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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#841

Post by jhedwards »

fastball wrote: post #227
jhedwards wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Countries with the most free choices see the most division between sexes in different professions I've seen this idea around and I think it's quite problematic. Some countries may have relatively "free choices", but that is just one cultural dimension. A culture is an inconceivably complex phenomenon. A culture also has education strategies, gender roles, specific kinds of toys and games, specific languages and sub…

Have cultural factors not been ruled out? Affirmative action policies literally make it easier for one group to get a spot in [insert institution here] than another group. And yet we still see discrepancies. We publicly shame and fire anyone who says "maybe biological differences play a role". And yet we still see discrepancies. If we haven't ruled out cultural factors in the West at this point, I'm not sure how we c…

> Have cultural factors not been ruled out?

How could they be? That is an intractable problem. Cultural factors permeate our existence from birth. You'd literally have to catalogue every single thing influencing an individual's life from birth to the time they enter the workforce.

I have two daughters and I've seen just how powerful subconscious messages from media influence the way they think. My oldest daughter is only four and she is absolutely adamant that girls can _only_ marry boys. That's clearly because the Netflix shows and Disney movies she watches all have a "girl marries boy" narrative. Think about that: my daughter is only four, I've never talked to her about marriage, and she is already firm in her belief that same sex marriage is not OK.

You are talking about funding and affirmative action, but have you considered gendered advertising towards toddlers? Have you considered gendered concepts in TV shows and movies? How about in toys? Do you know how elementary school teachers, not to mention parents, are subtly encouraging and discouraging boys and girls by their words and actions? Children absorb these things and they are solidified into semi-permanent activation pathways in their developing brains.

There are a million factors here that we will never grasp. Affirmative action is useless if people's minds are already fully constructed by the time those programs take effect.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#842

Post by bayonetz »

twomoretime wrote: post #473
ravenstine wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a dismissive viewpoint. To be consistent with your view, nobody should be commenting in this thread. Moreover, a person's field of expertise doesn't have any bearing on whether their ideas are correct. It may go to explain why their views are the way they are, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a person is wrong about something scientific because they aren't a scientist, for instance.

>Moreover, a person's field of expertise doesn't have any bearing on whether their ideas are correct Nor does their expertise preclude them from succumbing to personal or institutional biases.

Nor does it resign them to said biases.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#843

Post by [deleted] »

alexpetralia wrote: post #405
XorNot wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence (say, the numerous studies on this very topic) that would convince you that the pipeline of many careers has systemic discriminatory effects driving particular genders and races out of those fields?

In fact, quite a bit! I am already convinced. If tribal associations would clarify, then I am more than likely "on your side." Can you direct me to where I suggested there is no systematic career discrimination towards minorities? If that's how you interpreted my comment, then I apologize for that. There is absolutely substantial structural discrimination; I don't intend to minimize that. The comment I was replying t…

[deleted]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#844

Post by dntbnmpls »

muglug wrote: post #655
NullPrefix wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White nationalist as in kkk or white nationalist as in conservative?

White nationalist as in Stefan Molyneux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux#Alt-right,_rac...

That wiki reads like someone who is very objective wrote it. /s I wonder which journalist/journalists wrote that wiki article.

When it comes to political topics, wikipedia is as unreliable as the news sources listed in that wiki article.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#845

Post by XorNot »

ergothus wrote: post #793
XorNot wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> kids these days Computer science predates gaming, particularly online gaming with a social component, by a lot. You're committing the "all things with 4 legs are elephants" fallacy.

Reread their comment - they are pointing out that CS classes had a DROP in women attending them, and that decline does line up with the rise of computer gaming. They weren't saying women have never had an interest as a result of gaming, but rather as gaming rose there is a corresponding decline. Hardly proof, but as the poster above was stating their personal opinion, they aren't wrong (and they aren't alone in that…

And again, in the 1970s the internet - and multiplayer gaming with a social component - effectively did not exist as a widespread hobby.

This is cherrypicking in the most bizarre way: if you can't explain the earlier oscillation, why should I accept the later oscillation? Which also doesn't line up with the type internet gaming which was exploited around the 2010s mark where alt-right groups began aggressively recruiting out of the gaming community via the "gamergate" movement.

In every case you're datapoints don't make any sense - there weren't 12 years olds playing Call Of Duty in 1985 and learning to scream racial and sexual epithets in voice chat. Games with a substantial violent component - the first person shooters - Wolfenstein 3D came out in 1992.

Which still doesn't actually explain anything, because it's not remotely clear how "shooting nazis" lines up with excluding women from CS.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#846

Post by [deleted] »

alexpetralia wrote: post #405
XorNot wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence (say, the numerous studies on this very topic) that would convince you that the pipeline of many careers has systemic discriminatory effects driving particular genders and races out of those fields?

In fact, quite a bit! I am already convinced. If tribal associations would clarify, then I am more than likely "on your side." Can you direct me to where I suggested there is no systematic career discrimination towards minorities? If that's how you interpreted my comment, then I apologize for that. There is absolutely substantial structural discrimination; I don't intend to minimize that. The comment I was replying t…

[deleted]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#847

Post by ergothus »

XorNot wrote: post #845
ergothus wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reread their comment - they are pointing out that CS classes had a DROP in women attending them, and that decline does line up with the rise of computer gaming. They weren't saying women have never had an interest as a result of gaming, but rather as gaming rose there is a corresponding decline. Hardly proof, but as the poster above was stating their personal opinion, they aren't wrong (and they aren't alone in that…

And again, in the 1970s the internet - and multiplayer gaming with a social component - effectively did not exist as a widespread hobby. This is cherrypicking in the most bizarre way: if you can't explain the earlier oscillation, why should I accept the later oscillation? Which also doesn't line up with the type internet gaming which was exploited around the 2010s mark where alt-right groups began aggressively recrui…

> if you can't explain the earlier oscillation, why should I accept the later oscillation

Clearly women in the 1970s had no other obstacles - they couldn't obtain credit(!), much less be on equal footing in so many other ways. The issue is not "but there is an earlier oscillation", it's "if women have been slowly moving in direction of equality, what reversed that?" or "If women were able to 'be interested' back then, how can we claim they aren't now"?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#848

Post by LurkersWillLurk »

mdorazio wrote: post #799
wpietri wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read that? In particular, see the Hughes vs Pair quote: "A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is ‘(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of t…

So I'm guessing you're not a lawyer then and just enjoy talking about things with authority on HN as though you are an expert. I'm disappointed yet again, but not surprised since that seems to be the norm here. Please stop doing that - it makes this community worse. Yes, I did read it, thanks for being condescending and violating HN guidelines. As I said already, I sat on the jury for a similar case that did go to tr…

There are multiple prongs to the tort and all of them have to be fulfilled. A reasonable jury cannot conclude that leaking the memo to the media is outrageous conduct beyond all the standards of civilised society. It no longer matters if the defendant acted intentionally; the claim fails and must be dismissed.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#849

Post by muglug »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #844
muglug wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White nationalist as in Stefan Molyneux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux#Alt-right,_rac...

That wiki reads like someone who is very objective wrote it. /s I wonder which journalist/journalists wrote that wiki article. When it comes to political topics, wikipedia is as unreliable as the news sources listed in that wiki article.

It's not just journalists who think that Stefan Molyneux is an absolute nutcase.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#850

Post by manigandham »

DonHopkins wrote: post #313
sacks2k wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty well known that if you go on Fox news, the other news organizations like CNN, MSNBC, etc will ban you from their station. Adam Carolla and Dr. Drew have talked about this on their podcast and so have many other people interviewed by Fox news. This creates the false impression of "Fox News darlings" and ends up furthering the "us vs them" narrative.

Perhaps it's actually because Dr. Drew, Dr. Oz, and Dr. Phil are dangerous self-promoting quacks who dispense deadly medical advice, and CNN, MSNBC, etc have a problem with that, but Fox News loves it. Looks like CNN etc made the right call. https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/04/17/dr-oz-dr-... >Dr. Oz, Dr. Drew and Dr. Phil made these claims on Fox News. Now they're backtracking >TV hosts Dr. Mehmet Oz, Dr…

CNN had Richard Spencer, the nationally recognized neo-nazi white supremacist, on prime time.

As of 2020, there is no mainstream news that has any reputation for moral superiority and truth.

Post reply on HN