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

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#201

Post by rendall » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:08 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #185

coldtea wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for being politically insufferable In other words for hurting their bottom line by demanding Google be better (each in their preferred way) for society and its employees?

Firing organizers was an example of that: https://medium.com/@GoogleWalkout/google-fired-us-for-organi... I don't think firing Damore was? (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)

Jeff, I work for Google HR. Let's have a chat on Monday morning, please.

Edit: It is a joke. I am joking. I don't work for Google HR, and poor Jeff is not up for an HR "chat". Even if the poor fellow were actually in trouble with a spectacularly uptight HR person, I doubt they would contact him through HN.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#202

Post by mmmBacon » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:09 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #74

starchild_3001 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dude is talking about probabilities and distributions, while the stats-ignorant public is generalizing to every individual. It's impossible to have a scientific and open minded debate about the differences between genders. Even theorizing biologic differences exist makes you a sexist. Let alone bringing up this question in public. Edit: Yes, his memo is totally tone deaf. I thought his wording was very questionab…

> Even theorizing biologic differences exist makes you a sexist. Eggs vs sperm -- plumbing aside -- is a fundamental biologic difference. And bringing a pregnancy to term, and delivering without bleeding out, sort of requires a uterus. But of course, it's gotta stop there. Edit: If someone wants to explain away such differences, I'd love to see the argument.

People focus on the “plumbing” but the hormones produced by the plumbing are the important things that give us different behavior. I found this article about trans men to be fascinating.

The hormones made me more impatient. I had lots of female friends and one of the qualities they loved about me was that I was a great listener. After being on testosterone, they informed me that my listening skills weren’t what they used to be

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/07/20/feat...

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#203

Post by searchableguy » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:09 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #188

searchableguy wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We want more [singleton] in [x]. > We should make [x] more attractive to [singleton]. Why? Unless the field is more toxic to [singleton] or there is more productivity due to "diversity" at which point you are admitting that people are different on biological (or social) level and have different interests, views etc.

Diversity is a desirable trait, especially in things that produce products that are designed to be used by the entire planet. My mother explained diversity to me this way: "We are each of us, unique but equal. Meaning that while you will grow up and be stronger than me, I will be able to produce children. This doesn't make either of us better, both should be respected as equal. There is value but difference in both."…

> This doesn't make either of us better, both should be respected as equal.

I think we are agreeing.

That's why I highlighted more attractive to [singleton] when you could be more inclusive by avoiding singletons.

Why shouldn't a field be attractive to everyone - blind, deaf, disabled etc equally?

Imo, focusing on singletons is detrimental because by doing so, you will end up discriminating automatically because there will always be other groups that you won't or don't see.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#204

Post by LurkersWillLurk » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:09 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #109

koheripbal wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You feel his case was strong?

You say this as though it's plainly obvious that it wasn't. The truth is that it depends, and not on whether or not we think his political views are ridiculous.

The causes of action in the lawsuit were unlawful termination on account of political activities (which are protected in California) and sex (which is protected federally). Google made three motions to dismiss and lost all of them. Does that mean Google is guilty? Of course not. All it means is that the claim stated by Damore, if true, could convince a reasonable jury that Google violated his civil rights.

Google would much rather pay out settlement money than risk having an unflattering jury verdict or have to release even more unflattering documents in discovery. I'm sure Damore would rather not go to trial if he could help it as well.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#205

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:09 PM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #151

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.

> but that is very much what he was saying No it's not. Nowhere in the paper did he say that women can't become good engineers. You're literally defaming his work. Either support your accusation with evidence, or don't comment.

[deleted]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#206

Post by jansan » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:10 PM UTC

Smaug123 wrote: post #140

Would it be too much to ask that we collectively say "The Damore thing is obviously a [scissor statement]( https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ ), on which otherwise-reasonable people bafflingly manage to hold different views very strongly, and we should stop talking about it forthwith because no good can come of it"? Nothing new can be said on the subject, vanishingly few people can be persua…

That story you links makes for some fascinating reading. Thanks.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#207

Post by zozbot234 » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:10 PM UTC

Smaug123 wrote: post #144

bitcharmer wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think shutting down discourse is a positive thing.

This is the problem, though. That discourse is not productive, when held here - witness the dumpster fire of downvotes all over the place. If the topic needs discussion, it needs long and nuanced discussion where each party is trying hard to understand the other - not rapid-fire three-line comments on a news site.

Do you know of any other place for this discussion that would be better-suited to nuance and genuine intellectual curiosity ("each party ... trying hard to understand the other")? Downvites are quite common here, in any discussion.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#208

Post by tyingq » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:10 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #94

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.

>Damore does not fit into the neat ideological right or left classification Lets see, his lawyer for this suit who is quoted a lot in the article: >Harmeet Kaur Dhillon is an American lawyer and Republican Party official. She is the former vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California. Wonder if it was pro-bono.

"Wonder if it was pro-bono."

It was originally a class action[1]...that case still exists, just without Damore as the lead plaintiff.

So, perhaps originally on contingency.

[1] https://www.dhillonlaw.com/blog/news/google-damore/case-upda...

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#209

Post by JoeSmithson » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:10 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #141

Nitramp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not good. Imagine how you'd feel. Imagine people would generally claim that someone who looks like you is a bad engineer (say, someone with your hair color). And then imagine that people would expect you to constantly disprove that assumption, just because of your hair color. You'd be on the edge all the time. You'd never feel at home in the field. And whenever you interact with someone who doesn't have past w…

But don't you think that the fairer the selection (blind to things such as gender, race or politics) the more confidence you'd have that you deserve to be in the position you are? How does a woman engineer should feel, knowing she was given a boost in the selection process by some kind of affirmative action? Isn't that in itself a source of uncertainty?

Have a lot of female programmers told you about the unfair advantages they feel they have in the field?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#210

Post by reroute1 » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:12 PM UTC

magic5227 wrote: post #111

manigandham wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has always had a very open culture with lots of political discussion and encouraged these kinds of internal debates. This was a memo written specifically for a private internal forum that was focused on that specific discussion. The widely shared version was leaked and edited, but never meant for a public audience. Saying that men and women tend to have different preferences doesn't make a statement about thei…

The research the post cites strongly implies women would be better qualified for other roles. That suggestion was (and is) both inaccurate and inappropriate to send in a workplace.

Less interested/"qualified" compared on average to males by virtue of their interests and biology not their intelligence. Ignoring this is like sticking your fingers in your ears to the argument

How is the statement in a general population inaccurate? I agree it can make people uncomfortable but it looks pretty accurate to me