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

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#101

Post by koheripbal »

newacct583 wrote: post #73
daenz wrote: post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

So... this is typical of the way this argument goes. Many HN readers are essentially "fellow travellers" with Damore. And you agree with him, and with that whitepaper thing he wrote. But here's the thing: every time this comes up, this is framed, as you do, as a failure of "everyone else" (meaning left-leaning general folks, often women themselves) failing to understand the truth of what he wrote. But what you don't…

I agree entirely with what he wrote. Men and women, innately, have different interests - on a statistical level. ...but individual variances make stereotyping ineffective, therefore everyone needs to be treated as individuals, and thus quotas should be eliminated.

That was literally his conclusion - and it's spot on.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#102

Post by forgot_again »

magic5227 wrote: post #77
daenz wrote: post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

She's not wrong. He shared a manifesto about gender differences in the workplace. In it, he calls women neurotic. Whether people's read on the manifesto is reductive of his overall argument isn't the point. He showed a serious lack of judgement writing and posting that in his workplace. He should not have played the part of expert gender/psychology expert. A researcher he cites specifically disagrees with his takeawa…

But women in general are more neurotic. This is well established. And given that small average differences between Gaussians equal large differences at the tails, the relatively small difference in average male/female neuroticism translates to large differences in gender representation at the tails.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#103

Post by koheripbal »

duxup wrote: post #25
kyrieeschaton wrote: post #2

It was a joint request to dismiss with no further comment, ie, almost certainly a settlement & a nondisclosure agreement.

I'd be curious what the agreement is if only because it didn't seem like he had much in the way of a strong with case.

Are you serious? He was fired for his political views.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#104

Post by koheripbal »

azinman2 wrote: post #17
look_lookatme wrote: post #12

Damore does not fit into the neat ideological right or left classification but it would be impossible for an institution like Bloomberg to have nuance on this issue. Just because some deplorable lifted him up doesn't mean he should be defined specifically on an ideological axis. But, of course, who gives a fuck. The rage machine rages on.

But he did become an alt-right / Fox News / conservative machine darling.

If Fox praised Obama, would that immediately make him alt-right?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#105

Post by koheripbal »

jpmoral wrote: post #47
streamingvac wrote: post #26

[flagged]

I don't understand this PoV. Regardless of the Chinese government's incorrect handling of the coronavirus, deliberate or not, they did not dictate nor control the US response. I'm sorry about your friends' grandparents, but what's happening in the US right now is all on the US.

They blocked all travel out of Wuhan, EXCEPT international flights - including direct flights to LA, SF, NYC and Washington State - for weeks. ...despite knowing that infected people were leaving the country.

They also denied that the virus was human-to-human transmissible for weeks after they knew.

Every country could have done a better job, but China was malicious in their response.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#106

Post by koheripbal »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #52
threeseed wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics doesn't belong in a professional environment. So employees should be avoiding the topic.

I don't like that attitude. We should be able to discuss politics without the need for judging each other.

Ideally, yes. That isn't the reality, so it's best to leave that for outside work. Religion is the same.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#107

Post by ergothus »

koheripbal wrote: post #97
ergothus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. A facade of misrepresented psuedoscience doesnt change the intent, motivation, or reality.

It's so disappointing to read this. I don't see how his thesis of "everyone needs to be treated by their individual merits because personal variances grossly outweigh any gender bias" can be interpreted as sexist. He was literally preaching for equality. His point was that affirmative action programs do companies a disservice by making minority/women employees seem like they didn't get there through their own merit,…

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 confidence. Choosing to ignore the quantities of good science on the topic in favor of what he did does not inspire confidence.

Then he chooses to widely declare this and demean large swathes of his coworkers. I'm all for open communication, but that doesnt absolve you of social consequences. When you make a big chunk of your company uncomfortable with you and how you view them....yeah, consequences, yeah, fired.

The only reason this is a surprise is because it happened to some like him and not the groups he was pretending to defend. I assure you most of them would be outraged and frustrated but nearly as surprised had the interaction gone the other way. All you have to do is watch and listen to know that.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#108

Post by manigandham »

ergothus wrote: post #107
koheripbal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so disappointing to read this. I don't see how his thesis of "everyone needs to be treated by their individual merits because personal variances grossly outweigh any gender bias" can be interpreted as sexist. He was literally preaching for equality. His point was that affirmative action programs do companies a disservice by making minority/women employees seem like they didn't get there through their own merit,…

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…

Men and women (biologically and socially) have different interests. This is different than capabilities. Countries with the most free choices see the most division between sexes in different professions.

Nobody seems to have a problem when it comes to auto mechanics, medical sciences, teachers, social services, lawyers, etc. Why are different interests such a controversial thing to accept?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#109

Post by duxup »

koheripbal wrote: post #103
duxup wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious what the agreement is if only because it didn't seem like he had much in the way of a strong with case.

Are you serious? He was fired for his political views.

You feel his case was strong?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#110

Post by magic5227 »

koheripbal wrote: post #99
magic5227 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's not wrong. He shared a manifesto about gender differences in the workplace. In it, he calls women neurotic. Whether people's read on the manifesto is reductive of his overall argument isn't the point. He showed a serious lack of judgement writing and posting that in his workplace. He should not have played the part of expert gender/psychology expert. A researcher he cites specifically disagrees with his takeawa…

Calling it a "manifesto" is trying to give reader here some bias against it. Like he was some alt-right madman. He wrote a post. Not a manifesto. "There are productive ways to have these kinds of conversations" Well obviously there aren't when posting a comment in an internal company forum gets you fired.

There obviously ARE more productive ways, because most people aren't fired for having discussions at work.
Post reply on HN