Yes, that's the spirit. Let's burn the witch.

Unless i missed something, the guy never advocated violence or gender discrimination, or making anyone's life miserable. He expressed opinion on scientific explanation. You may find it very stupid, but what in your mind makes you think it's OK to destroy a man's life for his opinion, and then i suppose pretend to be someone with high moral grounds.

His mistake was assuming that people would be able to have an abstract, intellectual discussion of the subject. Unfortunately colleges and universities have spent more than a decade churning out graduates who have been taught that a good tool to attain power and status is to have an emotional, overreaction to anything that let's them assert cultural dominance over someone.

It's never okay to destroy a man's life, but he made a poor choice to have his life destroyed.

I don't know why he did that. People do stupid things all the time.

Centuries of gender discrimination, in a field that is very publicly plagued by it, in a world that is still broken with it, what was Damore thinking?

Everyone has the freedom to act, but no one has freedom from the consequences of the act.

That is a very strange notion of freedom (albeit pervasive). Everybody has the freedom to shoplift but no one has freedom from the consequences of shoplifting.

In a strictly literal sense, which might be the best for getting everyone on the same page, that is true.

No question that Damore made mistakes; most sane people would never have let an opinion like that touch paper during office hours, and google will hopefully review the terrible idea of having a 'controversial opinions' forum.

However, his mistake is the debate's gain - the response is clearly disproportionate on several levels. This is an opportunity to identify the people calling for his life to be destroyed and convince them that their definition of various -isms is calibrated a little too high. Or failing that, to try and get some moderates into positions of power rather than the hard left.

> It's never okay to destroy a man's life, but he made a poor choice to have his life destroyed.

Did he leak the memo to the press to cause the outrage? No he didn't, so he is not responsible for the PR whirlwind created by it. Those who leaked the internal corporate communication are responsible and they should be fired.

I largely agreed with the memo. I have coworkers and friends who fell on either side of the camp, but more in the agree camp than disagree. Should we just purge half the developers in Columbus for Silicon Valley wrongthink?

edit: looks like thenayr updated his post a couple of times since my reply. When written only the first two lines were present.

(1) Your anecdotal evidence is literally worthless. You need to provide some statistics that 50% of developers support him. I can easily self select 100% of developers who disagree with Damore.

(2) If you agree/disagree with Damore that's great. It's your right as a person to have opinions and no company can criticise you for that. What you can't do however is publicise these issues on any forum. It's simply not a topic that has any merit being discussed in a professional environment.

In resp to 2)

He wrote the memo in response to an event he attended where they asked for feedback. Are you saying that you can't provide feedback on a topic that a talk is about if you come to the "wrong" conclusion? I've attended diversity events and have seen opinions expressed in the open, to executives even, that were far less progressive than Damore's interpretation. I think this is just a coastal thing, having topics like diversity be verboten seems silly if we are also having meetings about, setting up programs for, and shifting our non-tech->tech career plotting to favor diverse candidates.

If you agree that one's opinion is "anecdotal" then why do you even bother expressing your opinion?! Unless you think your opinion is more relevant than OP's.

Do you really mean to suggest that someone holding contrary views cannot express them on any forum?

The differences between men and women are a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry, and therefore discussion. It should certainly be reasonable to explore whether differences in traits leads to differences in preferences or interests such as occupation.

Of course it's an important and legitimate topic of discussion.

Just don't discuss it at work. It's called professionalism.

> don't discuss it at work

Even after attending a work event on that very topic, which specifically asked for feedback and further discussion?

Or should discussion be restricted to only one viewpoint?

Does that include diversity training that focuses on implicit and explicit consciousness bias differences between men and woman?

That was really what did it for me. I read the document and I'll be honest, I didn't really hear the dog whistles and I didn't get particularly worked up about it. I thought it kinda read like pseudo-science and that was about it.

But then the dude appeared on Mike Cernovich's show and was all over r/the_donald and I was like, "oh this is who this guy is." I hate to judge someone by the company they keep but this guy's company was particularly bad (imo).

So guilty by association ? That's healthy...

What's truly sad about this is that he is the first I've heard of to propose actually fair measures we could take to promote gender diversity in IT, such as using more socially involved methods such as pair programming. Instead we get positive discrimination.

This depiction by tech crunch is an insult to reporting, if you read/listen to the primary source, there is no hate, no sexism, no racism, he just saw unfair stuff and spoke out about it.

Yeah, even if you look at the comments here damning Damore, it's obvious most commenters didn't bother to read - hell, to even skim the primary source.

The memo was as polite scientificly-backed and clearly written as it was reasonably possible without turning it into an academic publication. The only mistake he made (while at Google; I was really surprised by the on-line crowd that he found itself with after being ejected from his workplace) was not realizing that he's not dealing with a rational audience, in Google or elsewhere.

I was kind of hoping more of hacker news though =/ This does not bode well...

It's not just "association" as you put it. r/the_donald was singing is his praises. They're a pretty toxic bunch and I've found that I have very little in common with many of them (mostly because I find their views to be <insert any negative adjective>). So when they're the only people I see coming to someone's defense I assume that person said or did something pretty bad.

Mike Cernovich is the same way. He's looking to push a narrative to further his own agenda. An agenda and narrative I find gross and offensive. So he thinks Damore fits into that narrative. That is a not so subtle hint to me that Damore is saying something gross and offensive.

It's not the best way of judging things for sure but I don't think it served me poorly here.

You give too much power to these toxic groups, I recommend just ignoring them completely. The alternative is basically giving them the ability to censor what you read, litmus or not, seems unwise. I know nothing of Cernovich sorry. It certainly served you poorly here. His infamous memo is the best, most scientifically literate proposal towards more diversity in IT, its portrayal is truly discouraging.

It didn't censor what I read though. I read the memo fully. I thought it wasn't particularly interesting. Then I saw who did. I'm not sure what you think I missed.

Well his sum up suggests two things: If we are to be truly free and diverse, we shouldn't expect perfect representation everywhere (ie. may be it's not a problem that 50% of lumberjacks aren't women), and to make engineering more diverse, the current approach (positive discrimination) is unfair, we should instead embrace gender differences and modify methodology in IT to be more female oriented, he suggests pair programming based on psychological research indicating women are more people oriented, and men more thing oriented. There is no value judgment there, just a sound, scientifically literate approach to change.

I'll put it another way: if you found his memo non interesting, you are not interested in science, in making the workplace more diverse, in being fair and open, and you will have no part in whistle-blowing.

I found it not interesting because it didn't feel very scientific like you said. It sounded like a high schooler's argument and was cited like one. Your condescending tone is appreciated.

Well I think those things are important and interesting. Your appreciation of "sounding like" is failing you and us on our road to inclusivity.

> I hate to judge someone by the company they keep

This is literally the way we (as humans) are built to test veracity. Only in a few cases does this litmus test fail.

It's a good test, just like "follow the money". It can be abused (joe jobs, false flags), but works a vast majority of the time.

It's a demerit to him that he accepted their support, but it is also a demerit on the entire rest of society that the only ones who offered him support were the alt-right.

I'd be interested to know whether more liberal media/shows extended invitations to him (that he declined?), or whether it was only conservative platforms that allowed him to present his case.

The Guardian interviewed him. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-dam...

When the memo came out, the Guardian reported that news outlets contacted him and Damore went with anti-feminist youtubers for a more friendly reception. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-dam...

Thanks for the info.

> Damore went with anti-feminist youtubers for a more friendly reception

Maybe understandable, but disappointing.

> But then the dude appeared on Mike Cernovich's show and was all over r/the_donald and I was like, "oh this is who this guy is." I hate to judge someone by the company they keep but this guy's company was particularly bad (imo).

I got the impression that he accepted those interviews because they were the only ones that would be conducted fairly. Especially considering he was subjected to at least one hostile and unfair interview.

We can't have a world where you can destroy somebody by endorsing them. This turns every undesirable into a perfect hitman.

>> I got the impression that he accepted those interviews because they were the only ones that would be conducted fairly.

An exact opposite bias doesn't cancel out into fairness.

I'm not sure how many people have the PR-savvy needed to avoid that kind of problem.

So even if the consequences of not avoiding that landmine are awful, I'm not sure it's fair to castigate him for that.

(N.B.: I haven't looked carefully into how he handled that affair, so my comment might be misinformed.)

Most people have enough sense to not post something so inflammatory in an office system where it can be accessed by random coworkers. He could have been more nuanced about it but the controversy seems intentional and deliberate and he absolutely deserves the whole shitstorm he's facing.

I don't know where exactly I heard it, but: email like it might be read aloud in a deposition.

The fact that literally nobody else is famous for doing something so breathtakingly stupid tells us that basically everybody else is not as stupid as this guy.

He also lied about having a PhD (he was in a program, but did not finish). This makes it difficult for me to take him seriously as someone motivated by an insistent search for truth.

He never lied about having a PhD. He was in middle of his PhD program when he decided to drop out and join Google -- nowhere in his his LinkedIn page, did he falsely indicate that he finished his PhD.

Da'More must have completed at least course work and research required for master's, however, and Harvard gave him master's instead.

Until he was asked about it, Damore's LinkedIn "Education" section said "Harvard University / PhD, Systems Biology / 2011-2013".

After, he changed it to "Harvard University / Master of Science - MS, Systems Biology / 2011-2013".

The fact that his old profile said PhD, in place of the MS degree he actually had, does look to me like falsely indicating that he had a PhD.

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-removes-phd-stud...

Sure, I see where the confusion might arise.

I guess most folks don't take Linkedin seriously -- my LinkedIn profile there is also outdated. When I dropped out of college to work a few years in industry, I indicated years I attended, relevant course works, and matriculation status in my resume, but, LinkedIn is just a social networking site for business -- and only recently it's transformed into a job search site. IMO, it's a stretch to say Damore's LinkedIn page was intended to mislead potential employer or the public.

source please (as in when he lied) ?

He previously had "PhD, Systems Biology" on his LinkedIn profile under his Harvard section - which I get that, to other academics, probably means "I was working on a PhD between these years," but sounds very much like "I have a PhD in Systems Biology from Harvard" to anyone from the outside. (I have an incomplete master's degree personally, and I'm careful to write "BS and coursework towards MEng" on my resume and not "MEng" for exactly this reason.)

I've seen the LinkedIn with my own eyes, but if you prefer to trust media sources: https://www.wired.com/story/james-damore-google-memo-harvard... http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-removes-phd-stud...

In my academic experience, saying "Harvard University, PhD, Systems Biology, 2011-2013" without having finished would be seen as dishonest. I have a PhD, but before I finished I always said "anticipated" or "expected". It's possible that Damore did this inadvertently, but it seems like too convenient of a mistake to leave out his MS degree, just say PhD, and leave the claim up for years.

In this instance I really do not trust media sources, there is too much disparity between the reporting and primary source. I'll accept your having seen that, but, with the same caveat you point out. Indeed that is indelicate.

That's the spirit. Let's make people un-hireable not based on their skills but on their personal opinions. 0% chance that that would backfire.

Skills matter. Personal opinions matter, too, when you broadcast them to an entire company.

Stop with the false dilemma; it's not an either/or choice between acceptable skills and acceptable behavior.

Can you specidy why exactly his memo was such a huge fuck up?

He didn't want to make a statement, he wanted to get to the bottom of what he was wondering about on the internal discussion forum. He also has autism, maybr he was trying to learn or check if his observations are true or not.

Then, the media spun this story as to why he's such a sexist without even specifically saying why or trying to debunk his observations, with, you know, arguments or studies.

He isn't a writer, he doesn't know how to perfectly write something that is divisive without offending anyone. He didn't work on the memo for months to check that his language is perfect and represents everything exactly the way he views it.

His memo could have been a good start to find gender biases in tech and actually improve them instead of ostrachzing people outright who dare to talk about the issue.

> The dude literally let himself be paraded around by the alt-right and neo-nazi groups as a hero.

Explain how this is James' fault.

> When alt-right Twitter agrees with your world-views, you're doing something WRONG.

Alt-right Twitter agrees that murder is wrong, the national debt is concerning, and that sexual assault is supremely immoral. What does that make you, if you define yourself by disagreement with them? It is not James Damore's job to disavow all the people you disagree with on other matters, no matter how legitimate your disagreement.

> Alt-right Twitter agrees that murder is wrong, the national debt is concerning, and that sexual assault is supremely immoral.

Alt-right Twitter seems to believe that murders were only committed by Hillary Clinton's death squads, and that random violence in America's big cities doesn't exist (until two seconds later when apparently people are so terrified of violence in America's big cities that we need all sorts of invasions on civil liberties so people can walk outside ever).

The national debt is a good thing, and if you oppose it for the reasons alt-right Twitter does (it has the name "debt" in it, and debt is bad, right?), that's a sign of a pretty flawed world-view.

Alt-right Twitter thinks sexual assault is so immoral that cultures that are successfully calling it out and reforming are bad cultures, and cultures that are ignoring it and electing people who deny credible claims are good cultures. It just so happens that the first group of cultures are left-leaning and the second are right-leaning - what a coincidence!

If those are your three examples, I am absolutely happy to define myself by disagreement with all of them.

> You're joking, right?

No, I'm dead serious, the alt right is not literally reptilians, they hold the vast majority of common moral opinions. The body of things that you and they could agree on is enormous, you can't dismiss somebody simply because the alt-right doesn't disagree with them.

> These guys elected the sexual-assaulter-in-chief.

So did I, and millions of others. The alt-right is a supreme minority in the United States, they do not have the numbers to elect the President, this is hysterical.

I don't give a shit what you believe if your entire platform is built upon "White people are discriminated against and jews are bad".

EDIT - Ah, Trump supporter, that explains it.

Would you please stop posting flamebait to Hacker News, regardless of how right you are? This thread is awful already, but you've managed to make it significantly worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html