Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#331

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:07 AM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #324

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

If he had stuck to the point about how ignorant-but-well-meaning people can trip over rapidly changing "acceptable" discourse, then none of this would have escalated as it did. That's an argument that can be made, and there's definitely things Google and other companies could do to address that problem. He went much further, though, basically asserting that women engineers didn't belong at Google, and that in fact th…

Can you point to where he says any of what you claim? I have read that memo quite a few time and see no such claims anywhere.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#332

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:08 AM UTC

shadowmint wrote: post #318

leereeves wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the legal right to discuss work-related issues with each other. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights This comes from Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to...engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." In this specific…

Have you considered the reason you keep getting the same response to all of your posts in this thread is perhaps because you keep making the same assertions in slightly different ways? Calm down dude; we get it. You don't have to post the same comment over and over again to make your point. You'll have a make more meaningful conversation if you stick to one thread and actually engage rather than just copy/paste your…

When more than one person makes the same provably false claim, such as "There is no such “legal right” to discuss things in the workplace", isn't it worth correcting more than once?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#333

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:09 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #280

stcredzero wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that protection doesn't apply if what you're organizing about pertains to an area where the NLRB gives deference to employers. Those precedents exist to prevent employees from organizing active resistance to the NLRB's goals. If you read Damore's memo at face value, he's proposing modifying the way in which Google pursues those goals, taking differences in preferences into account. Strangely enough, Google and YouTub…

What broad power are you referring to? Without the NLRB, Damore would have no recourse under "protected concerted action". He was an at-will employee. It's Google, it seems to me, that has the broad power --- and that's a situation conservatives brought about.

What broad power are you referring to?

It seems like HR and "diversity officers" have effectively become the "political officers" of the 21st century left of collectivist grievance politics. Employers are required to have certain policies, and the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power. The problem is that many of the nouns involved in this kind of regulation are fairly nebulous. This situation shows that such accusations can be made on the basis of "feels" and it doesn't even matter if it comes down to factual readings of communication or interpretations of science.

Effectively, an "everyone is exactly equal" ideological nonsense science has now been instantiated into de-facto law in the US through regulatory action, and the NLRB has furthermore supported the notion that you can be fired for disagreeing with it.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#334

Post by Buldak » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:10 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #284

tclancy wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has no agency? He chose to speak up and then he chose to go down the path he did. It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port in a storm of his own making. Allow me to pour out a beaker of Soylent for the poor, downtrodden white man.

It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port It's an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to put people like Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, and Steven Pinker into the category of "Alt-Right." (The first two being an openly gay man in a gay marriage, and a Lebanese jew.) There is…

The comment you replied to does not describe those figures as alt-right. On the other hand, the very first person Damore engaged after being fired was Stefan Molyneux, who is undeniably alt-right. It's also insipid to suggest that being gay or Jewish precludes being alt-right or otherwise bigoted. What would that make Milo Yiannopoulos?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#335

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:11 AM UTC

ewjordan wrote: post #243

leereeves wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, the NLRB isn't settling the science. It's saying that discussion of the science renders otherwise protected speech unprotected ("so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected"), and effectively removing workers' legal right to engage in science-based discussion of whether a 50/50 gender ratio is the appropriate goal.

Damore has basically 3 points in his memo, in increasing order of disputability: 1) Conservatives are discriminated against at Google, which is a problem for working conditions 2) Google pushes an aggressive voluntary affirmative action policy which aims to hire women and underrepresented minorities at rates much higher than they appear in the relevant sector of the workforce, and the way this is pushed internally is…

But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint.

In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#336

Post by skywhopper » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #271

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

I feel like the progressive left THRUST Damore and anyone who might have similar thoughts/questions into the welcoming arms of the alt-right. I'm disappointed with the "Goolag" t-shirts, but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. So this socially awkward nerd did what any sensible person would do, rode the wave that was sent his way the best he coul…

Even at this point, he would likely be easily able to get another engineering job if he wished. So I think you are vastly overstating the damage to his career. For sure, if he had admitted he was wrong or at least naive, and shut up about it, he'd have no problems at all. By doubling down on his statements and participating in lawsuits against Google, he's making himself less and less attractive to future employers. But you severely overestimate the impact this will actually have on his prospects.

But if we're talking about consequences of his actions, what about all the women whose careers he was advocating for destroying? Who, had he continued to work at Google, would have felt entirely unwelcome, untrusted, and unrespected? What is the impact on their careers when they face constant questioning of their very legitimacy merely because of their sex?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#337

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:13 AM UTC

ewjordan wrote: post #320

stcredzero wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he violated Google's anti-harassment policies For just asking a question? If even entertaining a thought with regards to science, if it doesn't "seem nice" through some narrow ideological lens, has become a crime, then we're already at the level of Lysenkoism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male a…

Keep in mind that this ruling doesn't say it's a crime. It merely says, it's not covered by an exemption to the at-will employment rules that let a company fire you for any reason. If my boss doesn't like the fact that I put horseradish on my nachos, they can fire me for that. It's only exceptional cases where I'm protected from arbitrary and nasty and capricious actions. Also, put horseradish on your nachos, it's a…

Also, put horseradish on your nachos, it's a good thing.

Ew, jordan! (jk. I love horseradish with almost anything with beef in it.)

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#338

Post by rayiner » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:14 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #330

rayiner wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an untenable charitable reading of Damore’s memo. You don’t “start conversations” and “learn” by drawing conclusions, such as the lack of women in tech can be explained by genetic predispositions. And he wasn’t talking about “changes in vocabulary.” He was attacking core assumptions about what a fair society should look like. If you want to learn, you ask questions. You try to understand the other point of vie…

What core assumptions was he attacking specifically? Can you point to specific in his memo?

It’s a core assumption that when it comes to employment, men and women are generally similar at a cognitive level and equally well suited to different white-collar professions. We adopted that presumption as a protective mechanism, when we came out of a long period of invoking pseudo-scientific ideas about differences between men and women to justify sexism.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#339

Post by Natsu » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:15 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #319

refulgentis wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His views _as stated_ necessarily meant _some_ women he worked with weren't qualified to be his coworkers because of their gender. You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers.

He never stated that anywhere.

There was a confusingly-written part that I've seen a lot of people misinterpret in that particular way. My understanding of what he was trying to argue was this:

Imagine you have a skill-based RPG, where you gain skill in some task only by doing it and men and women are completely identical in every single way. Now imagine that more women enjoy alchemy, but more men prefer to spend their time mining. In this game, because of how skill gain works, if you look for really talented alchemists, most of your candidates will be women, even though the sexes are every bit as good as each other.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#340

Post by hypersoar » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:15 AM UTC

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

If Damore was really concerned about a lack of ability to "start conversations", then he should've approached his memo with a shred of humility. He decries Google's diversity efforts but does little to suggest he's done much research into that topic itself. In fact, he barely mentions their specific programs at all.

Here [1], by the way, is an interesting overview of diversity programs. It mentions that voluntary diversity training (contrasted with mandatory training) is among the more effective tools for this. IIRC, it was Damore's attendance of such that got him all riled up.

Edit: here's the link:

[1] https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail