4 ms·

James Damore, for one..

TylerE 7y ago
Sounds more like being fired for being a colossal asshole that no one wanted to work with.
atdt 7y ago
Yes, no one was more surprised than James Damore when his memo, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber, provoked the ire of his coworkers.
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
I think he got fired because he called the entire category of female employees generally poor performers and less capable because they were not men and also questioned hiring practices to encourage hiring them. Is it okay if you pick other groups and claim this about them? Black people, Jewish, whatever. You need to treat people as individuals.
- avinium 7y ago
  Well, I disagree with that characterisation of the affair, but ultimately it’s irrelevant. He was literally fired for making people (in this case, women) uncomfortable. Doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the firing, but that was unquestionably the reason.
- s9w 7y ago
  If you argue like that, that implies that every group is exactly the same on every possible metric. That seems improbable. Saying that Jewish people are more intelligent than others is common. Other comparisons don't fare so well.
- repolfx 7y ago
  That's simply not true. I'm going to assume you are repeating things you've read in articles written by journalists, who I noticed lied repeatedly about the contents of Damore's memo. If you're curious about what it really says you can read it here: https://firedfortruth.com/ https://firedfortruth.com/ For example, you say: "You need to treat people as individuals" Damore agrees with you. He said: "I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)." and "Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." You say: I think he got fired because he called the entire category of female employees generally poor performers But Damore said: "Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” So he said the opposite of "the entire category", he explicitly said he was talking about statistical observations that aren't true in many cases. He also had some not terribly pleasant truths to drop about men: "This may lead to more male CEOs and geniuses, but also more homeless males and school dropouts. This has likely evolved because individual males can have many children and are biologically disposable." But nobody seems to remember that.
dang 7y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- s9w 7y ago
  He literally gave a good example for the question that was asked. I'm so confused by this thread.
  - dang 7y ago
    It isn't a good example. Damore wasn't "fired because of an offended woman". Regardless of what you think of Damore, that isn't close to accurate. We all need to be much more careful about facts than that. Worse, that episode is a classic flamewar topic which ought not to be tossed into like a Molotov cocktail into some other inflammatory thread. The only effect will be to send the whole thing up in flames. This is the kind of thing that site guideline is written for.
    - avinium 7y ago
      > It isn't a good example. Damore wasn't "fired because of an offended woman". Regardless of what you think of Damore, that isn't close to accurate. We all need to be much more careful about facts than that. I don't necessarily condone Damore's action (or Google's reaction, for that matter) but I'm incredulous that someone could suggest this is not accurate (well, except for the fact that it wasn't an individual woman). I'm interested to hear why you think this is inaccurate. I also feel it's absurd to characterize it as flamebait. It's directly relevant to the question under discussion - why gender issues are making men feel uncomfortable in the workplace. That doesn't mean their discomfort is justified - maybe you agree, maybe you don't. But flagging these comments indicates you feel that noone is even *allowed to discuss it openly.
      - dang 7y ago
        > well, except for the fact that it wasn't an individual woman Except for? That's a major difference. As I said, we all need to take much greater care about facts than that. Bringing in a classic flamewar topic, when it isn't strictly relevant, is like dropping a bomb in the thread. The site guidelines ask people particularly not to do that. Classic flamewar topics are black holes that suck everything in, especially anything that drifts nearby. They need to be consciously resisted if we are not to rehearse the same flamewars over and over. Some people may want to do that, but it's off topic for Hacker News. > It's directly relevant to the question under discussion I don't agree. Perhaps it feels that way because "gender" plus "controversy", but the actual topic of this thread is distinct and remote from that. We need to make finer-grained, more precise distinctions, if we want to avoid a big fireball.

Sounds more like being fired for being a colossal asshole that no one wanted to work with.

atdt 7y ago

Yes, no one was more surprised than James Damore when his memo, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber, provoked the ire of his coworkers.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

I think he got fired because he called the entire category of female employees generally poor performers and less capable because they were not men and also questioned hiring practices to encourage hiring them. Is it okay if you pick other groups and claim this about them? Black people, Jewish, whatever. You need to treat people as individuals.

avinium 7y ago
Well, I disagree with that characterisation of the affair, but ultimately it’s irrelevant. He was literally fired for making people (in this case, women) uncomfortable. Doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the firing, but that was unquestionably the reason.
s9w 7y ago
If you argue like that, that implies that every group is exactly the same on every possible metric. That seems improbable. Saying that Jewish people are more intelligent than others is common. Other comparisons don't fare so well.
repolfx 7y ago
That's simply not true. I'm going to assume you are repeating things you've read in articles written by journalists, who I noticed lied repeatedly about the contents of Damore's memo. If you're curious about what it really says you can read it here: https://firedfortruth.com/ https://firedfortruth.com/ For example, you say: "You need to treat people as individuals" Damore agrees with you. He said: "I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)." and "Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." You say: I think he got fired because he called the entire category of female employees generally poor performers But Damore said: "Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” So he said the opposite of "the entire category", he explicitly said he was talking about statistical observations that aren't true in many cases. He also had some not terribly pleasant truths to drop about men: "This may lead to more male CEOs and geniuses, but also more homeless males and school dropouts. This has likely evolved because individual males can have many children and are biologically disposable." But nobody seems to remember that.

dang 7y ago

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

s9w 7y ago
He literally gave a good example for the question that was asked. I'm so confused by this thread.
- dang 7y ago
  It isn't a good example. Damore wasn't "fired because of an offended woman". Regardless of what you think of Damore, that isn't close to accurate. We all need to be much more careful about facts than that. Worse, that episode is a classic flamewar topic which ought not to be tossed into like a Molotov cocktail into some other inflammatory thread. The only effect will be to send the whole thing up in flames. This is the kind of thing that site guideline is written for.
  - avinium 7y ago
    > It isn't a good example. Damore wasn't "fired because of an offended woman". Regardless of what you think of Damore, that isn't close to accurate. We all need to be much more careful about facts than that. I don't necessarily condone Damore's action (or Google's reaction, for that matter) but I'm incredulous that someone could suggest this is not accurate (well, except for the fact that it wasn't an individual woman). I'm interested to hear why you think this is inaccurate. I also feel it's absurd to characterize it as flamebait. It's directly relevant to the question under discussion - why gender issues are making men feel uncomfortable in the workplace. That doesn't mean their discomfort is justified - maybe you agree, maybe you don't. But flagging these comments indicates you feel that noone is even *allowed to discuss it openly.
    - dang 7y ago
      > well, except for the fact that it wasn't an individual woman Except for? That's a major difference. As I said, we all need to take much greater care about facts than that. Bringing in a classic flamewar topic, when it isn't strictly relevant, is like dropping a bomb in the thread. The site guidelines ask people particularly not to do that. Classic flamewar topics are black holes that suck everything in, especially anything that drifts nearby. They need to be consciously resisted if we are not to rehearse the same flamewars over and over. Some people may want to do that, but it's off topic for Hacker News. > It's directly relevant to the question under discussion I don't agree. Perhaps it feels that way because "gender" plus "controversy", but the actual topic of this thread is distinct and remote from that. We need to make finer-grained, more precise distinctions, if we want to avoid a big fireball.