[dguaraglia]

> then it shouldn't then fire a guy just because he makes an argument other people don't like

He didn't "make an argument other people didn't like". An argument other people might not like could be "guys, I think everything in Google3 sucks and we should rewrite everything in Elixir." This was way beyond that.

I'll refer you to this article, because Yonatan puts it in way better terms than I ever could: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

> Otherwise you are just ceding the company to cry-bullies

While I was at Alphabet we dealt with plenty of cry-bullies, mostly in the form of conservative-leaning folk who thought they should be allowed to say whatever they pleased because "freedom of speech." Most of these self-styled Constitutional Scholars didn't realize that freedom of speech only applies to the government, not your employer. None got fired, as far as I can tell.

> Google should fire the employees who responded with personal invective against a fellow Googler.

And yet, this guy who is openly telling the world he doesn't trust females to be as interested as he is in the job should be applauded? Not sure I follow.

> He is against discriminating against gender and wants the same hiring and recruiting process regardless of gender.

Which is a completely specious claim to make, considering he most likely doesn't know the distribution of gender and ethnicity in the resumes the company receives and he's most likely not familiar with HR practices outside of interviewing. How can he claim there's an active conspiracy to discriminate candidates, when he doesn't know either of those things?

I don't ever recall seeing a diversity advocate say that the employee distribution should match the world 1 to 1. Diversity efforts have always focused on outreach, not on discarding resumes because the candidate is a white male. So he made up a straw-man, then he proceeded to attack it using cherry-picked science while making generalizations about political affiliations.

[alpsgolden]

This was way beyond that.

I read Zunger's article. Getting offended is in large part a choice. I apply the golden rule. If an Asian guy wrote a similar article for arguing why Asian people are over-represented at Google compared to white people, I would not take offense. Maybe he would be wrong, but if he wrote in the tone of the original article I would not call for his firing or say that I couldn't work with him.

mostly in the form of conservative-leaning folk who thought they should be allowed to say whatever they pleased because "freedom of speech."

A cry bully is someone who tries to get other people fired or de-platformed because they claim personal offense. Did these conservatives call for people to get fired? Did they succeed? If not, then good, I'm gladd their cry-bullying attempts were ignored.

And yet, this guy who is openly telling the world he doesn't trust females to be as interested as he is in the job should be applauded?

There is a enormous difference between noticing on average differences and direct personally targeted invective against a specific employee.

not on discarding resumes because the candidate is a white male

You are making up the straw man because that is not what he claims they are doing.

[dguaraglia]

> If an Asian guy wrote a similar article for arguing why Asian people are over-represented at Google compared to white people

If a woman at Google had written this, the conversation would be similar to what you describe. This is a man making a generalization about women. Key difference.

> A cry bully is someone who tries to get other people fired or de-platformed because they claim personal offense.

That's exactly what they would do, taking offense on all kinds of "liberal messaging." And yes, I'm glad they were ignored.

> You are making up the straw man because that is not what he claims they are doing

Then what is he claiming they are doing? (It's a trick question)

[totalZero]

It's a man talking about how men are over represented. You don't agree?

[dguaraglia]

If that's what you took out of the "manifesto", then no amount of effort on my part will force you to stick your head out of the sand.

[totalZero]

I simply asked you if you agree that it's a man talking about how men are over-represented.

You were drawing a conclusion about how his comments are different from an Asian talking about how Asians are over-represented.

I haven't said anything else.

I take it from your somewhat insulting non-answer that you aren't sure if you agree with me.

[cabalamat]

> Diversity efforts have always focused on outreach, not on discarding resumes because the candidate is a white male.

This is factually inaccurate, for example the BBC recently advertised positions where white people were explicitly excluded.

[dguaraglia]

I'm talking about a particular context. I'm sure you can cite "reverse-racism" in post-Apartheid South Africa too, but that isn't germane to the conversation.

[cabalamat]

> I'm talking about a particular context.

Of course you were.

That's why you said "Diversity efforts have always focused on outreach" (my emphasis) and not "Diversity efforts have sometimes focused on outreach" or even "In this particular context, diversity efforts focused on outreach"