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

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#331

Post by rbanffy » Sat, May 09, 2020, 1:59 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #325

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’m talking about the liability of somebody sitting in the same context, wanting to talk about it.

If someone distributes a memo that's likely to alienate half of their colleagues, the first thing I'll question is their lack of judgement.

If he was uncertain about hiring policies and thought those were negatively affecting productivity, he should have taken the question to his manager or to HR, along with some evidence.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#332

Post by foldr » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:00 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #236

somewhereoutth wrote: post #226

I am shocked that there is even a discussion to be had on this. In architecture (a somewhat older profession, but also concerning things constructed by people), women previously did have a hard time, and often had to practice under their husbands/partners name. Mercifully this ended some while ago, and now architecture schools and onwards are more evenly gender balanced. Nobody suggests that women are somehow natural…

Not just architecture, also medicine and law. The whole question is what's different about math, CS, engineering and the physical sciences that makes it so much harder to reach gender balance there? If you look at the commonalities that these fields share, the "things, not people" aspect is the most prominent by far.

How is architecture any less about 'things' than software engineering?

The 'things vs people' dichotomy is extremely vague and obviously bullshit. Is Facebook not about people? Airbnb? Uber?

It may be that these companies, perhaps inadvertently, choose to hire people who don't focus on the people-related aspects of their roles. But it's obvious that empathy and an interest in people would in fact be very useful at many tech companies.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#333

Post by CydeWeys » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:01 PM UTC

StephenAmar wrote: post #319

pjc50 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. so you'd destroy their life instead?

Always assume that what you say could be on the front page of the New York Times.

This is literally part of Noogler orientation at Google, word for word, and I'm sure at many other companies too.

I sure as hell don't write screeds at work, only design docs that would be completely uninteresting to national media.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#334

Post by rbanffy » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:02 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #329

LurkersWillLurk wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gu…

I'm not convinced it was because of his "political views" is an automatic fact. People say "political views", that's how he might frame it, but I would assume Google would frame it as they fired him for making statements that women are less capable.

It could be considered political in countries and political systems that consider women as second class citizens and bar them from holding elected office or other positions of responsibility, or if he was advocating for the adoption of such model.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#335

Post by threatofrain » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:03 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #331

threatofrain wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m talking about the liability of somebody sitting in the same context, wanting to talk about it.

If someone distributes a memo that's likely to alienate half of their colleagues, the first thing I'll question is their lack of judgement. If he was uncertain about hiring policies and thought those were negatively affecting productivity, he should have taken the question to his manager or to HR, along with some evidence.

I’m talking about the liability of people sitting in the same context. Are you still talking about what James should or shouldn’t be doing? I’m talking about whether you should incur legal risk for leaking facts about people likes James.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#336

Post by pgcj_poster » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:04 PM UTC

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.

“Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center” —Benito Mussolini

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#337

Post by ikeyany » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:05 PM UTC

implements wrote: post #162

hckr_news wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also tweeted during the middle of this, "The KKK is horrible and I don't support them in any way, but can we admit that their internal title names are cool, e.g. 'Grand Wizard'?" So... shrugs

He sounds like he may be on the autistic spectrum, which if treated as a form of social disability would (or should, IMO) grant him some leeway. If his intent wasn’t sexist then his failure to perfectly negotiate the complex social way those points have to be expressed isn’t a moral failing on his part. Edit: I’d rather posters took the time to argue against rather than downvote. My point is just that ‘socially colou…

Why shouldn't people get punished for lacking perceptual and expressive subtlety? I doubt you would have a problem with rewarding people for possessing such skills (e.g. well-paid actors, or clever detectives).

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#338

Post by CydeWeys » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:05 PM UTC

AzzieElbab wrote: post #312

bradleyjg wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To cut to the chase, I do think there’s a certain amount of dishonesty in the typical Silicon Valley corporate culture. But to my mind it is far more reasonable to ask that companies not engage in this dishonesty rather than asking that they live up to it. Bring your whole self to work is ridiculous and unworkable. No one can run a successful business if their employees are spending all day debating philosophy on int…

How would a geek with 0 real life experience outside Google know that? It is not what they told him about "internal discussions".

Bumbling geeks with zero real life experience can be a huge liability to large corporations generally, and often don't make for good employees solely for that reason.

He's an adult. He bears responsibility for his actions. Ignorance is not enough of an excuse to save him. But even that's not valid here because he repeatedly defended the same views in the media long after someone who was merely bumbling would have realized the error of their ways. He doubled down on it. What started out as bumbling, didn't end that way.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#339

Post by acdha » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:05 PM UTC

martin_bech wrote: post #246

jacobmoe wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been endless discussion about Damore. In particular podcasts you'd think that the firing of a random engineer at Google ranked alongside 9/11 as a defining event in modern history. If I circulated a memo to my co-workers that not only opposed a new policy from management, but did obvious harm to the expressed intent of that policy, I might be fired. It doesn't matter if the memo I circulated would have gotten…

The fact you wrote this comment, tells me, that you never read his memo.

Saying that people who disagreed with him must not have read the memo is a cliche at this point. It wouldn’t add anything to the conversation even if it wasn’t factually incorrect, and the guidelines here discourage that kind of behavior.

As someone who did read it, I also don’t see how the comment you’re dismissing is inaccurate. Can you point out exactly why you feel it is?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#340

Post by pjc50 » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:05 PM UTC

StephenAmar wrote: post #319

pjc50 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. so you'd destroy their life instead?

Always assume that what you say could be on the front page of the New York Times.

Indeed. Never assume that anything you write at work on a work computer won't be seen by your manager or used against you. Even if it's supposedly confidential correspondence with HR or protected labour organisation, and theoretically illegal for them to access. Even if it's personal info under GDPR.

And especially not if you post it to a huge internal mailing list.

(I'm also curious as to what the overlap is between believers in "at-will firing is great and there should be no notice requirements on employers" and "Damore should have had far more process before being fired")