James Damore Suing Google, do you think he has a case?

[shadowmatrix]

Interesting memo, it starts out saying he doesn't support using stereotypes then he proceeds to list stereotypes in his reasoning. Should be a career defining case for him, i wish him luck storming the castle.

[Heladys]

No, of course he doesn't have a case, he's a whiny piece of shit.

[Ethris]

I’m looking forward to him losing and his humiliation being complete. He was an idiot deserved to be fired. Google should sue him for defamation.

James Demore is an idiot but that doesn't mean his accusations can be so easily thrown away. I dunno if I'd go so far as to say that Google has an actual "discrimination" problem against white conservative men (though I'm sure that type of person is generally socially unwelcomed by most people who work at a place like Google), but accusations that Google practices illegal hiring policies might be interesting to see unfold.

>ivy league educated engineer with publications to his name, formerly employed at the a prestigious company, is an idiot

t. drooling brainlets on mmo champion

[rda]

A company should not be made to care about the colour or gender or sexual orientation of a person when looking for the right person for the job.

Unless the company has poor diversity. Bear in mind that a diverse workforce is generally considered to be significant advantage in the market, especially in an organisation like google which depends on people coming up with new and diverse ideas, and producing products aimed at a diverse market. This should be obvious even if the literature didn't already demonstrate it.

No. Flat and unequivocal no. There is no unless. The company should not be made to care about the color or gender, etc, of their employees, period.

If you, in your company, think having "the diversity" will help you do business - by all means. All you will likely accomplish by this is having less productivity because over time the potential employees will learn that their skills are not appreciated for their true value, they also have to be the right color / gender / whatever, to fit the right quota of the year, and big performers will simply go to companies that have none of this BS. But at least this will only reflect on your company, it's yours to ruin.

(And, yes, that "literature" that you are referring to is garbage studies, made to justify a pre-defined result. There is tons of this nonsense going on all over the place. At least half of the social studies are pure garbage with nothing at all in the way of science, completely and utterly useless for anything except grabbing media attention. If you want specifics - link example study.)

[JerseyGhoul]

So basically he is stating that there is severe discrimination against white males with conservative leaning political views at Google. Do you believe that this has become a wider issue in society, with systematic discrimination against this certain group of people being encouraged?

https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/ja...conservatives/

I definitely believe a certain group of people are perpetual victims in their own minds and these people simply can’t live in a world where anyone disagrees with them ever.

[Yelmurc]

So something about this whole thing bugs me, maybe someone can set me straight.

James Damore is bad because he thinks men and women’s minds are biologically different and because of this, they on average are better suited for different tasks in a engineering environment. For instance men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people on average and he cited the scientific papers supporting this claims.

Diversity is good because men and women see the world differently so we should encourage a even distribution between the sexes.

One side claims there are differences and shows how, which makes them bad. The other side claims there are differences and they are good.


I don’t understand the logic here please explain.

[Raelbo]

If you are arguing that the disadvantaged person would do a better job than a non-disadvantaged person, provided they have the same objective skills, because he / she had to overcome the disadvantage, then sure. I won't even object to hiring the disadvantaged person if he has a bit less objective skills on the basis that since he / she overcame the disadvantages, he / she is likely to outperform the other person in the (hopefully near) future. All that is fair, because that indeed goes to the ability to do a job.

Yes this is what I was saying.

But you were talking about a big difference in objective skills and started talking about amorphous things like "work ethic". Whenever this happens, I know from experience that there is nothing resembling analysis like "OK, the disadvantaged person can do less now, but he / she will outperform the other person because bla bla bla, so let's hire him / her". I know from experience that it is going to be bland BS like "OK, we are going to take a weaker person because of our <values and quotas>". So please allow me to be skeptical here.

This is you reading way to much into what I said.

Look, this is exactly the example of an amorphous mish-mash that means nothing. You say that you are talking about being capable to do the job, but then your specifics are things like the above. We have to be "holistic" and consider "aspects". Somehow from this we should conclude that we should hire the disadvantaged person even if his / her objective skills are lower. I am sorry, but you are not talking about who is more capable of doing the job. You are trying to justify hiring someone who is less capable of doing the job. By considering "aspects".

Nope, way off base again. You seem to have this tendency when reading stuff (and not just mine) to miss the trees for the forest. It's like if I say a single word that for you has a slightly different meaning than it does to me, you'll go off on a tangent instead of just trying to understand the point. It's something you need to work on.

So no, I am not at all arguing anything like that you should always just hire the disadvantaged person. I am saying that their personal context is a relevant factor though and should be taken into consideration.

Me: "The better employee would be the one who is capable of doing the job better. The end."
You: "What makes you think that I am arguing any differently?"

And then you say the above. All due respect - can't you see that this is arguing differently than "The better employee would be the one who is capable of doing the job better. The end." ???

The two can be reconciled. I suggest you look for the reasons they can be rather than why they can't.

In the context of a homogenous organisation with little or no racial/gender diversity, adding diversity will strengthen the organisation. That is tantamount to saying they'll do the job better, not because they are necessarily better at the skills typically needed for the position, but because they bring a diverse viewpoint.

[Ethris]

So something about this whole thing bugs me, maybe someone can set me straight.

James Damore is bad because he thinks men and women’s minds are biologically different and because of this

But they are.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...etween-genders

Diversity is good because men and women see the world differently so we should encourage a even distribution between the sexes.

Splendid. Let's also begin distributing basketball teams according to height, because right now the NBA is too biased towards tall people. We could really use the perspective of some short people (I'm sorry, people-of-stature) in order to boost the performance of the team.

[Beazy]

https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121

Google is going to have a bad time in CA. Not sure if anyone knows anything about CA discrimination laws, but you might want to read up on them before thinking he doesn't have a case.

Unless you can prove the google correspondences are fake photoshops from the link above, Google is in for some extremely funny justice. I think the word "irony" fits in here somewhere. LoL.

[Aphrel]

Lol. Thats basically what he said in his memo.

No, his memo said "biologically less capable of engineering" which is quite a rediculus thing to say.

[rda]

The two can be reconciled. I suggest you look for the reasons they can be rather than why they can't.

In the context of a homogenous organisation with little or no racial/gender diversity, adding diversity will strengthen the organisation. That is tantamount to saying they'll do the job better, not because they are necessarily better at the skills typically needed for the position, but because they bring a diverse viewpoint.

I don't know how they can be reconciled because I am saying "The better employee would be the one who is capable of doing the job better. The end." and you are saying "The better employee would be the one who is capable of doing the job better. But we have to also consider other factors."

I *disagree* that we have to consider other factors. You are free to consider them, I am not going to.

I *disagree* that adding diversity "strengthens" the organization. I think very little of studies on that, they are biased BS made to arrive to the pre-defined result in order to get something published. Your opinion might be different and that's fine, but my opinion is that this is simply BS.

[Yelmurc]

But they are.

Im not taking a side in this I’m asking why is everyone arguing because where I sit, everyone is on the same side.

All I see is angry internet users yelling at clouds

[rda]

No, his memo said "biologically less capable of engineering" which is quite a rediculus thing to say.

Source for the quote, please.

(You are going to be surprised to see what the source is, I guess. It's not the memo, it's TechCrunch talking about the memo.)

[Venant]

I definitely believe a certain group of people are perpetual victims in their own minds and these people simply can’t live in a world where anyone disagrees with them ever.

You make a good point but if we were to get into that discussion it would probably involve race realism and how certain ideologies take advantage of this by generating victim classes.

[Raelbo]

No. Flat and unequivocal no. There is no unless. The company should not be made to care about the color or gender, etc, of their employees, period.

If you, in your company, think having "the diversity" will help you do business - by all means.

Sigh. Dude, trees, forest. Stop focusing on minutiae.

The bold part is what I meant. The "should not be made to" part is not. Yes, yes, I know that's what he wrote, and I can see how you interpreted it (as in made to by law, rather than made to by management in their own self interest). I just wish somehow you'd figure out how to interpret shit the way people intend it, not in bizarre ways.

All you will likely accomplish by this is having less productivity because over time the potential employees will learn that their skills are not appreciated for their true value, they also have to be the right color / gender / whatever, to fit the right quota of the year, and big performers will simply go to companies that have none of this BS. But at least this will only reflect on your company, it's yours to ruin.

(And, yes, that "literature" that you are referring to is garbage studies, made to justify a pre-defined result. There is tons of this nonsense going on all over the place. At least half of the social studies are pure garbage with nothing at all in the way of science, completely and utterly useless for anything except grabbing media attention. If you want specifics - link example study.)

While you're quite entitled to your opinion, I'll stick with the literature, thanks.

[sarahtasher]

So something about this whole thing bugs me, maybe someone can set me straight.

James Damore is bad because he thinks men and women’s minds are biologically different and because of this, they on average are better suited for different tasks in a engineering environment. For instance men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people on average and he cited the scientific papers supporting this claims.

Diversity is good because men and women see the world differently so we should encourage a even distribution between the sexes.

One side claims there are differences and shows how, which makes them bad. The other side claims there are differences and they are good.


I don’t understand the logic here please explain.

It because oddly enough, when people prove ''scientifukally'' that X group is better at...the results is ALWAYS...

''Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans are very good at doing menial jobs while white are good at giving them orders''.

[videotape]

This deserves to be re-stated over and over again to all of the people who are basing their entire argument on the lies put out by biased journalists who worked with insiders at google to get Damore fired.

As a Google employee who watched all of this happen, that is not what happened. So fucking disingenuous.

[rda]

Im not taking a side in this I’m asking why is everyone arguing because where I sit, everyone is on the same side.

All I see is angry internet users yelling at clouds

What you said was logical, but the folks from one side (the one that got the guy fired) take offense with it and if you posted what you posted here on Google lists, chances are, you'd have been fired as well. That's the long and short of it.

[igualitarist]

There's no such thing as positive discrimination. I can't really conceive how a sane person would agree with this bizarre concept. Its pretty much like saying positive racism or positive sexism in a less harsh way.

[sarahtasher]

BTW, I know that Breitbart gave orders to believe that this memo was a piece of magnificient wisdom. In reality, it's an avalanche of buzzwords and lame bullet points.

I know that squeaking ''EVERYONE NOT WHITE MALE STOOPID AND STEALING YOUR JOB, EVEN IF THE JOB IS NUCLEAR SCIENTIST AND YOU ARE WORKING IN A PEANUT FACTORY IN ALABAMA'' make you looks ''scientifical'' in some circles, but it's not.