Live data from Hacker News

James Damore and three others end Google suit

bloomberg.com

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#71
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the crazy nature of things now very much means you can become some groups hero overnight..... potentially not of your own choice. Accordingly I don't see the headline telling me what he personally thinks.

Oh come on are you serious? The alignment with "Right-Wing" in the headline of a story that more or less has nothing to do with that and is about the end of a lawsuit isn't intentional?

I remember the story being picked up by a lot of such news outlets. Thus the story tells me it is the same guy I remember.

Is mentioning that a problem?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#72
post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. A facade of misrepresented psuedoscience doesnt change the intent, motivation, or reality.

That's not what he said. He said on average women do not prefer the field, and optimizing to change that observable fact is a fool's errand.

I don't have an opinion on whether he's right or wrong but I don't think he shouldn't be able to make that argument...

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#73
post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

So... this is typical of the way this argument goes. Many HN readers are essentially "fellow travellers" with Damore. And you agree with him, and with that whitepaper thing he wrote.

But here's the thing: every time this comes up, this is framed, as you do, as a failure of "everyone else" (meaning left-leaning general folks, often women themselves) failing to understand the truth of what he wrote. But what you don't do is actually defend what he wrote.

And that's because what he wrote was really kinda vile. Indeed he didn't say "Women can't be good engineers". He said: "Women at Google aren't good engineers", which is quite frankly no less offensive. Now, sure, sure, his point was that this was because Google's diversity policies were incorrectly boosting these candidates. But that doesn't change what he said.

So... I don't see that the "female engineer" you were talking to really had it that wrong. You're focused on what to her was a minor fact, and while you seem to be oblivious as to why she might find the "correct" interpretation offensive too...

... you aren't. Because you know it's not really that defensible either and don't want to be held to account for Damore's opinions yourself. So you content yourself with what the rest of us view as nitpicking.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#74
post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

The dude is talking about probabilities and distributions, while the stats-ignorant public is generalizing to every individual. It's impossible to have a scientific and open minded debate about the differences between genders. Even theorizing biologic differences exist makes you a sexist. Let alone bringing up this question in public. Edit: Yes, his memo is totally tone deaf. I thought his wording was very questionab…

> Even theorizing biologic differences exist makes you a sexist.

Eggs vs sperm -- plumbing aside -- is a fundamental biologic difference. And bringing a pregnancy to term, and delivering without bleeding out, sort of requires a uterus.

But of course, it's gotta stop there.

Edit: If someone wants to explain away such differences, I'd love to see the argument.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#75

[flagged]

I'm no fan of totalitarian governments, but blaming America's problems with coronavirus on China seems like a reach to me - we had two months warning just from watching what happened in China and our government did literally no preparation during that time. I suspect if we'd had longer warning we would have just spent longer doing nothing.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts as well - makes sense. It's going to continue to bring Google a headache, especially with conservatism on the apparent rise (i.e. still could have Trump in 2024). Far easier to settle with a non-disclosure clause and an agreement to halt all public appearances. James Damore went on a campaign of visiting universities and other locations to discuss his views. Honestly, it was a good move, his case was weak…

> still could have Trump in 2024 You mean you think he'll lose this election but come back to win the next one?

Maybe Trump Jr ;)

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#77
post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

She's not wrong.

He shared a manifesto about gender differences in the workplace. In it, he calls women neurotic.

Whether people's read on the manifesto is reductive of his overall argument isn't the point.

He showed a serious lack of judgement writing and posting that in his workplace. He should not have played the part of expert gender/psychology expert. A researcher he cites specifically disagrees with his takeaways.

There are productive ways to have these kinds of conversations, he chose to go to the opposite wrong end of that spectrum.

Women have enough BS to deal with in tech, the last thing they need is a tech bro mis-using uncertain psych research to justify telling them they should find more appropriate roles.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#78
post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

So... this is typical of the way this argument goes. Many HN readers are essentially "fellow travellers" with Damore. And you agree with him, and with that whitepaper thing he wrote. But here's the thing: every time this comes up, this is framed, as you do, as a failure of "everyone else" (meaning left-leaning general folks, often women themselves) failing to understand the truth of what he wrote. But what you don't…

"Women at Google aren't good engineers"

You quote this, which isn't a quote. Feel free to draw out the passages of his memo where this is explicitly or implicitly stated.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... this is typical of the way this argument goes. Many HN readers are essentially "fellow travellers" with Damore. And you agree with him, and with that whitepaper thing he wrote. But here's the thing: every time this comes up, this is framed, as you do, as a failure of "everyone else" (meaning left-leaning general folks, often women themselves) failing to understand the truth of what he wrote. But what you don't…

"Women at Google aren't good engineers" You quote this, which isn't a quote. Feel free to draw out the passages of his memo where this is explicitly or implicitly stated.

[deleted]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#80
post #39
post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

> even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. this is how stalin and any of the authoritarian regimes would've started their control. To make people fear reprisals. To make people fear debate by outright social pressure to conform. I think you did the wrong thing by passive default of agreeing and not rocking the boat.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN