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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#511

Post by LurkersWillLurk »

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.

There is no way a lawsuit like this would survive a motion to dismiss. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires an underlying wrongdoing, among other things. There was no legal wrong committed when the document was leaked.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#512

Post by lawnchair_larry »

pgcj_poster wrote: post #376
DonHopkins wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your CEO hires women who you think are biologically inferior to you because of their gender, you'd better start polishing up your resume before they learn your name.

Most people who think that women are inferior (just on average tho!) remain gainfully employed, because instead of writing their views on internal company memos, they post them on news.ycombinator.com.

Do you have any examples?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#513

Post by adamfeldman »

ABeeSea wrote: post #349
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.

He failed the green eggs and ham test for written communication at work. >Would you like this in the press? >Would you like this at Brand X? >Like to read it on the stand? >Like it in the government's hand? https://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2006/12/over_at_white_...

Thank you, that's an awesome tidbit

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#514

Post by thosakwe »

ravenstine wrote: post #499
thosakwe wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

1. Calling it an outrage "mob" is dishonest, and that's why I say it doesn't exist. It's not mob mentality. Did it occur to you that there are reasons that many people could have been outraged by what he wrote? Calling it a "mob" is just you dismissing that.

2. Yes, he got himself fired. Nobody made him write that, and even after writing it, nobody made him post it on a large mailing list where an entire workforce could read it.

3. You don't think his actions were what caused him to get fired. So whose fault was it, if not his? You're more intent on making a statement against the "outrage mob" than actually acknowledging why doing what Damore did might get you fired at any company.

Again, it's especially telling that you and the people who defend Damore attribute zero fault to the person who actually wrote the memo.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#515

Post by [deleted] »

ALittleLight wrote: post #492
ashtonkem wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

[deleted]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#516

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

fzeroracer wrote: post #136
manigandham wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was actually said is that men and women tend to have different interests on average, and therefore choose different professions when given equal freedom and opportunity. More men choose to be mechanical engineering and more women choose biological sciences. It's strange for that to be so controversial. Not having an interest in a field does not mean you're not capable. Perhaps that's the nuance that's missing.

This argument doesn't work because there were a significant number of woman devs back in the 70s and 80s. That claim is completely at odds with the history of programming. And before people make the claim that programming was glorified hole punching as it seems to come up by that point in history we already saw the rise of modern abstractions and higher level development. It's controversial because it's trying to abs…

I don't think "glorified hole punching" is fair at all. It was still an intellectual challenge, just a different one.

I find it hard to believe an explanation that proposes an industry has become more sexist since the 70s.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#517

Post by glenda »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #481
glenda wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have a good answer. But at that point some kind of outside discussion facilitation is probably necessary.

What's the most human narrative you're welling to place on Damore, that he might agree with? I'll try to think up a few... 1) Damore may have felt just as uncomfortable as his coworkers with what was being said, just in the opposite direction. 2) Damore, being a little spectrumy, attempted to derive an answer to a question about gender inequality in a cold and rational way, having no understanding that what he wrote…

I can agree with #2 - I don’t believe he saw this memo as being particularly political or as an attack against anyone.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#518

Post by mdorazio »

fzeroracer wrote: post #241
zozbot234 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just architecture, also medicine and law. The whole question is what's different about math, CS, engineering and the physical sciences that makes it so much harder to reach gender balance there? If you look at the commonalities that these fields share, the "things, not people" aspect is the most prominent by far.

That doesn't follow suit with the history of computer science however. Women were a large amount of computer science grads back in the 70s and 80s where it was even more difficult and arguably less social then modern development. Nowadays software dev is highly collaborative and social. It faced declining amounts of graduates that were women from the late-80s and onwards compared to engineering and the physical scien…

1. It does follow if you add in the money & prestige aspect. For a long time software development was neither lucrative nor prestigious so a lot of men simply weren't interested. As economic expectations for computer science careers grew, so did the number of men.

2. I personally don't find software dev collaborative or social in any meaningful way compared to other careers or industries.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#519

Post by Udik »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #386
Udik wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you mean. All the female programmers I've come across had been hired without receiving any boost from an affirmative action program. Had I worked in a company that gave a score boost to candidates belonging to any group X, I could have the legitimate doubt that without the boost some of the people in the group X wouldn't have been hired. It's simply a necessary consequence of the affirmative action.

Originally you were presenting an opposition which is based on a theoretical objection held _by women themselves_, one which you've now confirmed you've never actually seen. If you're going to advocate on people's behalf, limit it to concerns they've actually expressed themselves. You've now rephrased your objection that you would have a problem because you would assume female programmers were less qualified, which i…

I'm sorry, but I don't follow.

- There is a score threshold you must cross to get a job;

- score is normally representative of competence;

- individuals belonging to group X get a score boost.

It follows that it's possible for someone to cross the minimum threshold thanks to the boost given by their belonging to the favoured group, and not because of their competence alone. It's not a matter of "the point of view of the woman" or "my point of view". It's not a point of view. It's a logical consequence that can be inferred by women, men, everyone, equally.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#520

Post by JSavageOne »

ashtonkem wrote: post #478
JSavageOne wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Politics is about how resources should be spent

> how things “ought” to be

Those are the same thing.

> Posting a disagreement about policy is inherently political

Yes if his memo was a paragraph saying "We should change our gender policy to X, Y, and Z", then yes it would be political.

Instead it is a 10 page document explaining how biological differences may explain gender imbalances, and the implications of this.

But sure if you want to dismiss it as "politics", then I guess there's no reasoning with you.

Post reply on HN