Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

siliconbeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

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

#41

Post by StevePerkins »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #19
StevePerkins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is that downvoting and flagging a dead horse based off of a months old discussion isn't evidence of cowardice. Maybe there's just not much useful there?

The "dead horse" argument is disingenuous, as discussing this subject has been verboten here since it first came out.

Besides, come on. Half of this website is dead horses ("Rust vs. Go"... "JavaScript framework X vs. Y"... "Haskell and/or Lisp is awesome"... etc).

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

#42

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #30
StevePerkins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 talki…

> It isn't.

That's not something that you may simply unilaterally declare. I don't recall anyone appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are.

Remember "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? Authoritarian liberals are trying to grab the authority to dictate what we may and may not discuss and we mainstream liberals must prevent that at all costs, lest we lose the soul of the liberal movement itself.

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

#43

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

funkythingss wrote: post #12
quuquuquu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for this. I agree that they are cowards. Damore is completely right, certain members of our society are shaming others into silence for supposed psychological safety. I also feel that money and political power are on the line too, which just heightens the needs for shaming others into silence, in their minds. Let's see what happens to our posts. EDIT: also Damore was attacked non-stop during his interview w…

I'm honestly not in the position to judge whether his sources were correct or not. If you read the memo and listen to him (e.g. on the Rubin Report) however you realise he doesn't want to hurt anybody, not even close. He is an extremely intelligent, introverted guy. But I don't care about it being right or wrong. Google wanted all opinions to be on the table (in theory). Damore is just the latest example of someone (…

It's already arrived to Europe anyway. There is one mainstream view regarding (1) how to solve the immigration crisis, (2) whether or not different cultures and religions are equal, (3) whether or not a nation has the right to make a decision about its future.

If you don't agree about any of these, you're quickly denounced as alt-right, Nazi etc. In extreme cases, you can lose a job. It's not happening frequently though as people are not stupid and learned to keep a low profile. You can discuss things in a more open way with your friends, but you better avoid any online discussions if you can be identified, no matter how reasonable your argument is.

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

#44

Post by pdkl95 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #42
pdkl95 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 talki…

> It isn't. That's not something that you may simply unilaterally declare. I don't recall anyone appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are. Remember " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "? Authoritarian liberals are trying to grab the authority to dictate what we may and may not discuss and we mainstream liberals must prevent that at all costs, lest we…

I didn't "simply unilaterally declare" my point - I included a link to a video that provides a much better explanation than I can give in a short post.

> appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are.

I not claiming such authority. I'm a stranger on the side of the road who thought it would be a good idea to offer warn you the bridge you are about to9 drive over is unstable. You have the freedom to heed my warning and find another route, or you can ignore me and drive over the bridge. Maybe it's time to use Bayes' Theorem if you like that kind of inference?

> [general appeal to emotion using platitudes about free speech]

Is someone's speech being banned? Free speech does not mean you are guaranteed an audience.

This is a nice example of the reframing technique I was talking about. Nobody's speech is being restricted, but countering your points would mean arguing about the subtleties of free speech doctrine, instead of what my post was actually about: the current tactic of endlessly calling for "debate" that never actually becomes a debate.

No, I don't have a lot of evidence on hand at the moment. All I can offer right now is the conclusions from my firsthand observations of this technique over the last ~20 year. You have the freedom to use this information as you wish.

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

#45

Post by oj-lappi »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #36
manigandham wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An argument regardless of (or even without) evidence would does not mean it cannot be discussed. That is the fundamental issue of the original post. However, you are clearly misquoting that article and Bloom's statements, why not just use the actual entire paragraph: "But even if you accept this argument, there is a lot more to life than public policy. Consider our everyday interactions with our parents and children,…

Yes, and if a scientist is choosing words like "no longer sure", that's not a really strong indicator of belief in it, certainly not a good argument for policy. If an argument doesn't have evidence, it has less value than something that does, that's why the way people are still talking about it like it's something more interesting than a 4chan post is confusing.

You keep dodging. His point was that you misquoted Bloom to create a perception that he disagrees with Damore.

Also this is more interesting since its an insider opinion by an educated man. You are trying to dismiss Damore outright without counterargument. That's not productive.

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

#46

Post by oj-lappi »

pdkl95 wrote: post #44
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It isn't. That's not something that you may simply unilaterally declare. I don't recall anyone appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are. Remember " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "? Authoritarian liberals are trying to grab the authority to dictate what we may and may not discuss and we mainstream liberals must prevent that at all costs, lest we…

I didn't "simply unilaterally declare" my point - I included a link to a video that provides a much better explanation than I can give in a short post. > appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are. I not claiming such authority. I'm a stranger on the side of the road who thought it would be a good idea to offer warn you the bridge you are about to9 drive over is unstable. You have the freedom to heed…

You wre not discussing this civilly. A democratic process will consider any viewpoint and judge it by its merits. Not dismiss it outright with a handwave "this is just a political technique" that's not how a truly democratic or scientific community responds. This is the response of a tribe afraid of values that do not fit into theirs.

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

#47

Post by manigandham »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #36
manigandham wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An argument regardless of (or even without) evidence would does not mean it cannot be discussed. That is the fundamental issue of the original post. However, you are clearly misquoting that article and Bloom's statements, why not just use the actual entire paragraph: "But even if you accept this argument, there is a lot more to life than public policy. Consider our everyday interactions with our parents and children,…

Yes, and if a scientist is choosing words like "no longer sure", that's not a really strong indicator of belief in it, certainly not a good argument for policy. If an argument doesn't have evidence, it has less value than something that does, that's why the way people are still talking about it like it's something more interesting than a 4chan post is confusing.

As I said, Bloom goes on to describe his position in much more detail. Have you read the entire article?

I'm not sure why you are so adamant about evidence here. Bloom is just one example of someone who did some research and put together an argument, which was then cited by Damore for a single point in a larger piece. I do believe that particular point is valid (as it's completely accepted in popular culture) but regardless the greater issue is that it can be discussed at all.

You seem to be saying that it shouldn't be discussed at all... because there's no evidence for it? People talk endless about many things that have no evidence and are purely conjecture, just to start exploring a certain perspective (which usually comes before the hard scientific research). Why is that a problem?

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

#48

Post by aaron-lebo »

oj-lappi wrote: post #45
aaron-lebo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and if a scientist is choosing words like "no longer sure", that's not a really strong indicator of belief in it, certainly not a good argument for policy. If an argument doesn't have evidence, it has less value than something that does, that's why the way people are still talking about it like it's something more interesting than a 4chan post is confusing.

You keep dodging. His point was that you misquoted Bloom to create a perception that he disagrees with Damore. Also this is more interesting since its an insider opinion by an educated man. You are trying to dismiss Damore outright without counterargument. That's not productive.

He doesn't disagree with him, but "not so sure" isn't a ringing endorsement of anything. It suggests that Bloom is unsure, so if Bloom is unsure about the value of empathy, how strongly can it support Damore? We don't know because Damore doesn't explain it, just links to it as evidence. Again, that's not how you do research.

Not looking to keep this discussion going, take care.

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

#49

Post by aaron-lebo »

manigandham wrote: post #47
aaron-lebo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and if a scientist is choosing words like "no longer sure", that's not a really strong indicator of belief in it, certainly not a good argument for policy. If an argument doesn't have evidence, it has less value than something that does, that's why the way people are still talking about it like it's something more interesting than a 4chan post is confusing.

As I said, Bloom goes on to describe his position in much more detail. Have you read the entire article? I'm not sure why you are so adamant about evidence here. Bloom is just one example of someone who did some research and put together an argument, which was then cited by Damore for a single point in a larger piece. I do believe that particular point is valid (as it's completely accepted in popular culture) but reg…

Nobody is saying not to discuss it, but if you want to have a nuanced and productive discussion, provide better evidence.

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

#50

Post by oj-lappi »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #48
oj-lappi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep dodging. His point was that you misquoted Bloom to create a perception that he disagrees with Damore. Also this is more interesting since its an insider opinion by an educated man. You are trying to dismiss Damore outright without counterargument. That's not productive.

He doesn't disagree with him, but "not so sure" isn't a ringing endorsement of anything. It suggests that Bloom is unsure, so if Bloom is unsure about the value of empathy, how strongly can it support Damore? We don't know because Damore doesn't explain it, just links to it as evidence. Again, that's not how you do research. Not looking to keep this discussion going, take care.

The "not sure" part is about the role of empathy concerns intimate relationships, not formal ones.

You cited an separate but sinilar part of the argument from the wrong side.

When it comes to policy, it is generally accepted that empirical/statistical evidence is a better tool for building an organisation than empathy.

Post reply on HN