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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#931

Post by foldr »

fastball wrote: post #925
foldr wrote: post #912

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does mean that in the absence of any other obvious explanation. I don't actually know the extent to which women working in factories were conscripted in WWII. But I do know that women weren't forced to work as programmers in the 1960s.

The issue here is that doing something without being forced to do that thing does not then mean you are interested in that thing. If you have many good / attractive options and you choose one, you probably have an interest in that thing. If you have precious few, not great options, and you choose one, it does not necessarily indicate the same. I shouldn't need to provide copious examples for this to be obviously true…

Most people are not genuinely interested in their jobs, so I doubt that variation in genuine interest a major factor in gender balance. But sure, it is impossible to disprove your speculation conclusively. The trouble is that a lot of people seem to think that the mere abstract possibility of such speculations ought to shut down any serious attempt to eliminate sexism in tech.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#932

Post by eloff »

wpietri wrote: post #928
eloff wrote: post #911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case everything is political. I'm not sure I accept that. What I want to say is I don't care about left or right or the agendas of either. Focus on the product, the customers, and the fight. Alexander the Great never had a diversity program. I'm not going to say he was the pinnacle of morality here, but maybe it's a good idea to focus on the important things if you want to be successful.

Wanting to ignore America's long history of sexism and racism is a political position. Wanting to ignore the effects of those is a political position. Your contributions here are political activism. If you want to be a reactionary, fine. But please own it.

I'm not sure if reactionary is the label, but I'll own whatever side doesn't have diversity committees at work - or HR departments if I'm allowed to dream.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#933

Post by fastball »

foldr wrote: post #931
fastball wrote: post #925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is that doing something without being forced to do that thing does not then mean you are interested in that thing. If you have many good / attractive options and you choose one, you probably have an interest in that thing. If you have precious few, not great options, and you choose one, it does not necessarily indicate the same. I shouldn't need to provide copious examples for this to be obviously true…

Most people are not genuinely interested in their jobs, so I doubt that variation in genuine interest a major factor in gender balance. But sure, it is impossible to disprove your speculation conclusively. The trouble is that a lot of people seem to think that the mere abstract possibility of such speculations ought to shut down any serious attempt to eliminate sexism in tech.

First off, I don't understand how my stance is "speculation", but yours is not.

Even assuming that your assertion about sexism in tech is not in fact speculation, how exactly is introducing more sexist policies into tech going to help eliminate sexism in tech?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#934

Post by [deleted] »

tootie wrote: post #914
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Free speech means you can't be prosecuted for speech. It doesn't mean people can't hate you. " Would you have said that to people in the civil rights movement or the labor movement? They were hated and mistreated by many as well and yet your words would have justified that. The sword always cuts both ways. Your viewpoint will hurt causes you believe in just as much as causes you oppose.

Slippery slope? Nope. You're thinking like a programmer where rules have to be rigorously defined. Humans are capable of being reasonable. We are capable of distinguishing hateful speech without an algorithm.

[deleted]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#935

Post by ALittleLight »

wpietri wrote: post #929
ALittleLight wrote: post #919

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore was both asked for feedback and fired by Google. Sure, it was different individuals at Google who did each, whoever presented the diversity the diversity conference asked for feedback and the decision to fire Damore was made, I believe, by Pichai. I never said it was the same individual though, I said it was Google. I think it's splitting hairs to take what I wrote "Google asked for feedback and fired him" rea…

It is definitely not splitting hairs. The "but Google asked him to do it and then fired him" line of defense hides relevant details. He wasn't assigned to write it, he wasn't assigned to publish it, and he wasn't assigned to not back down despite how much trouble it was causing. It's true that sharing opinions is a common activity. But that again elides key facts. A highly political document attacking company program…

Damore was asked to provide feedback at the diversity program. He did and shared his document for internal feedback and discussion. Damore was fired for this.

Your objection is that saying "Google" did each of those things "hides relevant details". I disagree given that I've explicitly stated those details in this thread. Taking a single sentence and complaining it lacks details which are readily available in the wider context seems like splitting hairs.

Your point about "what fits better with Damore's text and behavior" may be your opinion. I don't share it though based on Damore's text clearly offering suggestions to improve diversity and different ways to think about it. To me, it seems much more likely Damore interpreted the Google diversity people as being honest actors and gave his honest feedback.

Your final point about how Damore should've known he would be fired is true, and I agree he should've realized Google is not an honest actor and doesn't want genuine feedback. That's kind of beside my broader point though, which is to highlight Google's lack of integrity in this instance. Damore was naive and trusted Google, he should've known not to. We agree there.

Setting that point aside, do you think if Damore was genuinely trying to give advice, and I know you don't think that, that he should've been fired for it?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#936

Post by UncleMeat »

ALittleLight wrote: post #927
UncleMeat wrote: post #923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you aren't able to read research papers and synthesize an opinion on them then by your own standards it seems you shouldn't have an opinion here. You can't tell whether Damore was right or wrong because you can't read papers from different fields and reach conclusions. I cannot personally derive a conclusion about Damore from the literature. What I can do is ask world experts about their thoughts. In general, th…

Sure, his master's degree isn't the most compelling argument. It's somewhat more compelling an argument than "My unnamed expert friends don't hold Damore in high regard". If world experts have weighed in on Damore, link to their opinions. I'm happy to discuss those.

Like I said, I'm uninterested in trying to convince other people about Damore. It isn't productive at this point. This is just how I personally came to my conclusions.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#937

Post by bsanr2 »

ekianjo wrote: post #856
UncleMeat wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A while back I published some research that had implications about the us government’s treatment of digital privacy. A Russian media arm reached out to me for an interview. I said no. Damore has the same choice. Saying weird stuff about the kkk having cool uniforms was his own choice.

> Damore has the same choice. You mean he had the choice between: - not speak at all and let all the media portray him as a misogynist and generally horrible person - or try to explain himself with whoever was willing to hear him, knowing that he would also be judged "by association" in a negative light? Sorry but it seems like there was no good choice for Damore anyway in terms of reputation.

Or, he could have taken a step back, let the media do its thing, and then come back in a few months with his own view. This is actually the strategy many PR firms suggest, because it suggests moderation and makes people more likely to have cooled off and become ready to forgive. But he didn't do that, because his aim wasn't self-preservation, it was to grandstand. So he got what he got.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#938

Post by lliamander »

wpietri wrote: post #909
lliamander wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the criticisms made of Damore when this first broke was "he should have expressed his concerns to HR first". Like pretty much all of the criticisms of Damore, this one was based on ignorance (or a lie). He in fact did initially submit his concerns to HR, and not merely of his own initiative but in response to their request. If HR had an objection to Damore's memo, the appropriate time to address that would hav…

One, we don't know that he submitted this to HR. Two, even if he did, they had no obligation to reply, let alone within a month. Three, we do not know that they didn't reply. Four, whether or not they did, it was his decision to publish broadly; he is responsible for his own actions. Five, after he received negative feedback, he just adjusted it slightly and kept going (and in fact kept going until he dropped this su…

If you think he's lying about the sequence of events, that's your choice. But unless you have a better reason than that you disagree with his opinions, you're not going to convince anyone.

Is it not the job of HR to address employee concerns? Is it not the job of HR to manage the liability incurred by employees? I fail to see how HR does not bear responsibility here. Had HR said "sharing the contents of the memo at work will get you fired" then whether he shared the memo or not at least he would know what to expect. However, it's pretty clear that at most he expected a heated discussion, not termination.

And he did not publish it "broadly". He posted it to some sort of internal "skeptics" discussion group. The idea being that this would be the normal venue for employees to discuss controversial ideas in good faith and with an open mind. It was others who published it "broadly".

Damore's disagreement (which was not even necessarily a disagreement about values, but about facts and policy) was not an attack. The failure to make that distinction on the part of Google leadership and the media is why this became such a big issue, nor was this failing Damore's fault. Fortunately, it seems that most people (if not necessarily the loudest people) are able to make that distinction.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#939

Post by wpietri »

ALittleLight wrote: post #935
wpietri wrote: post #929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely not splitting hairs. The "but Google asked him to do it and then fired him" line of defense hides relevant details. He wasn't assigned to write it, he wasn't assigned to publish it, and he wasn't assigned to not back down despite how much trouble it was causing. It's true that sharing opinions is a common activity. But that again elides key facts. A highly political document attacking company program…

Damore was asked to provide feedback at the diversity program. He did and shared his document for internal feedback and discussion. Damore was fired for this. Your objection is that saying "Google" did each of those things "hides relevant details". I disagree given that I've explicitly stated those details in this thread. Taking a single sentence and complaining it lacks details which are readily available in the wid…

I think a person genuinely trying to give advice doesn't act the way Damore did.

But let's say you're right, that his very best effort to collaborate with his colleagues was a divisive attack on their politics. That his very best effort to collaborate involved sticking to his guns to the point it was causing a major internal problem, and then a notable external one. In which case, he's so uniquely bad at collaboration that I don't think they could do anything other than fire him.

But personally, I don't think Damore was almost uniquely incompetent.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#940

Post by wpietri »

lliamander wrote: post #938
wpietri wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One, we don't know that he submitted this to HR. Two, even if he did, they had no obligation to reply, let alone within a month. Three, we do not know that they didn't reply. Four, whether or not they did, it was his decision to publish broadly; he is responsible for his own actions. Five, after he received negative feedback, he just adjusted it slightly and kept going (and in fact kept going until he dropped this su…

If you think he's lying about the sequence of events, that's your choice. But unless you have a better reason than that you disagree with his opinions, you're not going to convince anyone. Is it not the job of HR to address employee concerns? Is it not the job of HR to manage the liability incurred by employees? I fail to see how HR does not bear responsibility here. Had HR said "sharing the contents of the memo at w…

I don't think he has to be lying. I think we've only heard one side of the story.

It's the job of employees to manage their own behavior. It's HR's job to do their best to contain the problems when employees fail to do that.

The dude created a go link, the purpose of which is to make something available to the entire company. Publishing it into an open internal group fits my definition of "broadly". It's not like he handed it to his manager or a couple colleagues and said "I'd like your feedback on this." He intentionally put it out to a wide audience.

If you don't see it as an attack, I guess that's your prerogative. That's certainly how it was received. And given that the go link was titled pc-considered-harmful, it's clear that Damore saw it as a shot in the broader culture war. Something confirmed by his post-firing behavior, where the first people he talked to were strident antifeminists: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-dam...

Post reply on HN