3 ms·

Evidence in Damore's lawsuit has some rather interesting tidbits about antifa, but while they are not very nice people at all, they are not really relevant to t

by Fins 9y ago

Evidence in Damore's lawsuit has some rather interesting tidbits about antifa, but while they are not very nice people at all, they are not really relevant to this discussion, I think. It also has evidence of physicasl threats. Those made it to the recently dropped/dismissed NLRB complaint, and it seems (was mentioned in a thread on HM, for sure) that peple involved had received very stern slaps on their wrists. Now, Damore may not be a very nice person himself (he did go to work for Google of his own free will, after all), but he did a) what Google asked him to do -- provided feedback on some corporate training that he was forced to attend. He backed it with some arguments that while not necessarily water-tight and incontroversible, were stronger than any debunkings of his memo that I have seen, which mostly amounted to calling it "pathetic bleatings" and claiming that it is wrong because it could not possibly be right. Saying "you are a terrible person and I will hound you until one of us gets fired" or somesuch is not quite "handing him his head". If anything, it conmfirms that Damore is probably more right than his detractors. So while it certainly might have made sense for him to shut up, make a Cultural Revoluition style confession and keep his job. But faulting him for being fireed over a memo that he didn't leak and that is, if anything, far more reasonable than many an action that seems to be accepted at Google (viz. the story of Corey Altheide). I just don't see how he is a big snowflake here.

bsder 9y ago
> It also has evidence of physicasl threats. Those made it to the recently dropped/dismissed NLRB complaint, and it seems (was mentioned in a thread on HM, for sure) that peple involved had received very stern slaps on their wrists. Please do put a link if you can find it easily. Wading through the history on HN is non-trivial. I will certainly accept legally filed complaints as evidence. And, they damn sure should have gotten more than slaps on the wrist for threats of physical violence. > he did a) what Google asked him to do -- provided feedback And even if I were doing this on a technical issue, I'm going to make sure my arguments are solid before I send it into the ether if the issue is going to cause political grief. That's just common sense. > stronger than any debunkings of his memo This one from the Economist is a good general start (I chose the Economist because it doesn't really fall in the "liberal rag" category that most people would place things like Salon, Wired, etc.) https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-week-newspaper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-w... There are lots of other problems with his memo that the whole "social science" field that he is quoting has come under strong dispute in the last decade or so. The most significant point is that Damore ignores any evidence that doesn't support his point. If you're going to be controversial, you have to explain the stuff that doesn't agree with you as well. > But faulting him for being fired over a memo that he didn't leak I thought he explicitly posted it to internal Google circulation. I really hate how it moved to the press (people who did THAT should be fired as well), but I do not believe that he simply gave a confidential memo to HR and then it got leaked. Please do correct me if I am wrong. Should Damore have lost his job? In my opinion, no. However, only an idiot goes looking for bear without a really big gun and being surprised when he gets mauled.
- Fins 9y ago
  There is some discussion here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16396554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16396554 You won't actually find an argument from me that Damore didn't behave stupidly, assuming he wanted to keep his job. However, whatever debunkings might there be to Damore's memo, neither Google, nor rags like Verge, nor even Economist provided any. Economist went as low as referencing Zunger's "pathetic bleatings" that make Damore's memo look like a Nobel material. And "social science"s wounds are mostly self-inflicted -- those few arguments that were presented against The Memo came mostly from departments of "womyn's studies" where results are determined long before research starts. Just look at what happens to Peterson (his scientific bona fides seem to be beyond reproach) when he tries to speak. Google's internal discussion groups are quite weird, but apparently inciting street violence is perfectly fine. I think it would have been reasonable for Damore to expect that a memo that at least pretends to be objective, and does not call for any illegal activity would be acceptable as well. Shold Google have a right to fire anyone over anything? I believe so. But if they fire Damore for reasons they give, which really are complete bunk, and do not fire the "I'll punch you in the face" crowd, they are hypocrites, and might get mauled themselves in the end.

by Fins 9y ago

bsder 9y ago

> It also has evidence of physicasl threats. Those made it to the recently dropped/dismissed NLRB complaint, and it seems (was mentioned in a thread on HM, for sure) that peple involved had received very stern slaps on their wrists. Please do put a link if you can find it easily. Wading through the history on HN is non-trivial. I will certainly accept legally filed complaints as evidence. And, they damn sure should have gotten more than slaps on the wrist for threats of physical violence. > he did a) what Google asked him to do -- provided feedback And even if I were doing this on a technical issue, I'm going to make sure my arguments are solid before I send it into the ether if the issue is going to cause political grief. That's just common sense. > stronger than any debunkings of his memo This one from the Economist is a good general start (I chose the Economist because it doesn't really fall in the "liberal rag" category that most people would place things like Salon, Wired, etc.) https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-week-newspaper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-w... There are lots of other problems with his memo that the whole "social science" field that he is quoting has come under strong dispute in the last decade or so. The most significant point is that Damore ignores any evidence that doesn't support his point. If you're going to be controversial, you have to explain the stuff that doesn't agree with you as well. > But faulting him for being fired over a memo that he didn't leak I thought he explicitly posted it to internal Google circulation. I really hate how it moved to the press (people who did THAT should be fired as well), but I do not believe that he simply gave a confidential memo to HR and then it got leaked. Please do correct me if I am wrong. Should Damore have lost his job? In my opinion, no. However, only an idiot goes looking for bear without a really big gun and being surprised when he gets mauled.

Fins 9y ago
There is some discussion here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16396554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16396554 You won't actually find an argument from me that Damore didn't behave stupidly, assuming he wanted to keep his job. However, whatever debunkings might there be to Damore's memo, neither Google, nor rags like Verge, nor even Economist provided any. Economist went as low as referencing Zunger's "pathetic bleatings" that make Damore's memo look like a Nobel material. And "social science"s wounds are mostly self-inflicted -- those few arguments that were presented against The Memo came mostly from departments of "womyn's studies" where results are determined long before research starts. Just look at what happens to Peterson (his scientific bona fides seem to be beyond reproach) when he tries to speak. Google's internal discussion groups are quite weird, but apparently inciting street violence is perfectly fine. I think it would have been reasonable for Damore to expect that a memo that at least pretends to be objective, and does not call for any illegal activity would be acceptable as well. Shold Google have a right to fire anyone over anything? I believe so. But if they fire Damore for reasons they give, which really are complete bunk, and do not fire the "I'll punch you in the face" crowd, they are hypocrites, and might get mauled themselves in the end.