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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#581

Post by mokus »

piflon wrote: post #565
mokus wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is speculation but it seems like we should inevitably see political factions in the US being defined in this way (and it happens in the Democratic Party too, maybe not in as obvious or extreme a way) as a result of the well-known two-party endgame of our voting system. If your faction isn’t one of the two, your choices are to join one or be irrelevant. So you jump on the bandwagon with whoever you hate least, an…

It may also be specific to conservative movements, given that by definition they oppose some change in society and so would naturally be diverse in their reason for opposing it (possibly more so than the supporters would be diverse in their reasons for supporting it).

That would explain why in our current system the conservative faction is more like this than the liberal faction. But what I was getting at is the reason that the conservative faction is essentially singular. In a less broken system, there could be multiple conservative factions and multiple liberal factions without the sub-factions feeling needing to choose whether to band together on every single issue or be irrelevant.

They could dynamically band together on a per-issue basis and have more reasoned discussions focusing on those issues instead of making sure to pronounce “shibboleth” correctly.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#582

Post by shrimp_emoji »

recursive wrote: post #569
balls187 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean consequences for your behavior?

You mean like how domestic violence is just consequences for the victim's behavior?

Having an opinion about my opinion is a violation of the NAP.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#583

Post by lawnchair_larry »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #571
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 am going to be honest, I consider myself on the left side of the spectrum, but I am disgusted by the outrage culture on Twitter etc. Besides censorship, I believe it's a tactic by neoliberal types to pretend to be on the left by virtue signaling, but not actually addressing any of the economics I care about, (medicare for all, free college etc.), so I actually agree with you there. That being said, what I also disl…

The “IDW” is really just a name for a handful of folks who were attacked by outrage mobs for misrepresentations of their intellectual curiosity. It’s barely a coherent entity, and most certainly not authoritarian. What an odd charge.

And who wouldn’t talk to people willing to listen?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#584

Post by BurningFrog »

smsm42 wrote: post #65
BurningFrog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to read up on Stalin. He focused more on mass murder and less on social pressure.

Kinda both. Somebody had to write those complaints to the NKVD and participate in those meetings demanding to put down the traitors like rabid dogs. And if you didn't participate enthusiastically enough, be sure the NKVD would hear about it the next day, from multiple sources (and also would hear about everyone who didn't write). It was a system where participation wasn't optional.

I do plan to read a serious Stalin book.

Currently reading the Mao book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679746323/

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#585

Post by recursive »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #582
recursive wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like how domestic violence is just consequences for the victim's behavior?

Having an opinion about my opinion is a violation of the NAP.

It may well be. I looked it up on wikipedia now, assuming you're talking about "Non-agression principle". I'm not sure I understand. Anyway, have a nice day.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#586

Post by aeturnum »

ravenstine wrote: post #557
wpietri wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Receive forgiveness? Pardon me, but where exactly did Damore ask for forgiveness? People very rarely accept apologies from people who don't offer them.

You don't need to ask forgiveness in order to receive it. Google could have done the following: - Recognize that any damage caused by the memo had been done. The toothpaste was out of the tube. - See that Damore's memo wasn't written with malice or intention to make people feel uncomfortable. - Allow Damore to keep his position so long as he does not participate in such political discussion at the company again. This…

> I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in societies where people are made pariahs if they make such mistakes.

I agree with this statement, but I think it's a sentiment that is in tension with everything else you've said so far. I don't believe Damore has said that he thought his memo or its contents were a "mistake." He has totally failed to engage with the critiques of his position and has instead focused on critiquing the responses of others.

The essential aspect of allowing people to recover from mistakes is that person meaningfully engaging with what they did wrong (which does not have to be a blanket apology). An excellent example of engaging with wrongdoing (even serious wrongdoing) can be found in Dan Harmon's apology for his behavior towards a coworker[1]. The person who's made a mistake must identify what they think the mistake was!

Does having people yell at you make this harder? Of course it does. People still have a right to complain about the things they find upsetting. Damore himself was complaining about something that upset him when he wrote his memo. You've spent a good amount of space pointing out (correctly, I think) that Google is still obligated to do "the right thing" even though Damore complained[2]. I think if you want to hold Google to account, it's equally fair to ask for accountability from Damore (with the understanding that Damore, being a single human, may struggle a little more to act perfectly than a giant corporation).

[1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/674/get-a-spine/act-one-5 [2] Personally, I think Google did do the right thing.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#587

Post by ALittleLight »

ashtonkem wrote: post #523
ALittleLight wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s a nonsense argument. Humans will always be judged by the company they keep. You can be angry about that, but you’ve got to rage against human nature. He decided to repeatedly go on conservative outlets and be associated with alt-right figures; he should have been aware that he’d be judged by that.

It seems like you're judging Damore for being willing to share his considered and evidenced based beliefs with other people, because you don't like the ideology of those other people. That strikes me as a very anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical position.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#588

Post by piflon »

wpietri wrote: post #577
piflon wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said "please share your opinion on this specific topic [the low proportion of women in engineering]." Regardless of how you color his response, they asked for exactly what he gave.

Could you point me to your source for that quote? I'm not coloring his response when I call it a divisive political opinion piece. It's explicitly framed as "the politics of the majority of people at Google is a big problem". And whether or not their initial request technically was broad enough to include his response isn't the issue. Either Damore was reasonably smart, and he knew that this would at best be enormous…

He was clueless, insofar as he made the mistake of trusting a giant corporation to be a good steward of a political space.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#589

Post by zozbot234 »

wpietri wrote: post #577
piflon wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said "please share your opinion on this specific topic [the low proportion of women in engineering]." Regardless of how you color his response, they asked for exactly what he gave.

Could you point me to your source for that quote? I'm not coloring his response when I call it a divisive political opinion piece. It's explicitly framed as "the politics of the majority of people at Google is a big problem". And whether or not their initial request technically was broad enough to include his response isn't the issue. Either Damore was reasonably smart, and he knew that this would at best be enormous…

They expressly asked him to share his opinion about an extremely divisive, almost third-rail topic. You're just saying that his statement ended up being divisive as well, but that's tautological. It's simply not possible to be "politically neutral" about such a topic and say anything worthwhile.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#590

Post by spangry »

JPKab wrote: post #490
ravenstine wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The right wing science deniers focus on global warming and evolution denial. The left is nuclear power and biology denial. Overlap on antivax. Welcome to being hated by both sides of you actually use science to form your opinions, rather than justify preconceived beliefs.

Evolution seems to be gaining traction in some ultra right wing circles, albeit in support of other distasteful ideas...
Post reply on HN