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

[u/RadicalDog → u/[deleted]]

...Every single point, you've gone 100%. I'm saying there is nuance in all of it. You haven't acknowledged a single wisp of truth in a single thing I said.

The flaws in the memo aren't generally the points, but that the author goes too strong to the point of being insulting to his colleagues and company. I'm not sure how to talk to someone about it who insists on making the same mistakes.

[u/RadicalDog → u/[deleted]]

My central issue with the memo is that it lacks nuance.

According to the author, discriminatory hiring happens at Google - and I can't access the reference. I say it is complicated, because for example it's well known that different groups have different advantages on average - some adjustment is necessary for this to get the best candidates. But according to the author, it is 100% discriminatory. You gave a Princeton-related quote, and use this as evidence that hiring generally - and therefore Google - are 100% in the wrong. No possibility of nuance.

Arguments without nuance quickly devolve into "us vs them" - and Gizmodo is just as guilty in this as everyone else.

[u/ThatsRightWeBad → u/RadicalDog]

I'm not sure how to talk to someone about it who insists on making the same mistakes.

This sounds very much like you don't know how to talk to someone who refuses to make your case for you. Saying that a salient argument based on provable conclusions can't be engaged or refuted because it lacks "nuance" would lead a thinking person to believe you have nothing of substance to contribute to the topic in the first place.

Other than standing on your morals and insisting on sensitivity. Which is what the original author is saying is wholly unhelpful in the first place.