11 ms·

Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say abo

Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong. It's astounding that people are still debating this in this very HN thread. A society of any size that makes virtue claims while simultaneously adding an undue price to being wrong or insensitive deserves to be mocked and ridiculed. You don't have to agree with anything Demore said, but the fact that Google openly encouraged political discussion, yet had an unwritten rule that if you say anything to upset a particular political demographic that you are terminated, is patently absurd. Companies shouldn't be encouraging employees to be political. We would never tolerate companies that encourage religious discussion but fire employees that say things against the Christian faith. If you're going to come into this thread to refute Damore's memo and downvote people who don't tow your petty little line, your need to reexamine your principles, if you've got one.

glenda 7y ago
I agree with you in theory, but it’s a bit different. If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people then I certainly would have no issue firing him. You are free to hold any belief you want, but once you’re in my ear with some misinformed ideas that are potentially hurtful to a large group I am free to tell you to be quiet or leave. Of course, it’s your right not to listen to me... but if I’m your boss you can expect to be fired.
- Igelau 7y ago
  That's why you wouldn't open the floor for political discussion. You're missing the point.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    I am fascinated that on HN of all places people are suggesting that engineers should never be allowed to express opinions about workplace policy.
    - rbanffy 7y ago
      They are allowed. But they also need to take responsibility for the consequences of their message. If you alienate half of your colleagues, you'll probably get fired.
      - ALittleLight 7y ago
        Google didn't fire Damore when he wrote the memo. They didn't fire him when he shared it for feedback. They didn't fire him when it was internal discussion. They fired him when it leaked to press and there was a social media furor. The idea that Google fired Damore for anything other than bad publicity is not supported by evidence. They asked him for feedback. He provided an intelligent and well researched document. They debated it. A social media mob got mad, and Google, being greedy cowards, fired Damore.
        Igelau 7y ago
        So many truths shift on how we paint the timelines. This is a very important angle to consider.
        wpietri 7y ago
        Could you please show me your source for the claim that they asked him for feedback?
        ALittleLight 7y ago
        Sure. Wikipedia has a description of it citing a Guardian article. "James Damore was spurred to write the memo when a Google diversity program he attended solicited feedback." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
        wpietri 7y ago
        That's an article about Damore's POV, so I believe the correct way to express it is that Damore claims he wrote it in response to a request for feedback. And given that he put it up with a go link, it's pretty clear he didn't just submit this as an email to the D&I team. He published it internally, hoping to spark discussion. So I think it's disingenuous to talk about this as if it were something Google's managers ordered him to do. Damore set out to cause a stir and got one.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  What happens if two groups/sides are equally discomforted by the other? Do you silence/fire them both? Is it majority rule?
  - glenda 7y ago
    I don’t have a good answer. But at that point some kind of outside discussion facilitation is probably necessary.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      What's the most human narrative you're welling to place on Damore, that he might agree with? I'll try to think up a few... 1) Damore may have felt just as uncomfortable as his coworkers with what was being said, just in the opposite direction. 2) Damore, being a little spectrumy, attempted to derive an answer to a question about gender inequality in a cold and rational way, having no understanding that what he wrote would upset people. That's not the same as suggesting what he wrote is "correct." Correctness is irrelevant. As a person also on the spectrum, I can relate to this happening all.the.time. It's very difficult to understand what will upset people if you don't already have a mental rule about it. And rules are narrow.
      - glenda 7y ago
        I can agree with #2 - I don’t believe he saw this memo as being particularly political or as an attack against anyone.
  - JPKab 7y ago
    In this case, you satisfy the group that spends disproportionate amounts of time weaponizing social media, activists, and blog journalists for their cause.
- eloff 7y ago
  They solicited feedback. He gave them feedback that was well reasoned and well supported with citations, regardless of whether it was true or not. They didn't warn him, they fired him and the outrage mob wanted to ensure he never worked again. If you're going to solicit feedback and then fire someone because you don't like it - at least specify that it must be non-dissenting feedback. Be honest here about the dishonest game being played.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    That not even vaguely what that memo was. It was a blatantly political argument. Its go link was "pc-considered-harmful". Its central thesis was that Google leans too far to the left.
    - eloff 7y ago
      I think we're talking about the same memo, just a different take on it. To be clear, it was a response to a solicitation of feedback on a diversity program. If a company can't handle honest, carefully researched and presented feedback - they shouldn't ask for it.
      - wpietri 7y ago
        Your notion is that whatever an employee does should be fine as long as it technically complies with a the wording of vague, general request made by a coworker? That would be one way to run a company, I guess. But I've never heard of one that actually works like that.
        eloff 7y ago
        If you want to have an insightful discussion, one should refrain from making strawman arguments. I think Demore's memo has little place in a company, but neither does the diversity program that spawned it. Better to keep politics out of the work place. But given the context, it was fully justified, regardless of its merits or lack thereof and I think the person who leaked it committed a real sin here, as did the company for firing him.
- twomoretime 7y ago
  >but once you’re in my ear with some misinformed ideas How the hell do you expect to get anything done in a society if you presume that any hurtful idea is misinformed? How can you seriously pretend that gendered differences in humans magically stop above the shoulders? You're denying realty. It's black and white. You can bend over backwards and sweep rational arguments like Damore's under the rug, or you can accept that consistent inequality of outcome across the time and culture is very obviously indicative of at least some degree of intrinsic cognitive differences.
  - glenda 7y ago
    I don’t think it is a rational argument though?
    - mdorazio 7y ago
      Saying "that's not rational" without stating why is rather hypocritical.
- xtreme 7y ago
  > If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people then I certainly would have no issue firing him. Would you be okay with firing an LGBT person because they "made the workplace less comfortable" for some conservative employees?
  - glenda 7y ago
    Sure, if they are publishing documents about how straight people are less effective at their job then they’re causing unnecessary issues in the workplace.
    - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
      Bad analogy, because Damore didn’t do that. I don’t know why this falsehood lives on, the paper is public, and it clearly says not that.
      - licebmi__at__ 7y ago
        You're technically correct, still is not unreasonable to argue that accusing google of quote "Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate" might have a net effect of caste a shadow over certain groups being competent enough or being "diversity hires".
        oh_sigh 7y ago
        So pointing out a mathematical fact about the hiring practices of your company is wrong? Google decided to implement the policy that minorities who almost passed the bar(but didn't) get special treatment.
        licebmi__at__ 7y ago
        A simple example: "On the current political climate, political platforms are being built around being "anti-pc". With the past evidence we have about astroturfing campaigns it's possible that there are some paid posters even here on HN peddling political right wing propaganda." I'm not saying anything false, but you can clearly see that this is not only a bad faith argument, but actually poisons the discussion, and still it can be argued that indeed we need to be wary about astroturfing and social network manipulations. I wouldn't have fired Damore, but let's not kid ourselves by saying "we're simply stating facts". Mainly because that's not really the conversation, the tacit implication of "minorities who almost passed the bar", but letting them in anyway, is that the "bar" might be wrong, and that the company might be getting more results with this kind of hires than just measuring "mad hack skillz". Damore rightly points out that "without evidence this is just veiled (left) ideology" the point where he misses is that there has been at least attempts to get this evidence, we can discuss the results and even if they're valid (reproducibility crisis), but Damore just plain ignore's it. The only extension he has to offer about this point is: "[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”" which is just bullshit by the account of anyone who knows the basics and history of marxism or social science. So these are not even "facts", but youtube tier analysis.
- syrrim 7y ago
  >If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people Not just any group of people, naturally, but particular groups. Politics necessarily makes certain groups uncomfortable. A discussion of wealth redistribution makes the rich incomfortable, should such things be impermissible? Politics enables certain groups to be favoured, and others to be disfavoured. This is a good reason to ban politics in general, but if you allow it, you need consistent rules regarding which sorts of views are permissible, rules that aren't themselves political.
  - glenda 7y ago
    Being rich isn’t a protected group in the workplace.
    - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
      There's a certain irony to saying that, considering the whole point of a workplace is to make someone richer, usually the already rich.
  - M2Ys4U 7y ago
    >This is a good reason to ban politics in general, but if you allow it, you need consistent rules regarding which sorts of views are permissible, rules that aren't themselves political. It is impossible to have apolitical rules regulating which political discussions are allowed. Hell, just banning political discussion - any political discussion - is a political act. It's always a political act.
- JSavageOne 7y ago
  If your company had a sizable portion of racists, and an employee said something anti-racist that made the racists feel uncomfortable, would you feel compelled to fire the anti-racist? I'm a big believer in the principle of freedom of speech. It's sad that employees don't have freedom of speech in the workplace.
wpietri 7y ago
Receive forgiveness? Pardon me, but where exactly did Damore ask for forgiveness? People very rarely accept apologies from people who don't offer them.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  You don't need to ask forgiveness in order to receive it. Google could have done the following: - Recognize that any damage caused by the memo had been done. The toothpaste was out of the tube. - See that Damore's memo wasn't written with malice or intention to make people feel uncomfortable. - Allow Damore to keep his position so long as he does not participate in such political discussion at the company again. This would have been reasonable, given that there's been no word that Damore was anything but a competent employee. Instead, they chose to fire him over something political, which was inevitably going to blow up into a news story and a talking point on social media. Nowhere in Damore's story, to my knowledge, did his employer offer him any sort of option, despite everything he had done being within company policy(and his opinion being solicited). This isn't to say I misunderstand why Google did what they did. But, had they been a more benevolent organization, I'd have hoped that they not simply get rid of employees that make one relatively minor mistake. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in societies where people are made pariahs if they make such mistakes.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Could you please show me where Damore says he made a mistake and apologized for it? I don't think this was minor, and I don't see any indication it was a mistake. One doesn't accidentally write an 8-page memo, especially an explicitly political one. But even assuming it were a minor mistake, then it was absolutely on Damore to own that. I'd never fire somebody for a mistake. But for doing something harmful and then refusing to admit error, let alone make amends? I don't see an option other than firing, because there's no reason to think the person won't keep right on making "mistakes" that are similar or worse.
  - aeturnum 7y ago
    > I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in societies where people are made pariahs if they make such mistakes. I agree with this statement, but I think it's a sentiment that is in tension with everything else you've said so far. I don't believe Damore has said that he thought his memo or its contents were a "mistake." He has totally failed to engage with the critiques of his position and has instead focused on critiquing the responses of others. The essential aspect of allowing people to recover from mistakes is that person meaningfully engaging with what they did wrong (which does not have to be a blanket apology). An excellent example of engaging with wrongdoing (even serious wrongdoing) can be found in Dan Harmon's apology for his behavior towards a coworker[1]. The person who's made a mistake must identify what they think the mistake was! Does having people yell at you make this harder? Of course it does. People still have a right to complain about the things they find upsetting. Damore himself was complaining about something that upset him when he wrote his memo. You've spent a good amount of space pointing out (correctly, I think) that Google is still obligated to do "the right thing" even though Damore complained[2]. I think if you want to hold Google to account, it's equally fair to ask for accountability from Damore (with the understanding that Damore, being a single human, may struggle a little more to act perfectly than a giant corporation). [1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/674/get-a-spine/act-one-5 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/674/get-a-spine/act-one-5 [2] Personally, I think Google did do the right thing.
thosakwe 7y ago
1. I don't recall him ever "asking for forgiveness," or doing anything besides doubling down on his memo. 2. The "outrage mob" isn't real. You know who got James Damore fired? Himself. It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually wrote the memo.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >The "outrage mob" isn't real. You have got to be kidding me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming
  - balls187 7y ago
    You mean consequences for your behavior?
    - recursive 7y ago
      You mean like how domestic violence is just consequences for the victim's behavior?
      - shrimp_emoji 7y ago
        Having an opinion about my opinion is a violation of the NAP.
        recursive 7y ago
        It may well be. I looked it up on wikipedia now, assuming you're talking about "Non-agression principle". I'm not sure I understand. Anyway, have a nice day.
      - balls187 7y ago
        Domestic Violence is about power and control caused of the DV Perpetrator/Aggressor towards the survivor. DV perpetrators use a myriad of tactics to control the relationship with the "victim": financial, physical, emotional, children, and sex. While the "victim" does bear some responsibility, it's usually with regards to how they are unable (or unwilling) to end a relationship with a DV perpetrator.
balls187 7y ago
What virtue claims do we make? I suppose you feel the same way about those two poor white conservative men who were finally arrested for murder after the outrage mob mobilized.
bergstromm466 7y ago
> Companies shouldn't be encouraging employees to be political Yet the very act of any type of business dealing is inherently political. To deny that is to misunderstand the word itself. It's a shame that people have weaponized this term (political) and use it as a pejorative. Similar to the term social justice 'warrior', for people showing solidarity. To not see this truth is to be culturally grandiose, in my opinion. Read Yash Tandon's 'Trade is War' for more.
conanbatt 7y ago
There was also unacceptable levels of vitrol against damore within the Google communications. I remembre reading physical threats, doxxing, insulting etc. A swath of people behaved in a reprehensible manner in response, in a way that would clearly be fired or reprimanded in a day to day situation.
AsyncAwait 7y ago
I am going to be honest, I consider myself on the left side of the spectrum, but I am disgusted by the outrage culture on Twitter etc. Besides censorship, I believe it's a tactic by neoliberal types to pretend to be on the left by virtue signaling, but not actually addressing any of the economics I care about, (medicare for all, free college etc.), so I actually agree with you there. That being said, what I also dislike is someone who seems to have no core beliefs whatsoever and instantly runs to the "intellectual dark web" bashing "the left", without acknowledging that what he refers to is a rather vocal minority, nor acknowledging the authoritarian tendencies of "the intellectual dark web" and basically just going with whoever is willing to air his grievances in a completely sympathetic, uncritical manner. It smells of opportunism, rather than some sincerely held belief. Then there's the question of whether it is wise to communicate such issues across your company in the manner that he did. I am not saying it's right, but the world is a certain way and if one wants to change it, he/she needs to also be prepared for the consequences.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  The “IDW” is really just a name for a handful of folks who were attacked by outrage mobs for misrepresentations of their intellectual curiosity. It’s barely a coherent entity, and most certainly not authoritarian. What an odd charge. And who wouldn’t talk to people willing to listen?
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    I find someone like Jordan Peterson to have some authoritarian tendencies for sure, but his fans would probably call them "strong opinions". That's fair, abet I doubt that generous interpretation would be extended to someone they disagree with. Just notice how the IDW feels strongly about free speech, but when it comes to the issue of Palestine and specifically incentivizing disinvestment from Israeli occupied territory in the West Bank, they suddenly have less than nothing to say about it, not to mention the issue of U.S. States passing anti-boycott laws censoring BDS and yet crickets from the IDW. Being selective in your concern for free speech and only criticizing one side seems hardly "intellectual" to me and I can't take it seriously. P.S. While the IDW is not exactly defined, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web#Associated_individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web#Associat... has a decent list.
rising-sky 7y ago
Your initial proposition is one I find hard reconcile > Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong I'm not sure the onus is on the other party to "offer" a chance to receive forgiveness when they have been offended or wronged? That's generally not how society or even the legal system functions. The accused has to "show" remorse and "ask" for forgiveness, otherwise what's the point of offering something you either don't want or don't deserve?
jlebar 7y ago
> Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong. Are you saying that it's wrong for people to judge actions as right or wrong without first offering to forgive the person who did the action? That's an interesting standard, I've never heard something like that before. How do you handle the fact that the statement itself does not meet the criterion it's advocating? That is, you're saying it's wrong for people to do X, but you didn't offer forgiveness first. Isn't that what you're saying one shouldn't do? > We would never tolerate companies that encourage religious discussion but fire employees that say things against the Christian faith. Surely there exist church-backed business encourage discussion about certain religious topics and would fire you for holding beliefs that don't comport with their particular religion? I'm thinking e.g. church-backed hospitals. Or even churches themselves, although perhaps you wouldn't consider them to be a "business". But more to the point, I wonder if there are limits to what you've defined as "political". What if my political belief is that Black people are intellectually inferior to white people (and that explains why there are disproportionately fewer Black people in tech). Am I not allowed to have a workplace where some political discussion is allowed (say, a newsroom) and at the same time not tolerate this (or any?) belief?
Nitramp 7y ago
> Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company How do you know that? I'm a Googler who has zero insight into the Damore case, and opinions are my own. That being said, in all my experience, Google does not fire for making (honest) mistakes, and Google does not fire on the first offense. If you want to get fired, you typically need to intentionally and maliciously violate express policy, repeatedly. I don't know if that was the case with Damore, it's just how things are typically handled.
awinder 7y ago
I’m pretty sure that google’s “unwritten rule” is THE unwritten rule of society though, which is basically beware of pissing off the mob / be insufferable at your own peril. Asking companies to seriously outline every facet of life there is the ultimate guardrails culture request.
tootie 7y ago
I think the outrage mob in this case is entirely justified. Damore has had plenty of opportunity to apologize. As much as he had a chance to not say anything at all. Political debate is one thing. Misogyny is another. He created a hostile environment. He got fired. I'd be fine knowing this ruined his life.
- sullija722 7y ago
  This is how free speech dies. I despise Trump and the right, but the outrage mob and the left is just as bad (and probably more effective) with their ability to destroy peoples' livelihoods for expressing any opinion or questioning the left's dogma.
  - tootie 7y ago
    No it isn't. Free speech means you can't be prosecuted for speech. It doesn't mean people can't hate you. You're literally up here telling me I shouldn't speak. What's the difference between saying women are inferior and saying sexists are inferior? The answer is that I'm actually correct.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > "Free speech means you can't be prosecuted for speech. It doesn't mean people can't hate you." Would you have said that to people in the civil rights movement or the labor movement? They were hated and mistreated by many as well and yet your words would have justified that. The sword always cuts both ways. Your viewpoint will hurt causes you believe in just as much as causes you oppose.
      - tootie 7y ago
        Slippery slope? Nope. You're thinking like a programmer where rules have to be rigorously defined. Humans are capable of being reasonable. We are capable of distinguishing hateful speech without an algorithm.
throwaway4715 7y ago
If you have a mediocre employee that's ruining the productivity of less mediocre employees would you keep them around? All the rest is noise. He simply wasn't worth keeping. Google keeps sexists, racists, and the like in it's executive and senior ranks. The difference is Google thinks they're worth it.
crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Im only posting the memo at hand. I know I didn't read it initially. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
djanlermats2020 7y ago
People always pretend this shit is about "professionalism" or whatever while ignoring that if you have leftist political opinions you can run wild rubbing them in people's faces and nothing whatsoever will happen to you. It's so utterly and transparently self-serving, it's disgusting.

glenda 7y ago

I agree with you in theory, but it’s a bit different. If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people then I certainly would have no issue firing him. You are free to hold any belief you want, but once you’re in my ear with some misinformed ideas that are potentially hurtful to a large group I am free to tell you to be quiet or leave. Of course, it’s your right not to listen to me... but if I’m your boss you can expect to be fired.

Igelau 7y ago
That's why you wouldn't open the floor for political discussion. You're missing the point.
- wpietri 7y ago
  I am fascinated that on HN of all places people are suggesting that engineers should never be allowed to express opinions about workplace policy.
  - rbanffy 7y ago
    They are allowed. But they also need to take responsibility for the consequences of their message. If you alienate half of your colleagues, you'll probably get fired.
    - ALittleLight 7y ago
      Google didn't fire Damore when he wrote the memo. They didn't fire him when he shared it for feedback. They didn't fire him when it was internal discussion. They fired him when it leaked to press and there was a social media furor. The idea that Google fired Damore for anything other than bad publicity is not supported by evidence. They asked him for feedback. He provided an intelligent and well researched document. They debated it. A social media mob got mad, and Google, being greedy cowards, fired Damore.
      - Igelau 7y ago
        So many truths shift on how we paint the timelines. This is a very important angle to consider.
      - wpietri 7y ago
        Could you please show me your source for the claim that they asked him for feedback?
        ALittleLight 7y ago
        Sure. Wikipedia has a description of it citing a Guardian article. "James Damore was spurred to write the memo when a Google diversity program he attended solicited feedback." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
        wpietri 7y ago
        That's an article about Damore's POV, so I believe the correct way to express it is that Damore claims he wrote it in response to a request for feedback. And given that he put it up with a go link, it's pretty clear he didn't just submit this as an email to the D&I team. He published it internally, hoping to spark discussion. So I think it's disingenuous to talk about this as if it were something Google's managers ordered him to do. Damore set out to cause a stir and got one.
Consultant32452 7y ago
What happens if two groups/sides are equally discomforted by the other? Do you silence/fire them both? Is it majority rule?
- glenda 7y ago
  I don’t have a good answer. But at that point some kind of outside discussion facilitation is probably necessary.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    What's the most human narrative you're welling to place on Damore, that he might agree with? I'll try to think up a few... 1) Damore may have felt just as uncomfortable as his coworkers with what was being said, just in the opposite direction. 2) Damore, being a little spectrumy, attempted to derive an answer to a question about gender inequality in a cold and rational way, having no understanding that what he wrote would upset people. That's not the same as suggesting what he wrote is "correct." Correctness is irrelevant. As a person also on the spectrum, I can relate to this happening all.the.time. It's very difficult to understand what will upset people if you don't already have a mental rule about it. And rules are narrow.
    - glenda 7y ago
      I can agree with #2 - I don’t believe he saw this memo as being particularly political or as an attack against anyone.
- JPKab 7y ago
  In this case, you satisfy the group that spends disproportionate amounts of time weaponizing social media, activists, and blog journalists for their cause.
eloff 7y ago
They solicited feedback. He gave them feedback that was well reasoned and well supported with citations, regardless of whether it was true or not. They didn't warn him, they fired him and the outrage mob wanted to ensure he never worked again. If you're going to solicit feedback and then fire someone because you don't like it - at least specify that it must be non-dissenting feedback. Be honest here about the dishonest game being played.
- wpietri 7y ago
  That not even vaguely what that memo was. It was a blatantly political argument. Its go link was "pc-considered-harmful". Its central thesis was that Google leans too far to the left.
  - eloff 7y ago
    I think we're talking about the same memo, just a different take on it. To be clear, it was a response to a solicitation of feedback on a diversity program. If a company can't handle honest, carefully researched and presented feedback - they shouldn't ask for it.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      Your notion is that whatever an employee does should be fine as long as it technically complies with a the wording of vague, general request made by a coworker? That would be one way to run a company, I guess. But I've never heard of one that actually works like that.
      - eloff 7y ago
        If you want to have an insightful discussion, one should refrain from making strawman arguments. I think Demore's memo has little place in a company, but neither does the diversity program that spawned it. Better to keep politics out of the work place. But given the context, it was fully justified, regardless of its merits or lack thereof and I think the person who leaked it committed a real sin here, as did the company for firing him.
twomoretime 7y ago
>but once you’re in my ear with some misinformed ideas How the hell do you expect to get anything done in a society if you presume that any hurtful idea is misinformed? How can you seriously pretend that gendered differences in humans magically stop above the shoulders? You're denying realty. It's black and white. You can bend over backwards and sweep rational arguments like Damore's under the rug, or you can accept that consistent inequality of outcome across the time and culture is very obviously indicative of at least some degree of intrinsic cognitive differences.
- glenda 7y ago
  I don’t think it is a rational argument though?
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    Saying "that's not rational" without stating why is rather hypocritical.
xtreme 7y ago
> If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people then I certainly would have no issue firing him. Would you be okay with firing an LGBT person because they "made the workplace less comfortable" for some conservative employees?
- glenda 7y ago
  Sure, if they are publishing documents about how straight people are less effective at their job then they’re causing unnecessary issues in the workplace.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    Bad analogy, because Damore didn’t do that. I don’t know why this falsehood lives on, the paper is public, and it clearly says not that.
    - licebmi__at__ 7y ago
      You're technically correct, still is not unreasonable to argue that accusing google of quote "Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate" might have a net effect of caste a shadow over certain groups being competent enough or being "diversity hires".
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
        So pointing out a mathematical fact about the hiring practices of your company is wrong? Google decided to implement the policy that minorities who almost passed the bar(but didn't) get special treatment.
        licebmi__at__ 7y ago
        A simple example: "On the current political climate, political platforms are being built around being "anti-pc". With the past evidence we have about astroturfing campaigns it's possible that there are some paid posters even here on HN peddling political right wing propaganda." I'm not saying anything false, but you can clearly see that this is not only a bad faith argument, but actually poisons the discussion, and still it can be argued that indeed we need to be wary about astroturfing and social network manipulations. I wouldn't have fired Damore, but let's not kid ourselves by saying "we're simply stating facts". Mainly because that's not really the conversation, the tacit implication of "minorities who almost passed the bar", but letting them in anyway, is that the "bar" might be wrong, and that the company might be getting more results with this kind of hires than just measuring "mad hack skillz". Damore rightly points out that "without evidence this is just veiled (left) ideology" the point where he misses is that there has been at least attempts to get this evidence, we can discuss the results and even if they're valid (reproducibility crisis), but Damore just plain ignore's it. The only extension he has to offer about this point is: "[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”" which is just bullshit by the account of anyone who knows the basics and history of marxism or social science. So these are not even "facts", but youtube tier analysis.
syrrim 7y ago
>If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people Not just any group of people, naturally, but particular groups. Politics necessarily makes certain groups uncomfortable. A discussion of wealth redistribution makes the rich incomfortable, should such things be impermissible? Politics enables certain groups to be favoured, and others to be disfavoured. This is a good reason to ban politics in general, but if you allow it, you need consistent rules regarding which sorts of views are permissible, rules that aren't themselves political.
- glenda 7y ago
  Being rich isn’t a protected group in the workplace.
  - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
    There's a certain irony to saying that, considering the whole point of a workplace is to make someone richer, usually the already rich.
- M2Ys4U 7y ago
  >This is a good reason to ban politics in general, but if you allow it, you need consistent rules regarding which sorts of views are permissible, rules that aren't themselves political. It is impossible to have apolitical rules regulating which political discussions are allowed. Hell, just banning political discussion - any political discussion - is a political act. It's always a political act.
JSavageOne 7y ago
If your company had a sizable portion of racists, and an employee said something anti-racist that made the racists feel uncomfortable, would you feel compelled to fire the anti-racist? I'm a big believer in the principle of freedom of speech. It's sad that employees don't have freedom of speech in the workplace.

wpietri 7y ago

Receive forgiveness? Pardon me, but where exactly did Damore ask for forgiveness? People very rarely accept apologies from people who don't offer them.

ravenstine 7y ago
You don't need to ask forgiveness in order to receive it. Google could have done the following: - Recognize that any damage caused by the memo had been done. The toothpaste was out of the tube. - See that Damore's memo wasn't written with malice or intention to make people feel uncomfortable. - Allow Damore to keep his position so long as he does not participate in such political discussion at the company again. This would have been reasonable, given that there's been no word that Damore was anything but a competent employee. Instead, they chose to fire him over something political, which was inevitably going to blow up into a news story and a talking point on social media. Nowhere in Damore's story, to my knowledge, did his employer offer him any sort of option, despite everything he had done being within company policy(and his opinion being solicited). This isn't to say I misunderstand why Google did what they did. But, had they been a more benevolent organization, I'd have hoped that they not simply get rid of employees that make one relatively minor mistake. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in societies where people are made pariahs if they make such mistakes.
- wpietri 7y ago
  Could you please show me where Damore says he made a mistake and apologized for it? I don't think this was minor, and I don't see any indication it was a mistake. One doesn't accidentally write an 8-page memo, especially an explicitly political one. But even assuming it were a minor mistake, then it was absolutely on Damore to own that. I'd never fire somebody for a mistake. But for doing something harmful and then refusing to admit error, let alone make amends? I don't see an option other than firing, because there's no reason to think the person won't keep right on making "mistakes" that are similar or worse.
- aeturnum 7y ago
  > I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in societies where people are made pariahs if they make such mistakes. I agree with this statement, but I think it's a sentiment that is in tension with everything else you've said so far. I don't believe Damore has said that he thought his memo or its contents were a "mistake." He has totally failed to engage with the critiques of his position and has instead focused on critiquing the responses of others. The essential aspect of allowing people to recover from mistakes is that person meaningfully engaging with what they did wrong (which does not have to be a blanket apology). An excellent example of engaging with wrongdoing (even serious wrongdoing) can be found in Dan Harmon's apology for his behavior towards a coworker[1]. The person who's made a mistake must identify what they think the mistake was! Does having people yell at you make this harder? Of course it does. People still have a right to complain about the things they find upsetting. Damore himself was complaining about something that upset him when he wrote his memo. You've spent a good amount of space pointing out (correctly, I think) that Google is still obligated to do "the right thing" even though Damore complained[2]. I think if you want to hold Google to account, it's equally fair to ask for accountability from Damore (with the understanding that Damore, being a single human, may struggle a little more to act perfectly than a giant corporation). [1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/674/get-a-spine/act-one-5 https://www.thisamericanlife.org/674/get-a-spine/act-one-5 [2] Personally, I think Google did do the right thing.

thosakwe 7y ago

1. I don't recall him ever "asking for forgiveness," or doing anything besides doubling down on his memo. 2. The "outrage mob" isn't real. You know who got James Damore fired? Himself. It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually wrote the memo.

aguyfromnb 7y ago
>The "outrage mob" isn't real. You have got to be kidding me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming
- balls187 7y ago
  You mean consequences for your behavior?
  - recursive 7y ago
    You mean like how domestic violence is just consequences for the victim's behavior?
    - shrimp_emoji 7y ago
      Having an opinion about my opinion is a violation of the NAP.
      - recursive 7y ago
        It may well be. I looked it up on wikipedia now, assuming you're talking about "Non-agression principle". I'm not sure I understand. Anyway, have a nice day.
    - balls187 7y ago
      Domestic Violence is about power and control caused of the DV Perpetrator/Aggressor towards the survivor. DV perpetrators use a myriad of tactics to control the relationship with the "victim": financial, physical, emotional, children, and sex. While the "victim" does bear some responsibility, it's usually with regards to how they are unable (or unwilling) to end a relationship with a DV perpetrator.

balls187 7y ago

What virtue claims do we make? I suppose you feel the same way about those two poor white conservative men who were finally arrested for murder after the outrage mob mobilized.

bergstromm466 7y ago

> Companies shouldn't be encouraging employees to be political Yet the very act of any type of business dealing is inherently political. To deny that is to misunderstand the word itself. It's a shame that people have weaponized this term (political) and use it as a pejorative. Similar to the term social justice 'warrior', for people showing solidarity. To not see this truth is to be culturally grandiose, in my opinion. Read Yash Tandon's 'Trade is War' for more.

conanbatt 7y ago

There was also unacceptable levels of vitrol against damore within the Google communications. I remembre reading physical threats, doxxing, insulting etc. A swath of people behaved in a reprehensible manner in response, in a way that would clearly be fired or reprimanded in a day to day situation.

AsyncAwait 7y ago

I am going to be honest, I consider myself on the left side of the spectrum, but I am disgusted by the outrage culture on Twitter etc. Besides censorship, I believe it's a tactic by neoliberal types to pretend to be on the left by virtue signaling, but not actually addressing any of the economics I care about, (medicare for all, free college etc.), so I actually agree with you there. That being said, what I also dislike is someone who seems to have no core beliefs whatsoever and instantly runs to the "intellectual dark web" bashing "the left", without acknowledging that what he refers to is a rather vocal minority, nor acknowledging the authoritarian tendencies of "the intellectual dark web" and basically just going with whoever is willing to air his grievances in a completely sympathetic, uncritical manner. It smells of opportunism, rather than some sincerely held belief. Then there's the question of whether it is wise to communicate such issues across your company in the manner that he did. I am not saying it's right, but the world is a certain way and if one wants to change it, he/she needs to also be prepared for the consequences.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago
The “IDW” is really just a name for a handful of folks who were attacked by outrage mobs for misrepresentations of their intellectual curiosity. It’s barely a coherent entity, and most certainly not authoritarian. What an odd charge. And who wouldn’t talk to people willing to listen?
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  I find someone like Jordan Peterson to have some authoritarian tendencies for sure, but his fans would probably call them "strong opinions". That's fair, abet I doubt that generous interpretation would be extended to someone they disagree with. Just notice how the IDW feels strongly about free speech, but when it comes to the issue of Palestine and specifically incentivizing disinvestment from Israeli occupied territory in the West Bank, they suddenly have less than nothing to say about it, not to mention the issue of U.S. States passing anti-boycott laws censoring BDS and yet crickets from the IDW. Being selective in your concern for free speech and only criticizing one side seems hardly "intellectual" to me and I can't take it seriously. P.S. While the IDW is not exactly defined, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web#Associated_individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web#Associat... has a decent list.

rising-sky 7y ago

Your initial proposition is one I find hard reconcile > Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong I'm not sure the onus is on the other party to "offer" a chance to receive forgiveness when they have been offended or wronged? That's generally not how society or even the legal system functions. The accused has to "show" remorse and "ask" for forgiveness, otherwise what's the point of offering something you either don't want or don't deserve?

jlebar 7y ago

> Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong. Are you saying that it's wrong for people to judge actions as right or wrong without first offering to forgive the person who did the action? That's an interesting standard, I've never heard something like that before. How do you handle the fact that the statement itself does not meet the criterion it's advocating? That is, you're saying it's wrong for people to do X, but you didn't offer forgiveness first. Isn't that what you're saying one shouldn't do? > We would never tolerate companies that encourage religious discussion but fire employees that say things against the Christian faith. Surely there exist church-backed business encourage discussion about certain religious topics and would fire you for holding beliefs that don't comport with their particular religion? I'm thinking e.g. church-backed hospitals. Or even churches themselves, although perhaps you wouldn't consider them to be a "business". But more to the point, I wonder if there are limits to what you've defined as "political". What if my political belief is that Black people are intellectually inferior to white people (and that explains why there are disproportionately fewer Black people in tech). Am I not allowed to have a workplace where some political discussion is allowed (say, a newsroom) and at the same time not tolerate this (or any?) belief?

Nitramp 7y ago

> Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company How do you know that? I'm a Googler who has zero insight into the Damore case, and opinions are my own. That being said, in all my experience, Google does not fire for making (honest) mistakes, and Google does not fire on the first offense. If you want to get fired, you typically need to intentionally and maliciously violate express policy, repeatedly. I don't know if that was the case with Damore, it's just how things are typically handled.

awinder 7y ago

I’m pretty sure that google’s “unwritten rule” is THE unwritten rule of society though, which is basically beware of pissing off the mob / be insufferable at your own peril. Asking companies to seriously outline every facet of life there is the ultimate guardrails culture request.

tootie 7y ago

I think the outrage mob in this case is entirely justified. Damore has had plenty of opportunity to apologize. As much as he had a chance to not say anything at all. Political debate is one thing. Misogyny is another. He created a hostile environment. He got fired. I'd be fine knowing this ruined his life.

sullija722 7y ago
This is how free speech dies. I despise Trump and the right, but the outrage mob and the left is just as bad (and probably more effective) with their ability to destroy peoples' livelihoods for expressing any opinion or questioning the left's dogma.
- tootie 7y ago
  No it isn't. Free speech means you can't be prosecuted for speech. It doesn't mean people can't hate you. You're literally up here telling me I shouldn't speak. What's the difference between saying women are inferior and saying sexists are inferior? The answer is that I'm actually correct.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > "Free speech means you can't be prosecuted for speech. It doesn't mean people can't hate you." Would you have said that to people in the civil rights movement or the labor movement? They were hated and mistreated by many as well and yet your words would have justified that. The sword always cuts both ways. Your viewpoint will hurt causes you believe in just as much as causes you oppose.
    - tootie 7y ago
      Slippery slope? Nope. You're thinking like a programmer where rules have to be rigorously defined. Humans are capable of being reasonable. We are capable of distinguishing hateful speech without an algorithm.

throwaway4715 7y ago

If you have a mediocre employee that's ruining the productivity of less mediocre employees would you keep them around? All the rest is noise. He simply wasn't worth keeping. Google keeps sexists, racists, and the like in it's executive and senior ranks. The difference is Google thinks they're worth it.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago

Im only posting the memo at hand. I know I didn't read it initially. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

djanlermats2020 7y ago

People always pretend this shit is about "professionalism" or whatever while ignoring that if you have leftist political opinions you can run wild rubbing them in people's faces and nothing whatsoever will happen to you. It's so utterly and transparently self-serving, it's disgusting.