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

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#701

Post by jacobmoe »

will4274 wrote: post #643
ashtonkem wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think what you're saying is valid, but the point I've been making is that the entire James Damore affair is interesting for pretty much the opposite reason to that which people who tend to bring it up claim.

"It doesn't seem right" is one thing, but that's not why it's still brought up 3 years after the memo was written. A lot has gone on in the world in the past 3 years that doesn't seem right that we've forgotten about or didn't hear about in the first place. Damore is used as a data point (in fact, as a central data point) in the thesis that "political correctness gone awry" or "social justice warriors run amok" are problems that rank highly in a list of society's most concerning. I think it's absurd. That this random dev's firing is doing so much work in bolstering this thesis just highlights the absurdity.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#703

Post by oh_sigh »

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.

The fact is that the same study says that men express more psychoticism than women. Do you think he would have been equally railed against if he brought that up in his paper?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#704

Post by balls187 »

recursive wrote: post #664
balls187 wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Domestic Violence is about power and control caused of the DV Perpetrator/Aggressor towards the survivor. DV perpetrators use a myriad of tactics to control the relationship with the "victim": financial, physical, emotional, children, and sex. While the "victim" does bear some responsibility, it's usually with regards to how they are unable (or unwilling) to end a relationship with a DV perpetrator.

Damore should have just got a new job. I think I agree with this analogy.

You're being reductive about my explanation about the role a survivor plays in a DV relationship.

Recognizing, understanding, and ultimately forgiving yourself for why a person was in a DV relationship is part of the process survivors go through in order to move past it.

I know.

I'm a survivor.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#705

Post by pacala »

JSavageOne wrote: post #651
Reedx wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biology has become politicized like climate science did. With each side discarding the inconvenient truths of science whenever it clashes with their tribal narrative. It's an absolute disaster.

That's a fantastic analogy. Climate science is no more political than quantum mechanics or Einstein's theory of relativity. 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and that humans are causing it, and 9 of the 10 warmest years in recorded history have occured since 2005. Yet oil corporations and polluting factories with ulterior motives have managed to convince the politicians and the public that t…

There is little hope that one day we could speak about the willful blindspots on both sides of such debates. Global warming is a major crisis with a hard tradeoff between two deeply negative outcomes: poverty now vs. climate disaster in the medium future. Judging by the covid19 response, humanity is unable to handle such tradeoffs with any degree of maturity. Society will polarize, each side never mentioning one half of the tradeoff and blaming the other side for all the negative impact of the other half of the tradeoff.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#706

Post by unnouinceput »

BubRoss wrote: post #156
unnouinceput wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...And we quietly read and comment on HN

I hope you aren't trying to make some sort of point about hypocrisy here. No one here is claiming they are posting on a public forum "quietly".

It's a joke, lighten up

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#707

Post by dralley »

jhhh wrote: post #654
dralley wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the authors of some of the studies Damore cited came out and said that he was misrepresenting them and that they disagreed with the conclusion he drew from them.

I really wish there was a short way to ask for links without sounding confrontational but maybe this preamble will suffice for this message. Do you have any links about these refutations? Thanks.

This article cites two of them and goes into some of the places where Damore made unjustified leaps in logic.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...

Here is another that is more detailed but doesn't talk mention individual scientist opinions

https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-r...

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#708

Post by _wt8k »

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…

I'm cautious about approaching culture war threads, but I have to ask this question:

What is your definition of "neoliberalism?" To my understanding, it is a center-left economic ideology that promotes globalization, free trade, and cooperation between nations as a way to lift up the poor. Neoliberals might be critical of some of the policies that you point out (e.g. free college) due to implementation concerns.

However, isn't this orthogonal to one's attitude to culture war controversies? At least from my experience lurking r/neoliberal, the people there seem reasonable and don't seem to be the overzealous "outrage culture" types, but they perceive that "neoliberal" has become a negative label associated with center-left people who disagree with say, some of the policies proposed by Sanders.

I'm usually apprehensive about getting involved in these culture war threads; please understand that I'm not advocating for any political position, I just want to understand what "neoliberalism" means from your point of view.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#709

Post by wpietri »

mdorazio wrote: post #691
LurkersWillLurk wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

Did you read that? In particular, see the Hughes vs Pair quote:

"A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is ‘(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.’ A defendant’s conduct is ‘outrageous’ when it is so ‘extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.’ And the defendant’s conduct must be ‘intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.'"

Quoting somebody's actual words is in no way "outrageous" under that standard. People in civilized communities quote what other people say all the time. And even if the didn't, the first amendment strongly protects political speech, and quoting somebody else's political speech is pretty obviously part of that.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#710

Post by wpietri »

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.…

Could you please show me your source for the claim that they asked him for feedback?
Post reply on HN