10 ms·

"alleges a new lawsuit" This is all speculation yet the title reads as fact. I'm not saying they didn't do it but let's get a title change to what is really ha

"alleges a new lawsuit" This is all speculation yet the title reads as fact. I'm not saying they didn't do it but let's get a title change to what is really happening here.

sawmurai 9y ago
Came hear to comment or read this. Thanks.
malvosenior 9y ago
I agree with you that we shouldn't be citing accusations as facts. I do wish that rule was equally applied though, there have been a ton of Ellen Pao articles on HN that say she was the victim of discrimination when in fact she lost her lawsuit and the court found no evidence to support her claims.
- lykr0n 9y ago
  I wish the same thing. There is a double standard where the shit can only role down the proverbial hill. As someone pointed out below, https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121 https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121, shows that lots of the evidence in the lawsuit is "It's perfectly fine if [the left-leaning] do it, but unacceptable if someone else does"
pnw_hazor 9y ago
There are pictures. Screenshots of managers saying they keep black-lists.
- avs733 9y ago
  The article is very specific about using the title with the conditional. I think it is problematic that the condtional is appended as an end clause in the headline rather than being upfront about it. Dropping the clause from the HN headline is even more problematic because it removes that conditional entirely. As for the pictures, the only one in the article has nothing to do with black-lists of conservatives, it reads to me like keeping a list of ah*s. In this case, specifically those who make the propagation of a company value difficult. That screenshot doesn't say anything about political affiliation or beliefs. It is focused on actions. If you think any company doesn't have an implicit or even explicit list of 'capable but frustrating employees' you are in for a shock. Being a conservative may well be a protected class in California, but being a jerk and interfering with the entirely legal strategic goals set by management isn't. The first is about the views you hold, and should be protected. The second is about the things you do at work, and shouldn't be protected.
  - theptip 9y ago
    While I agree with your general point about being careful with treating accusations as facts, this is how every major news outlet does headlines. <h1>Famous person murders family member</h1> <h4>court case alleges</h4>
thehardsphere 9y ago
The lawsuit contains screenshots and other evidence that serves as an effective prima facie case for workplace discrimination. It's not really correct to say it's "speculation", which kind of implies someone just made a bunch of stuff up or is guessing as to what behavior takes place inside Google. On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial. That said, Google should have an opportunity to counter the claims if they have a defense and evidence to support it.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial. Is that based on some experience in HR, employment lawsuits, or the law?
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    Well, the law is that it's illegal to not hire someone based on their race. The lawsuit contains screenshots of people saying they don't want to hire people who are white. So, if there's no rebuttal (e.g. Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say "this is a fake screenshot" or "it's taken out of context" or "the hiring practice is not illegal for this reason" or "this person has no say over what the hiring practice is" or whatever), those screenshots would be the only evidence at trial. Uncontested, they depict a company that doesn’t want to hire white people because they are white. Google has to provide evidence to the contrary in their response. That's how any court proceeding works. All I'm saying about the lawsuit is that it's not on-its-face without merit. That doesn't mean Damore is right, it just means Google has to offer a defense since the plantiff has at least shown that there is a reason to believe the claims might be true and demonstrate illegal behavior on Google's part.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say ... Google's lawyer tries the case in court, not on Twitter. The lack of debate doesn't signify anything.

"alleges a new lawsuit" This is all speculation yet the title reads as fact. I'm not saying they didn't do it but let's get a title change to what is really happening here.

sawmurai 9y ago

Came hear to comment or read this. Thanks.

malvosenior 9y ago

I agree with you that we shouldn't be citing accusations as facts. I do wish that rule was equally applied though, there have been a ton of Ellen Pao articles on HN that say she was the victim of discrimination when in fact she lost her lawsuit and the court found no evidence to support her claims.

lykr0n 9y ago
I wish the same thing. There is a double standard where the shit can only role down the proverbial hill. As someone pointed out below, https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121 https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121, shows that lots of the evidence in the lawsuit is "It's perfectly fine if [the left-leaning] do it, but unacceptable if someone else does"

pnw_hazor 9y ago

There are pictures. Screenshots of managers saying they keep black-lists.

avs733 9y ago
The article is very specific about using the title with the conditional. I think it is problematic that the condtional is appended as an end clause in the headline rather than being upfront about it. Dropping the clause from the HN headline is even more problematic because it removes that conditional entirely. As for the pictures, the only one in the article has nothing to do with black-lists of conservatives, it reads to me like keeping a list of ah*s. In this case, specifically those who make the propagation of a company value difficult. That screenshot doesn't say anything about political affiliation or beliefs. It is focused on actions. If you think any company doesn't have an implicit or even explicit list of 'capable but frustrating employees' you are in for a shock. Being a conservative may well be a protected class in California, but being a jerk and interfering with the entirely legal strategic goals set by management isn't. The first is about the views you hold, and should be protected. The second is about the things you do at work, and shouldn't be protected.
- theptip 9y ago
  While I agree with your general point about being careful with treating accusations as facts, this is how every major news outlet does headlines. <h1>Famous person murders family member</h1> <h4>court case alleges</h4>

thehardsphere 9y ago

The lawsuit contains screenshots and other evidence that serves as an effective prima facie case for workplace discrimination. It's not really correct to say it's "speculation", which kind of implies someone just made a bunch of stuff up or is guessing as to what behavior takes place inside Google. On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial. That said, Google should have an opportunity to counter the claims if they have a defense and evidence to support it.

forapurpose 9y ago
> On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial. Is that based on some experience in HR, employment lawsuits, or the law?
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Well, the law is that it's illegal to not hire someone based on their race. The lawsuit contains screenshots of people saying they don't want to hire people who are white. So, if there's no rebuttal (e.g. Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say "this is a fake screenshot" or "it's taken out of context" or "the hiring practice is not illegal for this reason" or "this person has no say over what the hiring practice is" or whatever), those screenshots would be the only evidence at trial. Uncontested, they depict a company that doesn’t want to hire white people because they are white. Google has to provide evidence to the contrary in their response. That's how any court proceeding works. All I'm saying about the lawsuit is that it's not on-its-face without merit. That doesn't mean Damore is right, it just means Google has to offer a defense since the plantiff has at least shown that there is a reason to believe the claims might be true and demonstrate illegal behavior on Google's part.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say ... Google's lawyer tries the case in court, not on Twitter. The lack of debate doesn't signify anything.