Absolutely. I completely disagree with the whole "bring your whole self to work". No! Bring your professional self to work.
The counter-argument is that the causes relate to discrimination in the workforce. I.e., BLM needs to be supported because blacks are underrepresented in the American tech workforce. I disagree these need to be equivalent. It's possible for a company to promote hiring underrepresented minorities without allowing employees to advertise their political beliefs.
What happened to never talking about politics on the first date or at your job?
It's called corporate social responsibility. Companies advocate for their bottom line and their employees at the same time.
As a gay dude that grew up in Ohio -- and had people yell "fag" when I got my diploma at graduation -- I'm beyond happy that the next generation of LGBTQ engineers won't grow up with the same level of hate I experienced.
The arc of moral justice is only bent when force is applied.
You only say that because it's convenient for you. You would not like it one bit at the conservative places I worked at. It really is a two way street and u-turns are allowed.
> You would not like it one bit at the conservative places I worked at.
So the commenter says that he looks forward to the next generation of developers not experiencing the hate that he has experienced. You say, he’d be unhappy at conservative places, presumably because he’d still experience that hate.
So then why do you wonder why he pushes for politics in the workforce? His goal—hell, it should be all of our goal—is to stamp out places where such hate is encouraged.
>So then why do you wonder why he pushes for politics in the workforce? His goal—hell, it should be all of our goal—is to stamp out places where such hate is encouraged.
How do you think a person who wore a MAGA hat to Google or Facebook would be treated? What about someone who advocates that people who entered the country without permission should be charged with a crime? I think the point being made is that be careful how the minority is treated because one day you might be in the minority. The best way to do that is to keep out politics out of work.
> why do you wonder why he pushes for politics in the workforce?
Because he doesn’t understand that these places openly hostile towards gays are likely formed by white heterosexual Christian conservatives defending their identity and pushing for politics at workplace.
> it should be all of our goal—is to stamp out places where such hate is encouraged
You can’t stamp out people. You forcibly convert that one place to your faith, people will likely change jobs or move to other states.
I don’t think the right way to solve this is oppress, stamp out, or discriminate people positively or negatively. The right way is promoting tolerance (the good one i.e. civilized behavior towards people despite different positions, not the bad one that says everyone must express the only true position), and most importantly following the laws.
Democracy + judicial system worked OK for centuries. IMO it’s the only working mechanism invented so far how a society can function despite different people have different identities and beliefs.
What, precisely, about other minorities existing threatens that identity?
You keep repeating this claim of threats, but haven't been able to articulate any.
> I don’t think the right way to solve this is oppress, stamp out, or discriminate people positively or negatively.
And yet that's precisely what the Google engineer linked to was doing by circulating his memo describing how he and others believed women weren't as "qualified" to be programmers based solely on their biology. Hence, why he was fired.
The only thing that cannot be tolerated in a tolerant society is intolerance itself.
See the link in the previous comment. Being fired for expressing a political viewpoint is a classic example of discrimination. Also because the subject was about work conditions, the firing was illegal in California jurisdiction.
> describing how he and others believed women weren't as "qualified" to be programmers
Apparently, you have not read that memo. He never said that (I’ve just downloaded the memo and searched), nor anything similar to that. And IMO he never meant that either.
That really doesn't describe a threat to the "white heterosexual Christian" identity. In fact, you're free to be a white heterosexual Christian at Google or anywhere else for that matter.
> Being fired for expressing a political viewpoint is a classic example of discrimination.
Again, the viewpoint on women and minorities was an intolerant one. Please study the Paradox of Tolerance.
> He never said that (I’ve just downloaded the memo and searched), nor anything similar to that.
You're right, he made a much more broad statement about the gender gap in the tech industry. Although there is this section:
> Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
>○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
He's regurgitating the idea that biology, rather than society, is what is holding women back in the tech industry. This is an intolerant viewpoint, as it suggests that there is something inherent about being female that makes them inferior at participating in the tech industry.
> The conclusion you’ve made in this and previous comments is about abilities.
This is the conclusion the author of the memo reaches as well. His suggestions are not to fix the culture surrounding these preferences, but instead to simply "give women what they prefer", which inherently limits their experience and makes an implicit claim on their ability without that compensation.
He makes observation of women's preferences, based on data. You claim he is "suggesting" something that is not there (seems like projection). Is this really the best argument for Damore's "intolerance" (in the memo) you can make?
Because you really sound like making stuff up, just to confirm your bias against Damore. The whole memo was about something else, yet you claim that because:
> He then prescribes things based on that generalization that make implicit claims about the ability of women to work without said compensation.
(whatever that actually means)
he is:
> He's regurgitating the idea that biology, rather than society, is what is holding women back in the tech industry.
That's gross hyperbole at best, and, considering you have not provided single citation (even after being called out), seems like random baseless belief you hold.
Frankly, now your two liner applies wonderfully:
> You are free to believe whatever you want. Just be prepared for your ideology to be called out for what it is if you choose to publicly stand for it.
> And yet that's precisely what the Google engineer linked to was doing by circulating his memo describing how he and others believed women weren't as "qualified" to be programmers based solely on their biology. Hence, why he was fired.
After all discussions on the HN on the topic you still hold this view? When you paint the dissenting view in the worst possible light (and imagine a few things just to be sure), you will be seen as the oppresor.
> Recently however, in places like Bay Area, the conservatives are no longer a majority, and consequently the treats became quite real
Spoiler Alert: the current threats to their identity are just as imaginary. White heterosexual conservatives will eventually learn how to be a minority, just like every other identity in this country has.
I don't think the presumption is that he would still be experiencing the hate. But neither might his lifestyle be celebrated at work. And why should it be?
> You only say that because it's convenient for you.
I’m a heterosexual white male. It’s convenient for me to ignore the hardship of people who are outside my demographic.
I went for smoothies with a work friend who was outwardly gay and heard him called a faggot by a couple of random people when I realized how different life might be for someone who is not me. It was not great. It would be more convenient if I hadn’t heard that. The fact is, it happens.
This is an important question - how much personalization is ok within a workplace? I am grateful I've worked in really professional environments - nothing overtly political or anything. It might have been a bit bland, but honestly it helped us stay focused on the work.
That an individual would "not like it one bit" at a politically-active conservative company for no reason other than that they are gay, is an argument against modern American conservatism, not against corporate social responsibility.
I'm not saying you and others shouldn't be politically involved. I'm not even saying companies shouldn't contribute to political causes. I'm just saying they shouldn't encourage their workers to do so in the workplace.
You shouldn't be called a slur at work not because of the type of slur, but the fact that it is a slur at all.
> Companies advocate for their bottom line and their employees at the same time.
Pretty much just their bottom line. Companies advocate for whatever position makes a large majority of people think of them as the "good guys". How many companies did you see advocating for gay marriage before the political zietgeist shifted in favor of it a few years ago?
Rest assured that all these "socially conscious" corporations will have a sudden and miraculous change of heart the instant the sociopolitical winds shift on any given issue. And you will be expected to fall in line or keep your opinions to yourself.
Personally, I don't want my career success or failure to depend on my willingness to pledge fealty to whatever insincere political opinion my employer thinks is currently expedient.
I think a lot of it stems from the dorm-ification of workplaces. Because the ROI is so good, employers want you to think of work as more of an institution that is heavily tied to your identity rather than just a place of business. You're not an employee at Google - you're a Googler. Once you leave, you are a Google Alumni. The end result is that your whole self is brought into work because the boundaries between personal and professional life are heavily eroded.
I don't agree with this "professional self" thing. I think you should bring your whole self to work...but sure, as with everything that should come in moderation. We all go to work to do a job, after all. But maybe the core problem is that we can't just agree to disagree, on some things. We have gotten to the point, as a society, that if you are right of center (in some circles), you're batshit alt-right crazy. And that's honestly just another form of discrimination.
Why can't you talk about politics at work? We spend most of our waking hours at work. There should be basic ground rules for civility and then people should be free to say what they want, without fear that they'll be fired because they donated to some GOP candidate.
That's tolerance, and honestly, that's America. What the hell happened where everyone's trying to bite each other's heads off all the time?
> That's tolerance, and honestly, that's America. What the hell happened
Don't even go on Twitter, listen to mainstream media and see how much negativity is pumped out 24/7 in industrial quantities. It's an information analogue of First World War industrial warfare, and the effects are devastating.
Look at the comment here just below here - I am sure this guy who thinks half of the country is bigoted racists who needs to be crushed - is a nice person in real life who is a pleasure to be around. As long as he/she doesn't see you as an outgroup. And you probably would get along just nicely if you do not discuss things that reveal you as an outgroup. But if you and them bring your whole self to work, and turns out that person thinks you need to be crushed - would it be easy to get along, going forward?
Like expelling men accused of sexual misconduct without allowing them to defend themselves, while demanding that "people of color" be allowed to break the law without consequence (eg, trespassing, immigration).
Like forbidding hate speech, unless it's anti-white, anti-male speech, which will get you a job as an editor at the NY Times.
It's not that people disagree with you; it's just that your ideas aren't adding much to the conversation. You've got piles of misinformation, no sources, that beautiful demand for civility in the face of categorically uncivil views, and then the wonderful demand for "tolerance". Tolerance has limits and you can't allow tolerance of ideas that exist in mortal opposition. IE there is no room for white supremacists in a multicultural world. That's why you've been downvoted. Your dog whistles are too obvious for even this forum.
Labeling someone a white supremacist and dog-whistler in response to that comment is an outright personal attack. We ban users who do that, regardless of how right they are or feel, and regardless of their politics. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
It's hard enough for a topic this divisive to show up on HN; stooping this low just sets the whole place on fire.
Except that it was never like that. In the old times when conservative beliefs were the norm, discrimination was brought to the workplace. There was no standard saying that you should leave your racist, misogynistic views out of the office.
Up front, I believe it's for the good of American society that more women should be in tech in America. That said, I think companies should go out there and ensure they engage people at the start, in Elementary school. Be they women, blacks and even whites (see the many H1Bs we need to shore up demand).
But... I don't think this should be a PR stunt. Or should be politicized. Go out there, and do the hard work. Engage all people and recruit the whole eligible population. It's in our interest, but don't politicize it and don't introduce politicized quotes. Do it methodically without pretenses.
> That said, I think companies should go out there and ensure they engage people at the start, in Elementary school. Be they women, blacks and even whites (see the many H1Bs we need to shore up demand).
This appears to be a form of the "pipeline" argument, that the problem with low participation rates by some demographic groups is due to a lack of those people in the earlier stages of the career pipeline to the workplace.
The thing to understand about the pipeline problem is that it is the same thing as the hostile/discriminating workplace problem. The pipeline leaks at every stage, from kindergarten to the boardroom, because some demo groups are supported, assumed capable, etc, and others are not.
So the solutions are the same at every level: workplace and school policies that explicitly correct the inequitable treatment, both structural and individual.
Recruit in elementary school? Seriously? How about pay more taxes to provide a better k-12 education so the kids have a baseline on which they can learn the skills they need to succeed in tech.
I believe that is exactly what they mean. They aren't proposing that Google etc. hire 6 year olds, they're proposing that the companies get involved in promoting what they do and how to get there. If these companies spent more of the billions they earn on enhancing education, showing off what they do and getting young kids involved in Tech then we may see a change in representation for these underrepresented groups.
Pay more taxes so kids can "learn" more common core bullshit? Why on earth should the institution of force in our society have a monopoly on funding our schools and legislating what's taught in them? The tacit statism on this forum is just absurd...
"It's possible for a company to promote hiring underrepresented minorities without allowing employees to advertise their political beliefs."
That's only true with extreme censorship. If a company I was working for was hiring people based on race, I would call that out for the blatant racism that it is (under the disguise of "hiring underrepresented minorities"). Would that be an inappropriate airing of my "political" beliefs. It may be construed as "political", but really it's just pointing out a tautology and making a very obviously true value judgement (people ought not to be hired or not-hired based on their race).
I don't agree with the sentiment, but you're absolutely right that "non political" can only be achieved by strict definition and enforcement of what is and isn't political, which of course is itself a political act.
I think this only makes sense if you see corporations as entities completely separate from the people who work for them.
The way I see it, corporations are the people who work for them and their relationships. And since politics deals with peoples and their relationships, politics in an inherent aspect of corporations. And all attempts to separate the two by promoting politics that differ from the politics of the people in the organization is an act of propaganda.
The counter-argument is that the causes relate to discrimination in the workforce. I.e., BLM needs to be supported because blacks are underrepresented in the American tech workforce. I disagree these need to be equivalent. It's possible for a company to promote hiring underrepresented minorities without allowing employees to advertise their political beliefs.
What happened to never talking about politics on the first date or at your job?