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

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#671

Post by ausbah » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

convery wrote: post #231

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.

My first thought as well. You see liberals invited onto conservative outlets for genuine debates / opinions. Rarely see liberal outlets do the same as guilt by association, causing anyone who's ever been in the same room as an 'alt-right' to be tainted, seem to be rampant.

"genuine debates" on conservative outlets, like what? Fox News? talk radio? a dingy YouTube channel?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#672

Post by abstractbarista » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:17 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: Nothing wrong with having opinions. He shouldn't have been fired over them, especially considering he was directly encouraged to pronounce them.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#673

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

piflon wrote: post #563

wpietri wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never worked at Google, so I can't say for sure. But from what I hear, there's plenty of disagreement. And Google may have generally asked for feedback. But I'm pretty sure they didn't say, "Hey, James, could you write a maximally divisive political opinion piece attacking a bunch of important internal efforts and implying that anybody who doesn't agree with you is just a villain in an Ayn Rand novel?"

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.

A reply from a throwaway account to this is for some reason dead, but it seems good to me, so I'm pulling it out of the garbage.

---

This is false.

Why are people claiming Google solicited his feedback? Is that how the news was reported? If it was a feedback, it wouldn't have been written in a Google Doc, and shared in an internal mailing list.

It was written during a time when diversity in tech was the topic du jour. The mailing list was for political discussion / unpopular opinions, and was known for heated debates. It didn't draw a lot of discussion at first. A few weeks later, the memo somehow made its way to the internal meme site, where a majority of Googlers frequent. That's how the whole company learned about it and how the issue blew up.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#674

Post by abstractbarista » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

thosakwe wrote: post #514

ravenstine wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 co…

It literally is a mob.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#675

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #589

wpietri wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could you please point me to your source for the exact wording of their request?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#676

Post by abstractbarista » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

jariel wrote: post #628

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.

Damore, trying to make an earnest intellectual contribution, got a lot of people really upset, and they campaigned to have him destroyed. This is the most visceral and obvious example of an outrage mob possible.

I feel bad for anyone who disagrees with this. Their bias prevents them from seeing the world as it truly exists.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#677

Post by Pazzaz » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

temporalparts wrote: post #639

I don't understand why people are characterizing his firing as political. If you read his memo, it should be clear that he was fired for being sexist. His memo included a section which stated that women are biologically inferior to men. This immediately makes it very difficult to work with him for women and their allies. I know tech skews male, but software engineers have to interface with many other teams and many o…

> His memo included a section which stated that women are biologically inferior to men.

Just reread his memo and couldn't find this. Where did he say this?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#678

Post by jariel » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

balls187 wrote: post #538

aguyfromnb wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "outrage mob" isn't real. You have got to be kidding me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming

You mean consequences for your behavior?

"You mean consequences for your behavior?"

Outrage mobs are by definition 'consequences for some behavior'.

But the implication that someone should be vilified globally for having an earnest and not entirely unreasonable intellectual opinion makes his responders an 'outrage mob'.

Damore had no malice, ill will, his opinion was made ostensibly for some positive will, among a relatively private group.

If he was beating his wife, then there'd be a legit consequence for his behavior right? And some outrage would be justified.

But that's obviously not the case.

The response is the most 'outrage mob imaginable', with people still 'outraging' themselves on HN years later.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#679

Post by oh_sigh » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

licebmi__at__ wrote: post #592

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad analogy, because Damore didn’t do that. I don’t know why this falsehood lives on, the paper is public, and it clearly says not that.

You're technically correct, still is not unreasonable to argue that accusing google of quote "Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate" might have a net effect of caste a shadow over certain groups being competent enough or being "diversity hires".

So pointing out a mathematical fact about the hiring practices of your company is wrong? Google decided to implement the policy that minorities who almost passed the bar(but didn't) get special treatment.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#680

Post by sullija722 » Sat, May 09, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #649

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.

This is how free speech dies. I despise Trump and the right, but the outrage mob and the left is just as bad (and probably more effective) with their ability to destroy peoples' livelihoods for expressing any opinion or questioning the left's dogma.