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

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#641

Post by LurkersWillLurk » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:00 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.

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

'Zero' and 'whatsoever' are simply wrong. It's a strawman.

> The "outrage mob" isn't real.

I would certainly characterize the collective behavior of the Google employees as a mob. You can see it for yourself in the exhibits in Damore's suit:

https://www.dhillonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/201804...

Numerous employees take the stance that violence is acceptable, as long as it's directed towards hateful people. Numerous employees vowing to shun, ridicule and ignore anyone who remotely suggests support or agreement with any part of the memo. Numerous employees taking the stance that dissent is a violent act for which violence must be returned. Shamelessly of all, a senior Site Reliability Engineer vows to "keep hounding Damore" until one of them is fired.

This is not acceptable behavior for a group of people that are ostensibly at the top of their field. They are not faultless. They share, at minimum, some of the blame.

Of course, if you meant your statement to be hyperbolic, then you are being flippant, and needlessly so.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#642

Post by Igelau » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #510

Igelau wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Someone abusing root access to destroy data doesn't compare at all to punishing unpopularity in a falsely "open" forum. Analogies tend to suck in debates, but yours is particularly bad.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#643

Post by will4274 » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #422

LurkersWillLurk wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're trying to say that a policy from management is beyond all reproach or if "these things just happen in the real world". Either way, the former shouldn't be true and the latter should be wrong. Of course, correctness doesn't stop anyone from being terminated, but that's not the point.

There are appropriate and inappropriate avenues for disagreeing with corporate policy; publicly on a large mailing list is going to get you in hot water no matter what the policy is.

I guess I take issue with this. Google encouraged discussion and disagreement on large mailing lists, unlike most companies. It doesn't seem right that Google would simultaneously sollicit such feedback and then punish somebody for giving them negative feedback.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#644

Post by catalogia » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

AsyncAwait wrote: post #609

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I find someone like Jordan Peterson to have some authoritarian tendencies for sure, but his fans would probably call them "strong opinions". That's fair, abet I doubt that generous interpretation would be extended to someone they disagree with. Just notice how the IDW feels strongly about free speech, but when it comes to the issue of Palestine and specifically incentivizing disinvestment from Israeli occupied territ…

Do members of the IDW avoid criticizing Israel because they support Israel, or because they think criticizing Israel would make it too easy for their opponents to label them as antisemites?

I don't think there is any way of knowing, but I suspect different individuals listed on that page have different reasons and motivations for saying what they say and not saying what they say. I'd bet on Ben Shapiro genuinely supporting Israel, but some of the rest I'm not sure about (I suspect at least some of those on that list are genuinely antisemites. For instance: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ukip-candidate-carl-benja...)

Anyway my point is it's much easier to judge people based on what they say, rather than what they don't say.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#645

Post by ergothus » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #167

ergothus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" (but don't worry, we aren't talking about the good ones you may know, they are just statistical outliers) and trying to twist up scientific "proof" for that does not lead me to trust him or his motives. Being blind to the widespread dismissive, discriminatory, and derogatory behavior that routinely drives women from the industry does not inspire confi…

> Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" This is the absolute crux of the entire paper, and it's very easy to view it with whatever politicising lens you want. So lets try to flippantly and dispassionately break down how he constructed the statement 1) Women in absolute aggregate seem to not like CompSci. 2) We want more women in CompSci. 3) We should make CompSci more attractive to women.…

> 1) Women in absolute aggregate seem to not like CompSci.

Based on what? They don't end up there, but we have evidence (based on decreasing enrollment in degrees) that they USED to be "more interested" (If you use that as criteria). Do you think they generationally are just more aware of what it really is now?

How would that happen without ALSO becoming more aware of the absolute vile GamerGate-type shit women have to face, from the smallest "let me assume you don't know anything" to the "let's make rape jokes" to the "Can a woman have confidence she probably won't be groped"?

If you start with the premise that women "seem to not like CompSci", you've already assumed the problem and normalized a lot of factors that don't have to be normalized.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#646

Post by AsyncAwait » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

Strang wrote: post #624

AsyncAwait wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find someone like Jordan Peterson to have some authoritarian tendencies for sure, but his fans would probably call them "strong opinions". That's fair, abet I doubt that generous interpretation would be extended to someone they disagree with. Just notice how the IDW feels strongly about free speech, but when it comes to the issue of Palestine and specifically incentivizing disinvestment from Israeli occupied territ…

"X has been silent on Y," is generally not a fair criticism. Not speaking about a topic is the norm, since time is finite and there are uncountable numbers of issues to discuss, even within a specific topic.

Except they know about the issue, were pointed to it multiple times, even by me and are always quick to proclaim that 'Israel has the right to defend itself'.

Dave Rubin for example has had several offers from some prominent left-wing commentators to debate the issue, among others, yet he's always busy or some other excuse.

Sam Harris definitely knows about it as well, (has even spoken about BDS itself, just not their censorship), Ben Shapiro too, yet besides "Israel has the right to defend itself", (which is not the issue), crickets.

This is not an issue like whether they have played Animal Crossing, this is an issue where several states already are in violation of the First Amendment, an issue, they claim, is above all for them.

This is wilful ignorance because it would require leveling criticism at some of the same people they usually praise, instead of the usual college students and Twitter mobs, that's the issue.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#647

Post by Igelau » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #634

rbanffy wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are allowed. But they also need to take responsibility for the consequences of their message. If you alienate half of your colleagues, you'll probably get fired.

Google didn't fire Damore when he wrote the memo. They didn't fire him when he shared it for feedback. They didn't fire him when it was internal discussion. They fired him when it leaked to press and there was a social media furor. The idea that Google fired Damore for anything other than bad publicity is not supported by evidence. They asked him for feedback. He provided an intelligent and well researched document.…

So many truths shift on how we paint the timelines. This is a very important angle to consider.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#648

Post by ashtonkem » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

piflon wrote: post #591

ashtonkem wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Decisions about resources make no sense except in the context of trying to achieve some effect. Political issues are almost always implicitly about how things "ought" to be; the resource decisions are in service of those goals.

Resource allocation is more concrete and direct than discussions about how society ought to be arranged, although you’re right that you allocate resources in order to achieve a desired social outcome.

Discussions about how society ought to be tend to be vague and aspirational: “society ought to be more just” is more vague than “we should spend more money on these programs”. The latter might serve the former, but it’s also specific and actionable, which is why I draw the distinction where I do.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#649

Post by tootie » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

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 think the outrage mob in this case is entirely justified. Damore has had plenty of opportunity to apologize. As much as he had a chance to not say anything at all. Political debate is one thing. Misogyny is another. He created a hostile environment. He got fired. I'd be fine knowing this ruined his life.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#650

Post by ALittleLight » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

glenda wrote: post #627

ALittleLight wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Damore suspected that women at Google were, on average, shorter than men at Google would you doubt that too, because there is no study on gender differences in height among Google employees? When thinking about this you should ask what your priors are. If neuroticism is widely, across ages and cultures, found to be higher in women and men, and it is, then wouldn't your prior, without a Google specific personality…

Depends what the implications of that statement were. I think assuming that women at Google have higher levels of neuroticism is fair, but once you start to posit that as an actionable truth is when real information is needed.

Please note the shifting goal posts. At the start of this comment thread you were saying that Damore's memo was certainly unscientific, and now you are arguing that there needs to be a higher bar for action than the fair assumptions that Damore made.

Keep in mind that Damore is a single person giving feedback to a diversity course. He doesn't have the resources, time, or mandate to survey Google's employees to test whether or not this general trend holds. Perhaps, before acting on Damore's recommendations it would be a good idea to do some tests on Google's employees to see if general trends hold true in their specific subset - but that is a really different claim than the initial claim that Damore was unscientific.

If Damore had written that smoking causes lung problems and therefore Google should start taking some actions to stop employees from smoking, it might be merited to do further tests to see if the link between smoking and lung problems holds true for Google employees as it does for people in general. It would not be merited to call Damore unscientific because he had not yet done that research prior to making his suggestion.