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

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#501

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

daenz wrote: 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…

> That's not what he said at all

Those aren’t the words he used, but it’s exactly what he was saying.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#502

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #324

threatofrain wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s like suing people for telling others that you’re gay. That’s a standard of liability people would never rally behind, one which prevents you from speaking truthfully at the cost of another person.

Not quite. He didn't write the memo to say he's a misogynist or a political conservative. He wrote a memo implying the women who worked with him may not be as competent as the men. Now replace "women" with any other group, such as people of color, Jews, armed forces veterans or Republicans, and see how it goes.

No such memo exists. Why would you make that up?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#503

Post by syrrim » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

glenda wrote: post #427

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…

I agree with you in theory, but it’s a bit different. If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people then I certainly would have no issue firing him. You are free to hold any belief you want, but once you’re in my ear with some misinformed ideas that are potentially hurtful to a large group I am free to tell you to be quiet or leave. Of course, it’s your right not to listen to me... bu…

>If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people

Not just any group of people, naturally, but particular groups.

Politics necessarily makes certain groups uncomfortable. A discussion of wealth redistribution makes the rich incomfortable, should such things be impermissible? Politics enables certain groups to be favoured, and others to be disfavoured. This is a good reason to ban politics in general, but if you allow it, you need consistent rules regarding which sorts of views are permissible, rules that aren't themselves political.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#504

Post by rbanffy » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #374

sacks2k wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He never released anything to the public. Someone who didn't like his political views leaked it to Twitter and the press. If I were him, I would have personally sued the person that leaked the content and continued the fight until they had no money left. They really need to be taught a lesson that it's not okay to do something like this with the intention of destroying a person's life.

Damore was character assassinated via leaks and libel, yes. Pragmatically, he could have prevented his fate if he took the opportunity to back down when challenged by corporate, instead of defending his right to free honest speech at a megacorp. He erroneously thought that because controversial party-line free-speech was job-safe even when intellectually dishonest, that controversial anti-party-line free speech was a…

The character assassination weapon was his own memo and opinions, stated over and over by himself.

It's character suicide.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#505

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #451

wpietri wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go after them for what? In America, you can't just sue people for "you told the truth" or "my own words made me look bad and its your fault".

In America you can sue anyone for anything at any time. Whether you will win or not is another matter, but if you've never been to jury duty the court system is absolutely packed with cases that seem absurd. In this instance, it would be perfectly plausible to sue for something like emotional distress.

One can file a case, sure. But even to get to discovery, let alone trial, the suit has to be about something for which one can actually sue. Emotional distress can be a factor in damages, but a judge would instantly throw out a case whose only basis was, "The bad man hurt my feelings."

If people here are just saying Damore should just harass people by file frivolous lawsuits that will quickly be thrown out, then fine, let them say that. But the theory that there's legitimate grounds for a lawsuit that could actually succeed is ridiculous.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#506

Post by glenda » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

syrrim wrote: post #503

glenda wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in theory, but it’s a bit different. If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people then I certainly would have no issue firing him. You are free to hold any belief you want, but once you’re in my ear with some misinformed ideas that are potentially hurtful to a large group I am free to tell you to be quiet or leave. Of course, it’s your right not to listen to me... bu…

>If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people Not just any group of people, naturally, but particular groups. Politics necessarily makes certain groups uncomfortable. A discussion of wealth redistribution makes the rich incomfortable, should such things be impermissible? Politics enables certain groups to be favoured, and others to be disfavoured. This is a good reason to ban politic…

Being rich isn’t a protected group in the workplace.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#507

Post by ultrawox » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:36 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…

Google solicited the feedback. This is the problem: companies want it both ways. An open culture where people tell the truth about what they think (so that you don't get the brilliantly dysfunctional organizations that suck up huge amounts of money in lost efficiency) but none of the messy discomfort that comes from people actually disagreeing in an open society.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#508

Post by DonHopkins » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

searchableguy wrote: post #498

DonHopkins wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Get over your fragility. I was specifically calling Snapchat and Uber toxic because of their Frat Bro leaders and culture, an undisputed fact which is very widely known and reported on.

There is absolutely zero credible evidence that Evan Spiegel didn't write those misogynistic emails, and overwhelming credible evidence that he did, so you should stop believing and intimating that it's a hoax, if you can't prove it.

But yes, a lot of tech companies are terribly toxic, and a lot of Frat Boys are terrible asses, who graduate (but don't grow up) to be Tech Bros, and work in the tech industry. But they don't need you to deny it and rationalize it and protect their fragile feelings from criticism for them, they need to STOP.

If your only point is that "every field has those", and you think I disagree, then read my other postings about Jared Kushner's coronavirus "Frat Party".

Every field having those doesn't justify or counter tech having those, and if you don't have the time to read the source evidence that I linked to before you took the time to announce you didn't read it and then glibly asked for source evidence that will take you even more time to read, then you won't bother reading anything else, and you're not arguing in good faith.

The more frequently you reply, the more skeptical I become of your claim that you don't have the time to read the original evidence I posted. If you don't know how to reply to that, and didn't have the time to read the evidence, then you should not have replied in the first place, or again, and again. And especially not a fourth time.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#509

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:36 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…

> "For instance, I don't believe that I'm conservative at all, but my liberal friends and family tend to classify me as "conservative"."

Rather than the old paradigm where political left == liberalism, I think there needs to be a distinction between the new progressive left and classical liberalism since both hold some views and philosophies that are incompatible with each other.

It may well be that, like me, it is not you that has changed necessarily but more that what is considered the left nowadays has drifted away from old school liberalism and you find yourself as alienated by progressives as you are by conservatives?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#510

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 09, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

Igelau wrote: post #488

wpietri wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fascinated that on HN of all places people are suggesting that engineers should never be allowed to express opinions about workplace policy.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in the parent comment's particular case, knowingly inviting discussion and then firing people when you get butthurt is stupid.

Not at all. When companies give power to employees, they expect that it be used responsibly and roughly in line with the goals of the company. If I give somebody root access and they just rm -rf everything because it seems like fun, or because they're trying to prove some sort of point, then I'm going to fire them.

Google correctly gave employees a lot of power to have internal discussions because they thought that would benefit them as a company. And the great bulk of people used that responsibly. Damore didn't and paid the price.