Live data from Hacker News

James Damore and three others end Google suit

bloomberg.com

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#951

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The go link was "pc-considered-harmful". I think Damore clearly understood that what he was doing was political. And starting from "PC", a right-wing caricature of left-wing positions, could not be anything other than divisive. If you'd like to argue that was somehow all accidental, that he was just incredibly bad a communication, feel free. I'm being perfectly honest, and I'm doing my best to be fair. If you don't l…

I strongly object with characterizing being inclusive and mindful of how your speech affects others as a "left-wing positions". It's basic politeness.

I certainly would think so. But nonetheless, the US right has been attacking the US left for that for decades. As long as the politeness is being applied to historically disfavored groups, anyhow.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think he's lying about the sequence of events, that's your choice. But unless you have a better reason than that you disagree with his opinions, you're not going to convince anyone. Is it not the job of HR to address employee concerns? Is it not the job of HR to manage the liability incurred by employees? I fail to see how HR does not bear responsibility here. Had HR said "sharing the contents of the memo at w…

I don't think he has to be lying. I think we've only heard one side of the story. It's the job of employees to manage their own behavior. It's HR's job to do their best to contain the problems when employees fail to do that. The dude created a go link, the purpose of which is to make something available to the entire company. Publishing it into an open internal group fits my definition of "broadly". It's not like he…

> I don't think he has to be lying. I think we've only heard one side of the story.

A reasonable question I suppose, but fruitless as no-one has contradicted his timeline of events.

> It's the job of employees to manage their own behavior. It's HR's job to do their best to contain the problems when employees fail to do that.

You have yet to make the case that Damore's behavior was somehow irresponsible. On the other hand, an HR department doesn't respond to employee concerns and that only deals with the fallout of situations after they occur is not very effective or responsible.

> The dude created a go link, the purpose of which is to make something available to the entire company. Publishing it into an open internal group fits my definition of "broadly". It's not like he handed it to his manager or a couple colleagues and said "I'd like your feedback on this." He intentionally put it out to a wide audience.

Access control restrictions are not particularly relevant. He did, iirc, solicit feedback from some select colleagues before publishing it internally. He also submitted his concerns to HR (unless you've forgotten). After that, he shared it with an internal forum devoted to discussing controversial ideas. What else should he have done?

> If you don't see it as an attack, I guess that's your prerogative. That's certainly how it was received.

By some, certainly not all.

> And given that the go link was titled pc-considered-harmful, it's clear that Damore saw it as a shot in the broader culture war.

Please explain how criticism political correctness amounts to an attack. Arguing that "political correctness is something only bad people complain about" is not sufficient. Feel free to include anything within the actual contents of the essay that also amounts to an "attack".

> Something confirmed by his post-firing behavior, where the first people he talked to were strident antifeminists

This whole "guilt-by-association" is very tiresome and low-effort. All the moreso considering that it was quite evident that "acceptable" media sources were never going to give Damore a fair shake, nor were they particularly interested in what he actually had to say.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#954
post #947

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically men and women are different and have different interests and attitudes. What's the problem with them choosing different professions then?

If the reasons for them choosing different professions is simple preference regarding the nature of tasks, no problem. If the reason is that our profession is toxic in a way that puts them off that's a problem.

So why assume it's the latter and reject the former as an option? If you state that men and women have different personalities and attitudes then you must accept that carries over to interests as well. The fact that STEM fields collectively are balanced while different sectors have different ratios shows that there's really no major underlying issue and that personal preference is the overriding factor.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#955
post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to you this constitutes reporting that was "purposefully out of context and twisted in order to create rage click bait to satisfy someone's ideological crusade"?

Well I wouldn't put it that strongly (I didn't write the post you're quoting), but it hardly demonstrates journalistic integrity. (But then what would you expect from a site that's just Gawker rebranded?) For an example of "reporting" that comes closer to what you describe in your quote, I'd point to the pile of hot garbage that former Google exec (and deranged lunatic) Yonatan Zunger posted on Medium.com, which was…

Suppose we had data that we agreed was reliable showing that women software engineers who had read Damore's memo and Yonatan's post would overwhelmingly be unwilling to work with Damore and overwhelmingly be willing to work with Yonatan.

I'm not saying I have this data, but just hypothetically, suppose we did.

Would this at all influence your judgements (e.g. "deranged lunatic") of them? Why or why not?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#956
post #184

Damore committed the ultimate sin in the corporate world- he caused a huge PR mess. Let's set aside the content of his memo (I personally don't agree with what he said) and just appreciate that he made a mess. As has been said before, if your CEO learns your name for the same reason he has to end his vacation early, you probably should start polishing up your resume.

The company was backed into the corner because whether or not he was right, he created a hostile environment by starting and continuing the conversation where everyone in the company could read it.

There isn't a debate to be had in a public forum (even internal public) because the law has already decided the question.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#957

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the only issue. Taking away the political content entirely, storing up all your greivances and airing them in a single document intended to attack the entire purpose of other teams was a stupid thing to do. I've seen people do the same thing with technical issues and it's just totally counter-productive.

That's not fair summary of the document at all. In fact Damore was aligned with the purpose of the diversity groups and trying to reason how what is known about different preferences and personalities between men and women could be used to help improve diversity at Google. For example, Damore's memo has a section where he reasons that one reason women may not be promoted as often is because Google is organized to rec…

> Damore was aligned with the purpose of the diversity groups

I'm curious your source on this information.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#958
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Engineering is where most of the people go who care more about being right than about what people think of them. There is a reason for that - it usually matters if an approach is right or not in engineering work. Companies like Google need to be able to roll their eyes when engineers start stupid arguments, not sack them. The front-page rule is a technical impediment to people being able to figure out facts. The path…

In general, that is how Google responds to bad ideas.

When the memo hit the public, it became an issue of whether the company was perceived to be supporting a Title VII violation. Then the company doesn't have the option of rolling their eyes and going about business as usual anymore.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#960
post #872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The character assassination weapon was his own memo and opinions, stated over and over by himself. It's character suicide.

except for the fact that almost all controversial statements attributed to the memo are projections. In practice the entire content of that document sums up to "Since current diversity efforts are not solving the problem it could be time to admit that the current google structure is on average slightly less attractive or rewarding for women (or for individual in a slice of the population that contains slightly more w…

That would have been a great thing for the memo to say.

That's not what the memo said. Instead, the memo claimed women were on average more neurotic.

Post reply on HN