thank you hacker news randoms for telling me what my opinion is on james danmore because with my finite and trivial amount of wisdom I cannot possibly be depended on to form my own thoughts of a classic white racist screaming about how oppressed white hetro males are in a social culture shaped by 1000 years of white dominance roll-eyes
James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
881–890 of 1001 posts
Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
#882Earlier quoted context omitted.
He never lied about having a PhD. He was in middle of his PhD program when he decided to drop out and join Google -- nowhere in his his LinkedIn page, did he falsely indicate that he finished his PhD. Da'More must have completed at least course work and research required for master's, however, and Harvard gave him master's instead.
Until he was asked about it, Damore's LinkedIn "Education" section said "Harvard University / PhD, Systems Biology / 2011-2013". After, he changed it to "Harvard University / Master of Science - MS, Systems Biology / 2011-2013". The fact that his old profile said PhD, in place of the MS degree he actually had, does look to me like falsely indicating that he had a PhD. http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-remov…
Sure, I see where the confusion might arise.
I guess most folks don't take Linkedin seriously -- my LinkedIn profile there is also outdated. When I dropped out of college to work a few years in industry, I indicated years I attended, relevant course works, and matriculation status in my resume, but, LinkedIn is just a social networking site for business -- and only recently it's transformed into a job search site. IMO, it's a stretch to say Damore's LinkedIn page was intended to mislead potential employer or the public.
Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
#883Earlier quoted context omitted.
"American women" as a class now have a sufficiently loud voice Why is it important that they have a sufficiently loud voice "as a class?" This seems backwards to me. The whole point of liberation is liberation to be treated as an individual not as a member of a class based on something contextually irrelevant like your biological sex.
I agree that it is backwards, but it's heavily ingrained in US politics that decisions revolve around classes. Politicians make decisions thinking about which class they will benefit, which class (and their representatives) they will receive support from, etc. Empowering the individual is a noble goal, but that is a separate battle with a different front.
I agree that it is backwards, but it's heavily ingrained in US politics that decisions revolve around classes
I think it's made to seem that way by media coverage and political propaganda(especially from the left) more than it actually is. The problem is that it's easy to analyze something by arbitrary groups but in doing so often if not usually miss things (indeed this was one of Damore's key themes in his original essay).
The rhetoric may be actualizing, but I still think it's more a case of bad analytical generalizations than actual decision-making. Although, it's getting worse, as the whole drama with Jordan Peterson last year over pronouns demonstrated. At the core of his concern seemed to be he growing number of increasingly narrow and increasingly arbitrary suspect class definitions (or whatever they call it in Canada).
The original concept of a suspect class in the US was codified to serve as a legal guidelines for determining whether discrimination had taken place. The idea was to balance the ideal of democratic freedom to enact laws with the political reality that some clearly identified recognized groups (mainly Black Americans) had not been allowed to participate in the democratic process that produced the laws under which they had to conform. Many of those laws were shown to be prima facie discriminatory and evidence suggested plenty more were intended to be discriminatory in practice. And by virtue of minority status, they'd be unable to effectively challenge those discriminatory laws through democratic means. Women classified as a quasi-suspect class by virtue of historical disenfranchisement, despite their not being a minority.
But, it has been at least century since women were granted the right to vote. "Women as a class" have been one of the strongest political factions in the United States for decades. Roe v. Wade was 1973, a decade before any Millenial was even born. Pandering to women is pervasive in US politics on both sides.
The narrative that women had no voice, political will, or influence until Last Thursday is persistent and massive historical revisionism.
Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
#884Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing in 174-198 is supported by evidence in the filing (this isn't unusual at this stage, since that's not generally required in an initial filing, but your claim was of evidence), except 188, which is part of an allegation of adverse politically-motivated job treatment, not hiring based on race/gender. So, no, there are no examples with evidence of people hired just for minority status in the lawsuit filing.
Yes there is, there's an email embedded in the paragraphs I outlined. You might think that's not direct evidence, but it's evidence that supports the story in the paragraphs I outlined. It says explicitly in paragraph 179: "Upon information and belief, the Google employee was not selected due to the fact that the hiring managers were looking solely for “diverse” individuals, and as a Caucasian male, the Google employ…
> Yes there is, there's an email embedded in the paragraphs I outlined
Yes, at 188; I addressed it. It's evidence provided for something, but not the thing you claimed.
> It says explicitly in paragraph 179: "Upon information and belief, the Google employee was not selected due to the fact that the hiring managers were looking solely for “diverse” individuals, and as a Caucasian male, the Google employee did not help fill their mandatory (and illegal) quotas."
Yes, that's an allegation. No evidence supporting this allegation is included (and, further, it used the “on information and belief” language which indicates that the party filing the lawsuit does not have first-hand knowledge that the allegation is true, but expects to have evidence—e.g., attained through discovery—to prove it should the case go to trial.)
This is perfectly normal for a lawsuit complaint, of course, but does not support your claim of examples (or even an example) with evidence in the filing.
Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
#885Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually lived in Germany for a few years before moving on to North America, so I can somewhat compare. IMO, people in US are generally more competitive than in Europe, but in the current political climate this unfortunately leads to more backstabbing and more dirty play. Europe has its holy cows as well. Try publicly questioning the Syrian refugee program or come up with scientific evidence that nationals coming f…
> Europe has its holy cows as well. Try publicly questioning the Syrian refugee program or come up with scientific evidence that nationals coming from war conflict zones have a higher chance of becoming criminals - you'll get crucified the same way. Boy, and don't even begin to mention that refugee programmes in Europe are probably the least effective way to evacuate people from a warzone (and that the majority of pe…
Looking at the numbers here in Sweden, it is interesting how close the numbers really are. About 55% of people get asylum, and of those about 66% are refugees from wars.
So according to this government, that majority of people coming in are not refugees, or at least not refugees that qualify for asylum. The majority of people that get to legally stay is however refugees. Naturally people from both side of the political spectrum disagree with how the government assess applications, and it should be noted that party in power is currently the social democratic party.
Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
#886Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously he did. Weird that is not obvious. But Google does not need a reason. BTW, the fact that a former Google engineer is sitting at home unemployed would suggest he did do something wrong.
Because Google unjustly firing somebody is obviously impossible.
Google is a US company. In the US when someone does what Damore did you get fired. It is just how it works. It might not be fair.
It is also why Damore is at home unemployed. Nobody would hire him.
I think part of the confusion on this matter is employment is very different in the US versus many other parts of the world.
In the US and CA you can be fired for farting in a meeting.
Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
#887Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
#888Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually California is very pro employer and maybe what you meant? Google obviously has a lot of reasons to fire Damore but they do not even need a reason. Former Google engineer sitting at home unemployed and unable to find a job supports he should have been fired.
Google can fire people for no reason, but that can't fire people for an illegal reason. And google definitely didn't fire him for no reason. It is illegal to engage in "Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office." Here is the california law in question: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... If there are smoking…
I am not sure where you are at but in the US and CA you can fire someone for basically any reason they want. Say he farted in a meeting and he can be fired.
This is very different in the US versus other parts of the world.
But here it is pretty easy because ANY company I am familiar with in the US would fire Damore. It is just how things work in the US. You do not write what he wrote and share it. Might not be fair but how things work.
It is also why he is sitting at home and nobody will hire him. All of this has ZERO to do with politics and him being right leaning.
The issue has been cop-opt by the right wing to use it to gen up their base.
This is NOT a political issue as it appears you think. Writing what he did about women is NOT political. It is just human decency and something you just do not do.
Why do you think he now has his GF filter what he writes?
Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
#889Honestly, this whole thing is just ugly. I read what he wrote. It was (mostly) ugly but contained a lot of truth. Before you downvote/call me a Nazi, I'm a mixed race woman in tech. I definitely see people hired just because of their minority status. I also see people hired who are minorities but also great at their job. It's not a binary pattern. But those who are hired just because they are a POC or female, yet are…
>People notice it, but few say it.
Of course. They'd get fired.
Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google
#890You need a very minimal amount of social skill to succeed in programming - just enough to not piss coworkers off too badly while working together on projects. Past that, you get mostly quiet and controlled environments, managers willing to let you work on your special interests, and generally get left alone to stare at your screen and type things out. This is one of the best working environments you can find for auti…
The best thing about your post is that it argues for the interest group of people who don't play all the reindeer games, but can still be valuable members of a team.
The worst thing about your post (that isn't at all your fault), is that there isn't a strong argument for them palatable to the hegemony short of "ableism."
If the explanation in your first paragraph is true, then does it stand to reason that there are non-autistic people with weak soft skills? Or simply prefer an individualistic, distraction-free workplace?
My answer to this rhetorical question is: Yes, obviously, as long as you don't tautologically define anyone with a below-threshold appetite for social interaction at work as autistic.
It's fashionable in SV to talk of empathy, tolerance, acceptance etc... Yet from the outside I see a very close-minded bubble that demands people comport to so many social standards that nobody actually finds necessary for professionals to work productively. They'll let people get away with non-conformance only if they've got an excuse that would be a political landmine to cross (e.g. ableism re: autism).