Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#71

Post by jbob2000 »

Jonovono wrote: post #27

I never really saw too much issue with what he wrote. It seemed a lot of people were mad at him for things he never said. It's been awhile since I read his document, but I remember expecting it to be so bad from all the uproar I was hearing, but after reading it I couldn't find much to be angry about. Can someone enlighten me - i'll admit, this may be a highly ignorant topic of mine.

It was more about the timing. The memo came shortly after Trump was elected, when many women and minorities were feeling defeated. It was not the climate to try and hold reasoned debate.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#72

Post by kossae »

moduspol wrote: post #25
ebbv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From his memo: > I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. He said exactly that, right there. Why do conservatives…

Nowhere in that quote is it stated that women are biologically less capable of engineering.

Seriously. That particular section is describing an average inherent distribution of career preferences/abilities due, in PART, to biological causes. However social (mainly), economic, and tons of other factors can come into play here.

Given there is a section in the memo with similar verbiage as the article's quote, I would give some slack to the author if the sentiment remained from the original. However the author's quote changes the meaning of what Damore said quite a bit.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#73

Post by oh_sigh »

paulgb wrote: post #18
Veen wrote: post #3

From the article: > women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering Why do news outlets persistently misrepresent what he actually said? I've read his memo and just about every news article says it contains claims that it doesn't. I have no view on whether he's right or not, but I remain shocked at the misrepresentation of his views throughout the tech media.

Is the quote you pulled not saying the same thing as this from Damore's memo? > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Edit: ebbv beat me to it

Well, it misses at least half of the meaning of the statement you quoted when it writes it all off to lacking natural ability(which is a negative), and nothing to do with 'distribution of preferences'(which is neutral).

So no, I would say the original quote is not a good summary of the quote you quoted.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#74

Post by taytus »

lr4444lr wrote: post #38
vorotato wrote: post #15

A fool and his money are soon parted.

You really think the firm is taking an upfront fee or retainer for this? I assume they are expecting a settlement from Google/Alphabet so that the company can put an end to this PR nightmare once and for all, from which they will take a cut.

Google's PR Nightmare? Honest question: Don't you think that the one with the PR nightmare is Damore?

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#75

Post by badloginagain »

Just to clarify, is he stating he was fired due to his gender/political views? I would assume the literal army of attorneys will point to various violations of Code of Conduct or Employment Agreement Damore undoubtedly broke.

He openly published a memo condemning his employer, tarnishing the brand and bringing the company under considerable negative press. I figure there must be some clause in any employment agreement stating that you can't actively cause damage to the company.

Edit: Looks like the memo wasn't intentionally released to the public, but it still caused damage. If I drop tables unintentionally on production, I'm not surprised if I'm fired- even if it was an accident.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#76

Post by RandyRanderson »

ebbv wrote: post #10
Veen wrote: post #3

From the article: > women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering Why do news outlets persistently misrepresent what he actually said? I've read his memo and just about every news article says it contains claims that it doesn't. I have no view on whether he's right or not, but I remain shocked at the misrepresentation of his views throughout the tech media.

From his memo: > I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. He said exactly that, right there. Why do conservatives…

Looking only at the section you sight, that's not what he says. In fact those sentences have so many degrees of freedom they hardly say anything.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#77

Post by fahadkhan »

ebbv wrote: post #10
Veen wrote: post #3

From the article: > women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering Why do news outlets persistently misrepresent what he actually said? I've read his memo and just about every news article says it contains claims that it doesn't. I have no view on whether he's right or not, but I remain shocked at the misrepresentation of his views throughout the tech media.

From his memo: > I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. He said exactly that, right there. Why do conservatives…

I don't much like what Damore appears to say but in fairness that sentence does not say "less capable". That he uses "in part" and "may explain" means that it doesn't say much at all while appearing to say something, to me at least.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#79

Post by endorphone »

ebbv wrote: post #10
Veen wrote: post #3

From the article: > women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering Why do news outlets persistently misrepresent what he actually said? I've read his memo and just about every news article says it contains claims that it doesn't. I have no view on whether he's right or not, but I remain shocked at the misrepresentation of his views throughout the tech media.

From his memo: > I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. He said exactly that, right there. Why do conservatives…

I'm not a conservative (far from it), but I think it's a ridiculous misrepresentation.

He spoke to the distribution of preferences and abilities. Turning this into an absolutist simplification should offend anyone with a brain.

The science seems to state that nature rolls the dice more with males than with females. We know, for instance, that there are far more very low IQ males than females, and this is understood as fact. This doesn't mean that you or I are therefore low IQ, despite the distribution increase. And the stats seem to say that nature also varies on the side of high IQ more with males.

That says nothing to whether a given male or female are either low or high, and only applies at scale. Scale that is meaningless when assessing a given candidate, but is certainly pertinent when talking about representation across an entire industry or large organization.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#80

Post by kharms »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #51
paulgb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the quote you pulled not saying the same thing as this from Damore's memo? > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Edit: ebbv beat me to it

There's a difference between "fewer women wind up having the skills for X" and "women are worse at X".

“Distribution of...abilities” suggests “women are worse.” If the quote merely spoke of skills I could see your point, but it speaks of abilities and points to genetics as an root cause.
Post reply on HN