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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#691

Post by mdorazio »

LurkersWillLurk wrote: post #511
mdorazio wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you a lawyer by chance? In California, infliction of emotional distress in a jury trial requires things that are plausible in this case. See CACI No. 1600, especially the OR section of #2 [1]. I am very skeptical that such a case would actually be dismissed rather than go to trial. I was a juror on a trial with similar grounds a few years ago. Perhaps you've seen something in the handling of such cases that I haven't.

[1] https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1600/1600...

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#692

Post by abstractbarista »

UncleMeat wrote: post #537
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.

The nazis claimed that jews had biological differences. Slaveowners claimed that black people had biological differences. Heck, denying women the right to vote was justified by claimed biological differences. Oppressors don’t exactly have a history of saying “yeah we are doing this for evil reasons.” Instead they hide behind bogus arguments to justify why their behavior is actually good for those they harm. “We shoul…

The thing is, they were all right. Everyone does have differences. They just weren't right about the consequences of those differences.

If you look at how we hire women today, it's clear that your quote accurately describes current reality. Men and women are attracted and hired differently today. If you disagree with this, you are choosing to ignore the biases every human possesses.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#693

Post by oh_sigh »

teataster wrote: post #412
rbanffy wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am afraid what he was saying was that the current policy for attracting women to tech might be inefficient. He also proposed a bunch of policies that might make tech more attractive to women. It's fine to disagree with him, it's not to missrepresent what he said.

It's perfectly fine to misrepresent what he said - consider that about 50% of the commenters in this entire thread so just that with no repercussions.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#694

Post by glenda »

will4274 wrote: post #632
glenda wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never mentioned any of the theories in your response. There are all kinds of people who study gender in society from every possible angle, Damore doesn’t strike me as an expert in the field. Just a typical engineer who thinks he knows everything.

> Damore doesn’t strike me as an expert in the field. Just a typical engineer who thinks he knows everything. FWIW, Damore has a masters in systems biology. This fact was fairly widely reported. So, you can fall back on the facts instead of your own biases (what "strikes" you).

I'm not sure how that makes him any more qualified on the topic of diversity issues at Google

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#695

Post by throwaway4715 »

I still do not understand why anyone is confused he got fired. He negatively affected both the company's brand and productivity. He simply wasn't important/useful enough to keep around in light of that.

Want more rights then work in a union. Otherwise, don't forget you're employed _at will_.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#696

Post by banads »

jlebar wrote: post #612
banads wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also assume anything you say can/will be purposefully taken out of context and twisted in order to create rage click bait to satisfy someone's ideological crusade, or to generate revenue for a dying industry which is incentivized to cater to the lowest common denominator just to survive.

Literally his whole memo was posted online, in full. I struggle to understand the context that was missing.

What percentage of people publicly criticizing the memo and attacking Damore do you think actually read it in full?

Worth noting the first couple outlets (Vice, Gizmodo) did not post the full memo when they dropped the story.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#697

Post by JSavageOne »

glenda wrote: post #594
ALittleLight wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it really isn't debatable. That's the widespread consensus view. Personality traits are judged based on responses to surveys. When you ask large groups of people the same surveys and evaluate them the same way you consistently find women score higher on neuroticism than men. This is a widely repeated finding that is consistent across generations. A paper on neuroticism in older women compared to older men - https…

Thanks for the links, however I think the misrepresentation of information here is women have higher rates of neuroticism, but is that true within sample present at Google? Not every possible women is more neurotic than every possible man. Additionally, dealing with discrimination can lead to self-esteem issues, which are tied to neuroticism.

Women on average are more socially aware and exhibit higher emotional intelligence than women. There is scientific research to suggest this, and for me anecdotally it also rings true (as a man, but again key word = on average).

Do you find this statement offensive? Should I not say this because it might hurt men's feelings?

Or is it only wrong to say something negative about a race/gender if it implies something negative about certain underrepresented genders and races?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#698

Post by oh_sigh »

DonHopkins wrote: post #297
mabbo wrote: post #184

Damore committed the ultimate sin in the corporate world- he caused a huge PR mess. Let's set aside the content of his memo (I personally don't agree with what he said) and just appreciate that he made a mess. As has been said before, if your CEO learns your name for the same reason he has to end his vacation early, you probably should start polishing up your resume.

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.

Did you actually read the memo? Because it didn't say or imply anything like that.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#699

Post by balls187 »

jariel wrote: post #678
balls187 wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> not entirely unreasonable intellectual opinion

Despite reasoning his point of view well, it does not mean it's right, healthy, or valid.

And while Sexism and Racism are not equal, there do parallel in many ways.

How different is his memo than writings that discuss how the Negroid is a lesser form of human species, and there for it's condition is justified?

Scientifically, there is very little, if anything, that differs between a man and woman performing a job in tech. Why then do women continually report about discriminatory behavior in the work place?

Are they just making things up?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#700

Post by JSavageOne »

meheleventyone wrote: post #613
mdorazio wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing if you read the memo you only read a version with sources and data omitted. The original version was very much science-based, even if you disagree with the science or think it incomplete/biased.

Citing papers doesn’t make an opinion piece “scientific” or unpolitical. It just means the author did enough research to prop their opinion up. It’s a particular failing of self described rationalists that seeing citations means the goal was objective truth rather than supporting a pre-existing bias or opinion. Particularly when dealing with papers in harder to study fields that have been at the centre of the replica…

I don't care what his pre-existing biases were, and that's not really the point. He wrote a paper and supported it with facts and sources. If you disagree with something, then dispute the facts/sources.

I haven't seen a single comment in this post disagreeing with the memo that actually critiques any specific points in the memo. Every single criticism I've seen is more along the lines of "but he was being sexist". Ok, can't argue with that I guess.

Post reply on HN