• ”i am unfortunately still alive”

James Damore et al v. Google LLC (2017)

Discussion in 'Lolcow & Lolcow LLP' started by mindlessobserver, Jan 9, 2018.

  1. This is one of the reasons why I'm allowing myself to get low-key excited over Damore's chances. Damore's lawyer was, at some point, vice-chairwoman for the Republican Party. Why on Earth would she throw herself into a lawsuit if it barely had any chance of surviving as a serious case? Given her background we have to assume that 1) she would have some idea of what she's doing; 2) she's probably not starving for money or work; 3) she wouldn't risk her reputation over a bad lolsuit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 8
    keksz

    keksz Verified nobody

    kiwifarms.net
  2. She's still the RNC Committeewoman for California.
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    AnOminous

    AnOminous so what
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  3. Also worth noting (archive):

     
    • Winner Winner x 7
    • Like Like x 3
    • Semper Fidelis Semper Fidelis x 2
    kiwifarms.net
    • Semper Fidelis Semper Fidelis x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    AnOminous

    AnOminous so what
    True & Honest Fan Retired Staff

    kiwifarms.net
  4. The main reason I'm glad is because Google has shown itself to be just as fucking incomptent as any other group completely occupied by identity politicians, and has just as many ties to career criminals. Some big shit is gonna be exposed before this concludes, no matter what ultimately transpires.
     
    • DRINK DRINK x 1
    Jaimas

    Jaimas Local Man Ruins Everything
    True & Honest Fan Wiki Sysop

    kiwifarms.net
    • Agree Agree x 6
    #246 DragoonSierra, Feb 7, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
    kiwifarms.net
  5. I tried searching for all googly guys in lawsuit, many have deleted their Facebook & twitter
     
    • Informative Informative x 6
    kiwifarms.net
  6. Have you tried Google+... fuck, I can’t even write it with a straight face.
     
    • Winner Winner x 7
    • Like Like x 2
    :thinking:

    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  7. many have deleted that too
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
    • Feels Feels x 2
    kiwifarms.net
  8. Jason has written an article on diversity, I think it's pertinent enough to be included since it articulates the plaintiff's views on the essential topic of the case:

    The Case for Diversity
    written by James Damore
    Editor’s note: this piece is part of an ongoing series on the subject of diversity. If you would like to join the diversity debate please comment below or send a submission to pitch@quillette.com.

    The issue of racial and gender diversity in our schools, companies, and communities has become highly politicized. While one tribe sees diversity as an imperative cure-all for many of the world’s problems, another tribe sees diversity as a form of tokenism at best, and a nefarious conspiracy at worst. Even political moderates can have a visceral reaction to the term “diversity” and may accept any line of thinking that validates their reaction, leading to shallow reasoning on all fronts. Rather than advocate for a particular position in this essay, I hope to add some nuance to the conversation and show that the truth is much more complicated than many are willing to admit.

    The business case for diversity

    What are the arguments for and against diversity? It’s often claimed with certainty that a diverse workforce is good for a business’s bottom line, but the data doesn’t actually show an effect on a business’s profits. Take women on boards, as one example.

    A 2015 meta-analysis published in PLOS One showed that all-else-being-equal, “the mere representation of females on corporate boards is not related to firm financial performance”. Another 2015 meta-analysis published in the Academy of Management Journal also found that across 140 studies, the relationship between gender parity on boards and market performance was near zero. What seems to matter most is not the gender of executives on a board, but their individual talents and team cohesiveness.

    What about other kinds of diversity? Scott Page argues in The Diversity Bonus: How Good Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy that cognitively diverse teams can lead to more innovation and better decision making. Indeed, this has been demonstrated by a recent study titled The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds which found that polarization among Wikipedia editors leads to articles of higher quality. In his book, Page extends the umbrella term of cognitive diversity to include “identity diversity” arguing that “racial and gender differences” can impact cognitive diversity, so this can lead to beneficial outcomes as well.

    We should also keep in mind, though, that diversity may decrease social cohesion (i.e., sense of belonging and group solidarity),1 which has been linked to personal well-being and economic output. Diversity may have many benefits, but there are likely to be some costs as well.

    To address this decrease in social cohesion, organizations now offer inclusion programs. Unfortunately, these inclusion programs can amplify the salience of gender and ethnic identities, which worsens social tensions by making divisions more apparent.

    In countries such as Rwanda and South Africa, governments have addressed problems in social cohesion with some degree of success by doing the opposite: pushing their citizens to identify with their nation rather than their tribe, clan, or ethnic lineage. These policies, however, are controversial, and more often favored by majority groups.

    A diverse workforce may not increase profits, but some would argue that it increases the number of potential applicants—this is valid if people prefer to work for companies with a diverse workforce, but it’s unclear if this actually happens. We should look for talent in unconventional places, revisit exclusionary norms, and make sure everyone feels welcome, regardless of their identity. However, going too far, like with gender quotas, can stigmatize those you’re trying to help and cause both men and women to be less likely to apply.

    Moral arguments

    Now that it’s becoming clearer that the economic arguments for diversity consist more of aspirations than evidence, pundits have shifted towards moral arguments. This becomes contentious, though, because of how much morals differ, particularly between different political orientations. The greatest difference is in how much conservatives and progressives view disparities between groups as fair, with progressives less satisfied with the status quo.2 We should, however, be careful regarding how much we depend on moral arguments; moralizing an issue constrains our thinking and labels anyone who disagrees with us as immoral.

    The core moral argument is that of equal opportunity. Nearly everyone agrees that equal opportunity is good, but disagreements lie in what constitutes unequal opportunities and what measures should be taken to correct these. A common assumption by progressives is that an unequal outcome is evidence of unequal opportunity, or unequal treatment. Unequal outcomes between groups are often blamed on outside forces such as systemic racism or sexism. While there is no doubt that bigotry remains a problem, and its historical injustices still impact people, focusing only on these issues will likely misdiagnose and exacerbate conflict.

    For example, research suggests that one reason why Asian Americans excel academically is due to cultural values which encourage intense academic effort.3 In contrast, in some communities working hard at school may be discouraged, and those who do so may be punished by their peers. Of course, these differences in culture are influenced by history, and aren’t the sole cause of disparities, but programs that punish Asians, reify race, and perpetuate false narratives do little to solve problems.

    To compound this, affirmative action policies at the college level often hurt the groups that they most intend to help, by creating a mismatch between qualifications and requirements. Affirmative action has been shown to lead to higher dropout rates, especially in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), reminding us that policy needs to be evaluated by its outcomes and not by its intentions.

    Bias

    To promote a fair workplace for all we should, of course, strive to eliminate potential sources of bias, especially in the job application process, but we shouldn’t automatically assume that this will solve all of our problems. For example, in STEM, women are generally underrepresented, but the research is mixed on whether there is positive, negative, or no hiring bias for women, with meta-analyses showing that bias against women is only historical, and a distraction to the real issues women face (such as structural barriers regarding childcare). Today, the assumption of gender bias and preference for equal outcomes over fairness is increasingly common; for example, a gender-blind hiring program for Australian government jobs was halted when it was shown to help men.

    Yet even if women in male-dominated careers aren’t helped by race- and gender-blind applications, underrepresented minorities might be. While both women and straight men have a positive bias for women, we generally have a positive bias for the ethnicity of our family.4Research suggests, though, that we stop noticing the race of others when we perceive that we are on the same “team”. In fact, when groups mix, prejudice lowers if the groups cooperate and have equal status.

    Reducing society’s prejudices and eliminating stereotypes are part of the goal of diversity programs. Unfortunately, one of the main causes for stereotypes is observation of group differences. Thus, affirmative action programs which form disparities between groups within an organization can create negative stereotypes that wouldn’t necessarily exist with blind hiring. Research suggests that this also perpetuates social segregation because people form friendships with others of similar skill levels. A possible fix is to provide additional training to reduce disparities, but this may lead to more perceived unfairness, resentment, and segregation if done unevenly.

    The minority experience

    Another cause of segregation and disadvantage for minorities may be differences between the minority culture and the dominant culture. Increasing representation of minorities may be one way to address this, but it’s impossible to equally represent every group. Programs that normalize and celebrate different cultures can help ensure that everyone feels welcome, but may also reduce group solidarity in the process. Unfortunately, interests often don’t align, majority groups generally prefer minorities to assimilate, but many groups don’t want to lose their identity.

    While it’s true that different cultures and viewpoints are correlated with demographics, they aren’t binded to them. Tying race and culture, which many diversity programs implicitly do, leads to some of the anger behind cultural appropriation, feeds white identitarian politics, and perpetuates the myth that all minorities think alike. None of these outcomes appear optimal over the long term.

    We should also remember that the focus on race and gender diversity often distracts from discussions about class, which is now a stronger determinant in educational and life outcomes than race.5 Shifting policies to take class and other measures of disadvantage into account rather than race can still increase racial diversity while maintaining fairness and maximizing human potential. I recommend this approach, but also believe that caution should be taken. Policies of beneficence can also have unintended consequences of discouraging personal agency, resiliency, and self-improvement.

    Closing

    Why do counterproductive programs and misinformation persist? There’s an entire diversity industry filled with books, workshops, and human resource departments that is heavily invested in the value of diversity. The incentives for diversity researchers are also skewed, with publication bias being common. Organizations are scrutinized if their “diversity numbers” aren’t good enough, leading to short-sighted and at times illegal policies. If that weren’t bad enough, questioning these policies is considered taboo (and can get you fired).

    One’s stance on diversity policies often just depends on what metric you’re trying to optimize, causing both sides to talk past each other. This lack of dialogue is destructive, creating multimillion dollar programs of marginal efficacy and harmful side-effects. If done well, diversity can be good, but it’s far from the panacea it’s made out to be.



    You can follow James Damore on Twitter @JamesADamore



    [1] Diversity decreasing social cohesion also illustrates why conservatives are more often dubious of “diversity”: social cohesion is highly valued by conservatives.

    [2] The vast majority of people (conservatives and progressives, minorities and non-minorities) oppose using race or gender as a factor in hiring, promoting, or college admissions, but opinions are mixed on outreach programs.

    [3] Asian Americans also bear significant social and psychological costs due to their increased academic effort and expectations, making programs that punish the group for overachieving all the more perverse.

    [4] Caveat, the Implicit Association Test used to measure these biases is controversial and it’s unclear how much it measures familiarity or salience rather than preference.

    [5] Note, I never actually defined diversity because there’s no agreed upon definition. Intuitively, diversity means more heterogeneity or more similar to some base population. Unfortunately, there’s so many dimensions on which to measure heterogeneity or compare two populations that this is easy to manipulate into meaning whatever is most politically favored. To take a specific example, Silicon Valley has gotten a lot of heat because of its lack of racial and gender diversity, but how diverse can it truly become if nearly everyone is still young, liberal, upper middle class, atheist nerds?

    https://quillette.com/2018/02/12/the-case-for-diversity/

    (Archive)
     
    • Informative  x 7
    • Semper Fidelis  x 3
    • Like  x 1
    • Winner  x 1
    •  x 1
    #250 neural, Feb 14, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2018
    neural

    neural a cool ninja guy whos ready to fight
    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  9. This seems pretty reasonable. That last line in particular in the footnote seems most apropros.

    Granted, nerds more than anybody else would be most likely to wind up working in tech, but you know.
     
    • Agree Agree x 8
    • Like Like x 1
    Meowthkip

    Meowthkip I MAKE MONEY OFF OF THE LASAGNA I EAT!
    Staff Member Moderator True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  10. If he wins google will just hire fewer dudes like him so there won't be complaints. That's the go to move for employers who are being sued once. I honestly don't know what it is with the Damore fanboys on twitter thinking that winning a single discrimination lawsuit will change everything somehow.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    sperginity

    sperginity crescent fresh

    kiwifarms.net
  11. I see your point, but what do you mean by "guys like him". How are they going to identify them? I'm pretty sure that they already don't hire people who are not supporting SJW agenda publicly. Therefore, the lawsuit is not likely to change it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    kiwifarms.net
  12. White male non genderspecials. And I really doubt they were doing much political vetting before this, I have some insider info from people who left. They really insist on degrees from major universities, which is a pretty good stand in for any type of political vetting. Setting up HQ in such an irritating place is a pretty good engineering control too.
     
    sperginity

    sperginity crescent fresh

    kiwifarms.net
  13. What about actual work experience? Is that considered haram?
     
    • Feels Feels x 1
    :thinking:

    True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  14. If they're going to decide to get rid of all white males they're going to run into production problems almost instantly
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    kiwifarms.net
  15. I think you've got it backwards.

    Damore winning would mean that Google would have trouble hiring more guys like him. It would be harder for them, even if they wanted to.

    And "guys like him" means talented developers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    Marvin

    Christorical Figure True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  16. Companies will always hire white dudes like him, its just easy.... give them some problems to solve, provide beer on a friday afternoon and food during the week and you're set. It literally only becomes a problem when you've got all the special, woke people sperging out about micro aggressions and bringing their shitty lifestyles into the workplace. No one needs to hear about that shit at work and no one cares about your damn fetishes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    kiwifarms.net
  17. How valuable are they, anyway?

    Most of the most vocal ones tend to only develop things that are completely self-serving and then pretty much rest on their laurels, even when what they've developed is deeply flawed or downright broken.

    They're not exactly team players.
     
    Meowthkip

    Meowthkip I MAKE MONEY OFF OF THE LASAGNA I EAT!
    Staff Member Moderator True & Honest Fan

    kiwifarms.net
  18. I assume you're referring to white dudes like James Demore?

    It really depends a lot on what you're building and how your company works, but for the vast majority of times, self centered developers won't do well in the industry and those that do are generally in shitty work places that pander to people like that........ those places aren't around for long either (with obvious exceptions being asshole developers that are also talented i.e. Linus Trovalds). The impression that I get from James is that he's just generally around to get work done, but its really hard to tell without having worked with him.

    I should have been more specific, companies will always hire developers who will get shit done and tow the company line, it just so happens that the industry is full of white dudes who get shit done and don't have problems with our current standards for work place culture. However, the software industry needs to change and be better. But the change we need won't come from groups being hostile and aggressive... that only divides and separates people further.
     
    kiwifarms.net
  • About Us

    The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. These people are commonly referred to as Lolcows and are each distinct thanks to their erratic public behavior. Spectators are encouraged to join discussion. The wealth of opinions and knowledge shared by users is what has enabled this peculiar fringe community to thrive despite the incredible adversity and contention brought by those we discuss.

    We do not place ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

  • Supporting the Forum

    BTC: 1LXpv9FUiazGB2LVyS44cTTEQFc8CBgPYi

    BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s

    ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5

    LTC: LNjmyhxThrTMY4izBdcdWqvW287LmCB6bg

    XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino

Copyright © 2016 Lolcow LLC
This website may contain offensive or adult content.
Discontinue browsing if it is illegal or against your wishes to see such material.
All content belongs to their respective authors and does not represent Lolcow LLC.
We have not been served any secret court orders and are not under any gag orders.