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

James Damore and three others end Google suit

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#471

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ashtonkem wrote: post #410
JSavageOne wrote: post #408

It's annoying that Bloomberg refers to the memo as being "political" and expressing "political conservatism". The memo was attempting to explain the underrepresentation of women in tech via biological differences. That has literally nothing to do with politics, and framing it as such misrepresents and discredits the contents of the memo.

I think that’s extremely short sighted. Gender politics is politics; anything that comes close to the subject is either already political or will become political extremely quickly.

But that's surely not true. Programs to encourage women in software engineering are generally seen as apolitical. (And that's not a judo move or anything - they get broad bipartisan support whenever it comes up in Congress.)

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#472

Post by wpietri »

JSavageOne wrote: post #408

It's annoying that Bloomberg refers to the memo as being "political" and expressing "political conservatism". The memo was attempting to explain the underrepresentation of women in tech via biological differences. That has literally nothing to do with politics, and framing it as such misrepresents and discredits the contents of the memo.

That has everything to do with politics.

Go take a look at the various declarations of secession when the slaveholding US states tried to quit and form the Confederacy. A number of them explicitly mention that a system of racial slavery is fine because black people were naturally inferior, which is how in the 1850s one would have said "biological differences". That was very obviously politics.

Further, there's an enormous history of explaining why people on the short end of a power differential truly deserve it because of their inferiority. You could look at all the talk around the time a century ago when men were deciding whether women should be allowed to vote. Women's "biological differences" were a huge reason they supposedly couldn't handle political power.

For those interested in the history, Kendi's "Stamped from the Beginning" is an excellent history of how ideas about "biological differences" have, since the ancient Greeks at least, been used politically. The particular "biological differences" change, of course. E.g., the Slavs, from whom we get the word slave, were considered naturally inferior by the Greeks because they came from a colder place. When enslaving Africans became an industry for people from the north, suddenly the problem was Africa's hotter climate. The "science" keeps changing, but what doesn't is the result: "inferior" people deserve less social or economic power.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#473

Post by twomoretime »

ravenstine wrote: post #466
glenda wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never mentioned any of the theories in your response. There are all kinds of people who study gender in society from every possible angle, Damore doesn’t strike me as an expert in the field. Just a typical engineer who thinks he knows everything.

That's a dismissive viewpoint. To be consistent with your view, nobody should be commenting in this thread. Moreover, a person's field of expertise doesn't have any bearing on whether their ideas are correct. It may go to explain why their views are the way they are, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a person is wrong about something scientific because they aren't a scientist, for instance.

>Moreover, a person's field of expertise doesn't have any bearing on whether their ideas are correct

Nor does their expertise preclude them from succumbing to personal or institutional biases.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#474

Post by waheoo »

jashmatthews wrote: post #234
waheoo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesnt cast doubt though.. You cant have so much more women than the rest of the industry without that being true. There literally is not enough women coming through engineering schools to allow for that without you a) discriminating against men based on sex, and b) lowering the bar for women. There is no doubt. It is a mathematical given.

At the time, a Googler explained here how they did it without doing either a or b https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14957764

Google and where i work both benefit greatly from having increased diversity. It massively improves business outcomes over the monoculture culture we used to strive for.

My take is that when you optimize for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity you break something at the opportunity end (its either or, not both.)

Regarding a or b, this is mostly b, lowering the bar. But its also a, sexual discrimination.

If you think its not, please explain how you think it would go down if google was focusing hiring efforts to hire white males because they wanted to match the current male to female ratio seen in engineering schools and currently have too many females in the office.

Because i fail to see how aiming to hire more females than the industry schools can bare simply because there are too many men in the office is anything but sexist.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#475

Post by glenda »

twomoretime wrote: post #465
glenda wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never mentioned any of the theories in your response. There are all kinds of people who study gender in society from every possible angle, Damore doesn’t strike me as an expert in the field. Just a typical engineer who thinks he knows everything.

This appeal to authority is enormously frustrating when the authorities are also blindly political. Think for yourself. The physical differences between men and women are patently obvious, and how they translate to different performance in sports is clear. We understand why men and women are different physically - because specialization had strong selective pressure. Now why on earth would this specialization only ap…

I have my own opinions, which happen to be different from yours!

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#476

Post by mdorazio »

duxup wrote: post #329
LurkersWillLurk wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this as though it's plainly obvious that it wasn't. The truth is that it depends, and not on whether or not we think his political views are ridiculous. The causes of action in the lawsuit were unlawful termination on account of political activities (which are protected in California) and sex (which is protected federally). Google made three motions to dismiss and lost all of them. Does that mean Google is gu…

I'm not convinced it was because of his "political views" is an automatic fact. People say "political views", that's how he might frame it, but I would assume Google would frame it as they fired him for making statements that women are less capable.

Then they would lose because he did not say that.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#477

Post by ALittleLight »

glenda wrote: post #420
JSavageOne wrote: post #408

It's annoying that Bloomberg refers to the memo as being "political" and expressing "political conservatism". The memo was attempting to explain the underrepresentation of women in tech via biological differences. That has literally nothing to do with politics, and framing it as such misrepresents and discredits the contents of the memo.

I don’t see what’s wrong with calling it political... it surely isn’t scientific. The opinions he expressed seem like naive political theories based on his understanding of gender and society, which is an extremely nuanced topic.

In what way is the Damore memo not scientific? It cites academic research, presents evidence, I think the claims it makes are actually the mainstream ones.

I realize asking you to debunk the whole memo may be a bit much, so can you just point to the single most consequential unscientific part of it?

I read the memo and was horrified by how badly people treated him because of it. To me it seems like a rational and well evidenced document.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#478

Post by ashtonkem »

JSavageOne wrote: post #455
ashtonkem wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s extremely short sighted. Gender politics is politics; anything that comes close to the subject is either already political or will become political extremely quickly.

> Gender politics is politics I don't understand how that statement discredits anything I said. Politics is peoples' opinions and is subjective/normative (eg. things "ought" to be this way). Science attempts to explain how nature works (eg. this is why things are this way), and is objective. That memo was not political.

Politics is about how resources should be spent, not how things “ought” to be. Posting a disagreement about policy is inherently political, especially about something as charged as gender, no matter how much science you may cite.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#479

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

leetcrew wrote: post #371
mabbo wrote: post #184

Damore committed the ultimate sin in the corporate world- he caused a huge PR mess. Let's set aside the content of his memo (I personally don't agree with what he said) and just appreciate that he made a mess. As has been said before, if your CEO learns your name for the same reason he has to end his vacation early, you probably should start polishing up your resume.

I'm inclined to agree; it's never a good idea to discuss stuff like this on work comms. this leads to a bigger question though. why does google encourage this kind of discussion on an internal mailing list in the first place? seems like it can only lead to embarrassing PR moments.

Google allows (allowed?) relatively free socialization on internal mailing lists, and there are serious labor law issues with saying "you can talk about anything you'd like as long as it's not company policies or politically controversial".

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#480

Post by ashtonkem »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #471
ashtonkem wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s extremely short sighted. Gender politics is politics; anything that comes close to the subject is either already political or will become political extremely quickly.

But that's surely not true. Programs to encourage women in software engineering are generally seen as apolitical. (And that's not a judo move or anything - they get broad bipartisan support whenever it comes up in Congress.)

They’re just popular politics.

Also, if Congress weighs in on something, isn’t it de-facto political?

Post reply on HN