTC] No.15023101{4}[source]▶
There's plenty of antagonizing language in Damore's memo.

Not to have to retype: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15022769

> Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence

> but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google [[ citation talks about Communist/Marxist ideals, directly equating Google with a Communist/Marxist organization ]]

> Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

> Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased [[ says this without citing any evidence at all of this happening ]]

The "tone" of the document is pretty aggressive, even if Damore throws a lot of fluff and "but I don't mean..." in the mix. In general it sets it up as "Left is bad and violent, Google is left, FIX IT."

replies(1): >>15023292 #
6. nodamage ◴[15 Aug 17 22:02 UTC] No.15023110{4}[source]▶
You might view it as cherry picking (even though it's not the only line in the memo written with a condescending tone), but to me it is a big clue that the memo was not written in good faith to solicit discussion, but rather to push a pre-conceived agenda. As one of the interviewees says in the original article:

There’s a difference between “let’s have a discussion” and “let me tell you what’s up, all you wrong people.”

replies(1): >>15023284 #
7. tracker1 ◴[15 Aug 17 22:24 UTC] No.15023284{5}[source]▶
there are plenty of left-leaning memos and examples that show similar tone towards right-leaning and/or conservative or libertarian thinking. That doesn't imply not being open to discussion so much as showing one's bias. There's definitely a matter of levels to one's opinion, experience and yes, some level of conflict.

When going into a situation where you've been at the back hand of such bias, specifically in a workplace, it's often hard not to show at least some condescension. Look at any number of public feminist actions and statements, for example.

replies(1): >>15023745 #
8. tracker1 ◴[15 Aug 17 22:25 UTC] No.15023292{5}[source]▶
Is it really that much different than a great deal of feminist propaganda, statements or actions? It doesn't mean the entire message is bs, or that there's no opportunity for discussion.
replies(1): >>15023359 #
9. dguaraglia ◴[15 Aug 17 22:34 UTC] No.15023359{6}[source]▶
Please, quote feminist propaganda with the same level of invective that has been circulated at Google and maybe we have something to talk about. Otherwise, you are just trying to justify the author of a memo that was released at a work place by suggesting there's literature released elsewhere that is as inflammatory.
replies(2): >>15023964 #>>15025175 #
10. nodamage ◴[15 Aug 17 23:37 UTC] No.15023745{6}[source]▶
Yes, both sides do it. That does not justify or excuse it, especially if your goal is to encourage discussion.
11. tracker1 ◴[16 Aug 17 00:16 UTC] No.15023964{7}[source]▶
Well, if google were to open all their internal memo systems, I'm pretty sure one would be found...

edit: Also, I'm pretty sure there was internal "feedback" related to this memo that was equally hyperbolic towards the author.

12. chroma ◴[16 Aug 17 05:37 UTC] No.15025175{7}[source]▶
Here are some Googlers' responses on their internal G+: https://imgur.com/a/S48QN

Some go beyond propaganda and get close to calling for violence. Quotes include: "…you deserve what's coming to you." and "Yes this is silencing. I intend to silence these views. They are violently offensive."

As far as I know, none of these people were fired for their posts.

replies(3): >>15026500 #>>15027494 #>>15027495 #
13. dguaraglia ◴[16 Aug 17 10:59 UTC] No.15026500{8}[source]▶
On the other hand, their names were leaked so that now alt-right trolls can make their life miserable. Don't you think that's a way of silencing people?
replies(1): >>15028826 #
14. chroma ◴[16 Aug 17 16:30 UTC] No.15028826{9}[source]▶
Sure, but that's a totally different argument. The one I was responding to was:

> Please, quote feminist propaganda with the same level of invective that has been circulated at Google and maybe we have something to talk about.

I showed a half-dozen examples of Googlers being far more insulting and threatening than Damore's memo. As far as I know, none of them were fired. The double-standard could not be more obvious. Damore was fired for the ideas he expressed, not the tone he used.