Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#21

Post by manigandham » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:26 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #11

StevePerkins wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the poster's history, I imagine this was "laziness" rather than "cowardice". For an example of cowardice, take note when this thread is almost certainly flagged and buried within the next hour or two.

That's such an unfair way to paint your opposition. This is how Damore does "evidence" and proves sources: De-emphasize empathy - I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other…

It's an argument, not a phd thesis. You do not agree that "being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts"? Why is policy based on anecdotes more preferable to detached objective reasoning?

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#22

Post by aaron-lebo » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #21

aaron-lebo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's such an unfair way to paint your opposition. This is how Damore does "evidence" and proves sources: De-emphasize empathy - I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other…

It's an argument, not a phd thesis. You do not agree that "being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts"? Why is policy based on anecdotes more preferable to detached objective reasoning?

Damore seems to be wanting a policy based on anecdotes because his reasoning is neither objective nor convincing.

Not asking for a phd thesis, just asking for something better than a senior paper. That's not a high bar if your goal is to really change things, is it?

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#23

Post by rhapsodic » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:31 PM UTC

danpalmer wrote: post #10

This article mentions that in California there is no protection of freedom of speech in employment (i.e. a company can terminate you for voicing an opinion it doesn't want voiced), but this seems to be the premise of Damore's unfair dismissal claim? On that basis, I can't see him having much of a chance.

>This article mentions that in California there is no protection of freedom of speech in employment (i.e. a company can terminate you for voicing an opinion it doesn't want voiced), but this seems to be the premise of Damore's unfair dismissal claim?

Uh, no, actually, it's been reported many times in many other places that Damore's claim is that he was speaking out in an effort to improve working conditions at Google, and federal law prohibits the dismissal of an employee for engaging in that sort of activity.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-08-22/why...

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#24

Post by manigandham » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:31 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #22

manigandham wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an argument, not a phd thesis. You do not agree that "being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts"? Why is policy based on anecdotes more preferable to detached objective reasoning?

Damore seems to be wanting a policy based on anecdotes because his reasoning is neither objective nor convincing. Not asking for a phd thesis, just asking for something better than a senior paper. That's not a high bar if your goal is to really change things, is it?

So you just randomly said something else.

His argument is clearly stated right there and quoted by both of us, that was the point I asked about to which you just sidestepped... you are free to say you're unconvinced of the statement but what is your argument against?

You can ask him for more info and/or and do your own research too, but his paper is what it is. Why not debate it instead of saying that it's not good enough? How does that further anything?

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#25

Post by zaptheimpaler » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #13

randallsquared wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This should go without saying, but you made a new account to say that. ...due to fear of the consequences of publicly holding a non-mainstream opinion in a culture-war subject, I assume. While I agree that merely being contrarian doesn't make the GP right, I also believe that calling them out for trying to protect themselves isn't very helpful.

They've got nothing to protect themselves from. It's not hypocritical for that same poster to accuse others of cowardice and then hide in anonymity?

They were criticizing a media outlet for not posting an original source, they used the word cowardice but its very different from the sense you use it - as a label of a personal behavior rather than a company. So it doesn't seem particularly hypocritical to me. When Damore is being tried in the court of public opinion, it matters a whole lot that the media publishes something different from what he wrote.

Many people such as Damore, have had their careers destroyed over saying things that are not "correct". Those on the "correct" side face no such consequences. So yeah hiding in anonymity makes a whole lot of sense for one side and is completely unnecessary for the other.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#26

Post by aaron-lebo » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #24

aaron-lebo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore seems to be wanting a policy based on anecdotes because his reasoning is neither objective nor convincing. Not asking for a phd thesis, just asking for something better than a senior paper. That's not a high bar if your goal is to really change things, is it?

So you just randomly said something else. His argument is clearly stated right there and quoted by both of us, that was the point I asked about to which you just sidestepped... you are free to say you're unconvinced of the statement but what is your argument against? You can ask him for more info and/or and do your own research too, but his paper is what it is. Why not debate it instead of saying that it's not good e…

Claiming your argument is objective doesn't make it so. He can state that his goal is objectivity through reduced empathy, but if you don't provide objective evidence (he does not), it doesn't mean anything.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#27

Post by rhapsodic » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:34 PM UTC

StevePerkins wrote: post #8

funkythingss wrote: post #4

These cowards don't link to the original: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... Instead, they link to the heavily edited Gizmodo hit piece, that has the sources removed. Dishonest

Looking at the poster's history, I imagine this was "laziness" rather than "cowardice". For an example of cowardice, take note when this thread is almost certainly flagged and buried within the next hour or two.

Yep, this article has been flagged. It didn't take long.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#28

Post by aaron-lebo » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:36 PM UTC

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #25

aaron-lebo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've got nothing to protect themselves from. It's not hypocritical for that same poster to accuse others of cowardice and then hide in anonymity?

They were criticizing a media outlet for not posting an original source, they used the word cowardice but its very different from the sense you use it - as a label of a personal behavior rather than a company. So it doesn't seem particularly hypocritical to me. When Damore is being tried in the court of public opinion, it matters a whole lot that the media publishes something different from what he wrote. Many people…

If you can't accept the unintended consequences of your actions, don't take action.

Most jobs will fire you for being a nuisance. James was at Harvard and Google, he should be fine landing on his feet.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#29

Post by zaptheimpaler » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:40 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #28

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were criticizing a media outlet for not posting an original source, they used the word cowardice but its very different from the sense you use it - as a label of a personal behavior rather than a company. So it doesn't seem particularly hypocritical to me. When Damore is being tried in the court of public opinion, it matters a whole lot that the media publishes something different from what he wrote. Many people…

If you can't accept the unintended consequences of your actions, don't take action. Most jobs will fire you for being a nuisance. James was at Harvard and Google, he should be fine landing on his feet.

Yeah, well they didn't take the action of posting publicly to avoid said consequences just as you suggest, which you then criticize them for.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#30

Post by pdkl95 » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:45 PM UTC

StevePerkins wrote: post #17

aaron-lebo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's such an unfair way to paint your opposition. This is how Damore does "evidence" and proves sources: De-emphasize empathy - I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other…

I'm not sure if you're addressing me, OP, Damore, or just yelling into the aether. I certainly haven't said anything TO address regarding the content of Damore's original paper. For the record, I found Damore's reasoning to be terribly flawed. However, I happen to also believe that squashing all public discussion in its wake is foolish, cowardly, and entirely counterproductive from a practical standpoint. If you're a…

The problem is you're implicitly assuming this (and other recent "culture war topics" is actually about reasoning and legitimate attempt at debate. It isn't. This is about controlling narratives and reframing offensive goals so they become a legitimate political opinion.

Most of these calls for a "debate" are not trying to actually debate anything. They are trying to make enough confusing noise and repeat their talking points as often as possible.

For a much better explanation of how this works - and why it's a trap which educated, well meaning, politically-interested people seem to be particularly vulnerable - see this short video essay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM