Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

Re:Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post... by world_peace42 on Thursday June 03, 2021 @12:25PM (#27383672)

That definition is neither empirical, nor is it collectively defined. It is selectively assigned and selectively enforced. And here we are, in a thread where the top level post provides an obvious example.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post... by f38zf5vdt on Thursday June 03, 2021 @12:34PM (#27383814)

Miriam Webster also seems to agree. [1]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cancel-culture...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post... by fouric on Thursday June 03, 2021 @12:41PM (#27383900)

Miriam Webster is even further from "collectively defined" than Wikipedia is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post... by f38zf5vdt on Thursday June 03, 2021 @01:01PM (#27384188)

I'm more concerned with individuals attempting to rewrite the modern lexicon to their own benefit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post... by world_peace42 on Thursday June 03, 2021 @01:16PM (#27384397)

Then go have a chat with Jimmy Wales about diversifying the political beliefs of his editors. And good luck.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post... by world_peace42 on Thursday June 03, 2021 @12:42PM (#27383907)

Great, now also link me to a cacophony of Twitter activists who've defined it the same way, I am proven wrong.

But, and of course it's a silly request, can you provide any objective large-scale studies as to who (their demographics) is being canceled, for what categorization, and the net effect of their cancellation? It doesn't matter, granted, because the Wikipedia definition of highly politicized terms is, of course, what counts.

[ Parent | on HN ]