This idea that one can only disagree with it because they haven't read it is extremely uncivil, and does nothing but attempt to shut down the discussion here.
Both of those theses are quite sexist, and no, neither one is appropriate for discussion in the workplace. Especially a workplace that wishes to appear as welcoming for all, not just conservative white men.
If the workplace wishes to appear welcoming for all and at the same time has numerous sacred topics that cannot be touched even with a mile-long stick, then it is clearly not welcoming enough.
No, it isn't. Not when many of their female employees were willing to leave the company, and when the existence of that manifesto would make their recruiting efforts much, much harder.
Google had to decide which they value more: Damore's memo, or their legal defense against inevitable discrimination suits.
---
nb. Large companies are a constant target for litigants of all stripes. There are suits of all types filed against them regularly. They must be careful or, under current law, a bitter employee who was not in actuality discriminated against can successfully claim discrimination and pilfer millions of dollars from the company, inviting follow-on after follow-on. Because the current law is based upon reading in/assuming specific motives to otherwise-valid actions, companies are forced to assume a defensive legal position, such that the other side's lawyer will have a large amount of difficulty convincing a judge and/or jury that such motives were allowed or tolerated.
"By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way"
But they didn't. That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted. For more on that, check here: http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-... It's an article from a female engineer who read the manifesto, and takes issue with the conclusions drawn from the studies.
The ones claiming that his manifesto was "scientifically sound" are those who are anti-science and anti-evidence.
"They could have simply said that they were taking punitive actions and kept him in the fold."
No, they couldn't. By keeping him, they would be legitimizing his views. And by doing that, they would be further alienating all of their female employees, and a lot of others, both current and future. Just about no woman would want to work there, knowing that they endorse those viewpoints.
>That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted.
I want to follow up on this, can you give an example? From what little I know, it's essentially settled science that men and women have statistically different interests, and those interests exist across all cultures (implying a biological cause).
I'm not sure why more people aren't pointing this out but I couldn't take his arguments seriously when he weaseled in racial diversity after the evidenc about gender differences were presented. It is pretty clear from that alone that the intent was not to have a scientific discourse, it was to dress up bias as science.
The problem isn't with the science, it's with the misuse of the science to add apparent credence to flawed logic.
So yes, across humanity there are statistical gender differences to the choices people make. The flaw in the logic is that that doesn't means Google shouldn't act on bias in its selection and retention policies. What it may well mean is that Google may need to mitigate the cultural biases both internally and externally if they are going to make more than a small dent in the imbalance.
Similarly, it doesn't follow from the argument that humanity is what it is to a position that Google shouldn't attempt gender equality. It does mean that it'll be tricky for a company their size. But whether they should or not should be a question about what's in the best interest of the company as a whole.
BTW there is often the assumption that something like gender equality is purely a political goal. And quite often it is. However, there is a very good argument that the tech pool for high potential people is quite shallow given the current and expected demand.
In my org we are taking steps to try to widen the pool of intellectually able people we can select from. One area that we are targeting is women. Another is geographical areas where we don't have traction (mainly eastern Europe and Africa). This isn't political per se. This is so we have a wider talent pool to choose from. I would be genuinely stunned if this type of thinking wasn't in part what Google senior management are also looking at.
> But whether they should or not should be a question about what's in the best interest of the company as a whole.
That reminds me of something I read recently:
For each of these changes, we need
principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with
Google's diversity being a component of that.
Can you guess where I read that? (Hint: It was written by James Damore).
Now it just so happens that I disagree with that opinion, because it appears to remove the corporation's decision making from any moral considerations, leaving only profit. But it appears to be a point where you agree with the memo author.
I don't have to guess, I read it. Also, I don't agree with him. His whole premise is that he doesn't think there should be major change at Google as he seems to like it like it is. I find his approach to reaching that conclusion somewhat disingenuous.
And I don't get your point on profit. He didn't mention it nor do I think that's the part of the culture he wants to retain particularly. I didn't mention it either. I want my company to succeed, I am a shareholder after all. But I also want it to be a good place to work as I spend a reasonable chunk of my week there.
I also happen to be a father of a daughter who wants her to have every possible opportunity open to her. Assuming this is one dimensional doesn't really fit the facts.
"His whole premise is that he doesn't think there should be major change at Google as he seems to like it like it is."
I had the opposite impression when I read it: there should be major change at Google (away from "echo chambers") and he absolutely does not like it the way it is.
Basically, all of them say that, while men and women are not purely identical, the differences between them are nowhere near as great as the manifesto makes them out to be. The purely biological differences have little to no bearing on coding ability, and the bigger issues are societal. Like the effect of having something like this coming out on young women who hear it as being told that they're not welcome in tech.
No. This both-sidesism is laughably wrong. There are extremely clear distinctions between the two parties. Anyone claiming they are the same is either intellectually lazy or corrupt.
Well, ok, fair point. You're forcing me to better articulate myself (I'm not the GP, but still...).
It's not that they're "the same," but they've come to reach a homeostasis that protects each side while not truly fixing hard problems. They may not have sought that out intentionally, but now that they're in it, they're intentionally, happily, staying in it.
The end result is, we're watching a play, where each side has some powerful dramatic lines full of tense conflict, but it's all fake and they're really cooperating to keep everything pretty much the same.
The end result is, we're watching a play, where each side has some powerful dramatic lines full of tense conflict, but it's all fake and they're really cooperating to keep everything pretty much the same.
I used to believe that, but I no longer do. The Trump administration, in particular the leaks associated with it, has given us a perspective that we've never had before as private citizens.
There really is a good side and a bad side here, and they are not secretly in bed with each other. No one would make themselves look this incompetent if they were reading from a prewritten script.
I'm surprised that people don't note again and again that the fearmongering and bitching about things like the ACA that the Republicans have done for this entire decade has led them into power... and yet they've got nothing to offer. They've been complaining about the ACA for 7 years now, and have had that long to develop a workable alternative, and they have nothing serious. You know, something that a white-haired conservative who claims to be good at management should actually have. Why are the Republicans not having their feet held to the same fire that they demanded when they were in opposition? Media pundits are too busy laughing at Trump to really bother.
We had the same thing happen here in Australia a few years previous; the opposition party just said "No!" to everything that the incumbent government was trying. They got into power, and then realised that that trick only works when you're in opposition... and when that's the only muscle you've exercised, you're now lost at sea with no idea what to do. They had nothing but poorly-planned destruction on the cards; nothing constructive has come from their tenure.
But one possible explanation -- Trump is a "Washington outsider." If both sides are cooperating to keep up the farce while not damaging the status quo, then _both sides_ would need to resist Trump ... because he is unaware of the game and hasn't committed to playing it.
Could be a great opportunity to send a message to the voters, "Hey, don't try putting outsiders in here."
(None of that is meant to take away from the crazy mistakes the Trump administration has been making. The Mooch!)
This isn't true either. As instance, whether or not you believe O-care was a good thing, the Democrats were ready to sacrifice their majority for it. On the reverse, the Republicans promised repeals for six years before cowardly running away from it to save their hides.
Idk why you're being downvoted. Even if the parties have a disagreement it is usually just superficial. Both are still in favor of things like bombing, for example, both wanted TPP (and Trump killed it, funny enough) and a myriad of other things. They aren't exactly the same, but they are on a lot of matters.
They're being downvoted because their point, and yours, is absolutely bunk. You pick one or two token things on which they agree, and ignore an entire host of issues on which they have significant differences.
You missed what I wrote. Of course they disagree on things, but those things are largely superficial. They don't disagree, for example, on foreign policy. They don't disagree on the NSA collecting bulk data, they don't disagree on promoting corporate welfare. They disagree on some important things too, like environmental policy, but that's just a matter of who is paying who.
Calling this "absolute bunk" just demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about.
No, I got exactly what you wrote. I don't buy it, and I incredibly do not buy this bunk idea that the disagreements are entirely superficial. To those millions who would have lost health coverage under the GOP plan, do you think that difference was "entirely superficial"? To the transgender people who are having their ability to exist in public spaces assaulted by the GOP, do you think those differences are "entirely superficial"? To the masses of people being deported solely for committing the crime of wanting a better life for them and their family, do you think the differences are "entirely superficial"?
And saying that people who disagree with you just "don't know what they're talking about" is incredibly intellectually lazy.
Healthcare, like, the mandatory profits for insurance companies?
Immigration is a loaded topic. We can't afford to let every single person on the planet who wants a better life to move here. Maybe they should work on improving their own countries instead? Mass immigration is unsustainable with growing populations.
And calling an argument intellectually lazy is being "intellectually lazy" itself.
You're delusional if you think the Democrats and Republicans by and large have any real interest in the American people. They are both in bed with corporations and they both need to be rooted out and removed from office. If you vote Democrat you're just as bad (maybe worse since you should know better) as Republicans.
> you don't know what you're talking about [...] You're delusional
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines and repeatedly ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
"Healthcare, like, the mandatory profits for insurance companies?"
Like the end to discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Like the end to yearly and lifetime caps on coverage. Like the end to insurance companies just being able to drop you the minute you get sick.
"Immigration is a loaded topic."
No, it's not.
"And calling an argument intellectually lazy is being "intellectually lazy" itself."
No, it's not. It's pointing out the faults in your argument.
"You're delusional if you think the Democrats and Republicans by and large have any real interest in the American people."
And you're far too cynical if you think they don't, or if you think that they're the same.
"If you vote Democrat you're just as bad (maybe worse since you should know better) as Republicans."
Wrong. No matter how much you hope that they're the same, they are not. Again, all it takes is looking at the various issues facing people today. Healthcare. Immigration. Minority rights. Voting rights. For you to say they are equally as bad is for you to say you have never actually looked at anything, and want an excuse not to.
I have absolutely no respect for lazy people like you who don't even bother to look at the issues, and just choose the easy way out. Do not bother responding back with another easily disproven and shot down argument.
> I have absolutely no respect for lazy people like you
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines as well as for using it primarily for ideological battle (an abuse of the site, as I've explained many times) and ignoring our requests to stop. We'd be happy to unban you if you'd actually like to use the site as intended, but alas that seems not to be the case.
I have never ignored your requests. I would like to point out that you do have it out for several people, and very unfairly issue warnings and bans to those people while ignoring far more grievous violations of your TOS, including ones against me.
The out of context snippet you quoted is no more a violation than most other things on this site. For you to go after certain viewpoints like you do, not out of any notion of preserving civility, but to silence certain viewpoints, smacks of censorship.
I hear this complaint a lot, so perhaps it's inevitable that HN moderation comes across to ideologically committed users as a secret censorship of their views, and/or that it feels like we must be lying when we say it's about your conduct on the site, and/or that we have it in for you personally.
However, the people holding the opposite views say exactly the same thing (including yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14984601). And there are plenty of users arguing for the same positions as you who respect HN's rules and consequently don't get moderated or banned. So from my perspective, your posts have more in common with those from the opposite extreme (i.e. posts by users whom you would regard as your enemies) than with the majority of community members who share your views.
I can appreciate that, due to the news of the week, you've had a harder than normal job, and I can safely say that I'm glad I'm not in your place. But I still can't help but feel the moderation is applied inconsistently. Not necessarily by any particular ideology, but simply by content that people just disagree with. I was dinged not long ago simply for posting a calm, fairly innocuous post, with no vitriol or malice. Those replying were more uncivil, yet I was dinged. And, because I was dinged, I could not reply to appeal.
I do not wish to draw this out further than I have already. I know you have a hard job, and I am sorry for losing my cool at the tail end of the above discussion.
Only if you're intellectually dishonest, or you've not been paying attention. For instance, how many parties are actively trying to suppress minority voters?
You don't see anything wrong with the company being it's own ghostwriter? The company, who is clearly going to agree with the contents that are charitable to itself?
