James Damore and three others end Google suit • Hacker News Board

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#491

Post by ultrawox » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:31 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #439

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.

Is this what conservatism actually is, now? I'm just wondering because, although I agree that nothing Damore said was conservative in a traditional sense, maybe conservatism has just been made more broad in recent years. For instance, I don't believe that I'm conservative at all, but my liberal friends and family tend to classify me as "conservative". I find it baffling because most of my beliefs are pretty permissiv…

I think the modern conservative movement largely is explained by "a group of people that oppose liberalism." That's why you have such a weird coalition of religious groups, older intellectual conservatives, young Republicans, business people, trolls. They really don't have a ton in common, but frankly I get it. I live in the Midwest and while I consider myself an independent, most of my views are moderate or left-wing. But I went to grad school on the East Coast and I felt like an outsider and the most conservative person in class just for holding somewhat moderate views.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#492

Post by ALittleLight » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:31 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #462

ekianjo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to consider the possibility that they were the only people who he could actually talk to. Not that he wanted to be in such channels in the first place.

Possible, but he also didn’t have to go on TV with them. You can’t go on a TV channel repeatedly and then try to pretend that it doesn’t affect your reputation in one way or another.

"Because he didn't accept his mistreatment in silence, that proves his mistreatment is justified."

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#493

Post by mdorazio » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:31 PM UTC

glenda wrote: post #456

twomoretime wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but once you’re in my ear with some misinformed ideas How the hell do you expect to get anything done in a society if you presume that any hurtful idea is misinformed? How can you seriously pretend that gendered differences in humans magically stop above the shoulders? You're denying realty. It's black and white. You can bend over backwards and sweep rational arguments like Damore's under the rug, or you can accept…

I don’t think it is a rational argument though?

Saying "that's not rational" without stating why is rather hypocritical.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#494

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:32 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #434

roenxi wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engineering is where most of the people go who care more about being right than about what people think of them. There is a reason for that - it usually matters if an approach is right or not in engineering work. Companies like Google need to be able to roll their eyes when engineers start stupid arguments, not sack them. The front-page rule is a technical impediment to people being able to figure out facts. The path…

This wasn't emacs vs vi. Damore's goal was to materially affect who got hired and how they were treated. That's quite a lot of people, and at one of the world's most prominent companies. Nobody can reasonably expect that he should be able to play at that level and have it be consequence-free when it doesn't go his way. Damore is welcome to have crackpot opinions. He's even welcome to express crackpot opinions on his…

Acknowledging that men and women are different, and that reverse discrimination is not an effective solution, is crackpot to you? I would contest that such a denial of reality is what is crackpot.

It’s hilarious that you call what he was doing activism.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#495

Post by twomoretime » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:32 PM UTC

glenda wrote: post #475

twomoretime wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Except people are by default being told their opinions are incorrect because they disagree with the so called experts.

Experts in a soft, non experimental, survey based scientific discipline. Soft sciences are institutional dogma because by and large there is no way to experimentally verify anything. This is a particular debate in which the establishment is clearly in the wrong to anyone who isn't determined to believe in a nonexistent equality.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#496

Post by JSavageOne » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:32 PM UTC

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.

I just told you why it isn't political, you literally just ignored my comment. The whole point of the memo is to attempt to explain a phenomenon that exists, thus it is not political. You can disagree with the contents of the memo, but that doesn't make it "political", or an expression of "opinions".

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#497

Post by paulcole » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:32 PM UTC

coffeeboy27 wrote: post #118

belltaco wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Damore does not fit into the neat ideological right or left classification Lets see, his lawyer for this suit who is quoted a lot in the article: >Harmeet Kaur Dhillon is an American lawyer and Republican Party official. She is the former vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California. Wonder if it was pro-bono.

Damore hasn't said much of his idealogical beliefs publicly and I think it's unfair to criticize him on his choice of legal counsel because he just wants to be well represented which is his right. Regardless of your political beliefs Dhillon is an accomplished attorney. Other attorneys on the left in California don't want to touch the case because of the pearl-clutchers and public political implications so the enemy…

> Damore hasn't said much of his idealogical beliefs publicly

That’s all he needs to say to make his beliefs clear. If the whole country (minus some “open-minded” tech bros) thinks you’re a sexist jackass and you do nothing to correct them, I wonder...

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#498

Post by searchableguy » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #469

searchableguy wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read through it hence the criticism but I didn't go past the Evan Spielberg and Mark Zuckerberg articles. If someone writes an article based on the emails, you would look at the emails because they are the source. Why should I bother reading opinion of a writer when I can look at the source? If your first few links don't show the problem, people wouldn't be willing to put in effort. I thought that was obvious.

Oh so you're a nihilistic skeptic that those were authentic misogynistic emails from Evan Spielberg, and that it's only the opinion of the The Atlantic and Tech Crunch and all the other sources who wrote about it, including the Provost of Stanford University himself? https://vator.tv/news/2014-05-31-stanford-denounces-spiegel-... >In a letter sent to that was sent out to the entire Stanford undergraduate community, a…

Again, I only looked at the source - http://valleywag.gawker.com/fuck-bitches-get-leid-the-sleazy...

Which is what you should have linked and let people make their mind.

I agree it's pretty assy. What are you looking for me to say?

You are calling tech community toxic and frat boy asses because some billionaire ceo is a douche bag? I don't know how to reply to that. I already cleared that up. I am not defending him. I don't condone that behaviour but it's not far fetched for college students to be like that. It's not a disease specific to tech community. Tech bros are not special unicorns. Every field has those.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#499

Post by ravenstine » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

thosakwe wrote: post #464

ravenstine wrote: post #390

Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong. It's astounding that people are still debating this in this very HN thread. A society of any size that makes virtue claims while simultaneously adding an undue price to being wrong or insensitive deserves to be mocked…

1. I don't recall him ever "asking for forgiveness," or doing anything besides doubling down on his memo. 2. The "outrage mob" isn't real. You know who got James Damore fired? Himself. It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually wrote the memo.

> 2. The "outrage mob" isn't real.

How am I supposed to take you seriously when you're denying the sheer amount of negative media attention, all the outrage Tweets, and the general sentiment in online discussions like this one that are happening years later?

We can discuss the extent of the outrage mob, but your idea that there's no outrage mob at all is baffling.

> You know who got James Damore fired? Himself.

No, he didn't get himself fired. His employer fired him.

> It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually wrote the memo.

"Zero fault"? Your telepathy is way off, because I didn't say once that Damore has no fault.

The outrage mob "isn't real", yet you are so quick to dismiss those who think that Damore is defensible.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#500

Post by glenda » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #477

glenda wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wel…

For example, claiming that “women have higher rates of neuroticism” is debatable.

IMO, that kind of discussion is frankly uninteresting and unhelpful.