[Discussion] James Damore and the Google Manifesto

The Manifesto Mr. Damore wrote, it's implications, facts, or opinions, the hostile work environment it creates, the action of Google firing him, and the consequences of all of the above.

-

bandit0013 wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

bandit0013, if you want to keep discussing doxxing, might I make the polite suggestion that you define what you mean by doxxing? Because right now I'm going to have to back Freyja:

Freyja wrote:

and also knowing that James Damore's 'doxx' was his name being publicly associated with something *he signed his name to*, is beyond profoundly insulting.

I can't have a conversation about it, even if I agreed with you, if I don't understand what you're saying.

Signing your name to something is irrelevant. He posted something on an internal forum which was dedicated for discussion of company topics and policies within the company. Someone decided to release his name, position, and employer to the public

dox
däks/Submit
verbinformal
gerund or present participle: doxxing
search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent .

Does "reading the signature line of a document" count as searching?

-

bandit0013 wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

The real criminal and crime is the leaker and the leak! Man this has so many parallels to the current administration. I wonder why that is?

Yeah, you need to get off that. I've repeatedly said I don't agree with James and I think HR was well within bounds to terminate him since he clearly didn't get with the culture they are trying to build. People have made the assertion that the PR sh*t storm was additional justification to be fired and that if you embarrass your employer that's an ok move.

I pointed out that factually someone else had leaked it to the public, causing the PR escalation and simply asked if they should be fired as well. What I got was no one actually answering my question and reasserting how deserving of termination damore is, which is already established and I don't dispute.

Just answer the question, should the person who leaked the document be terminated? Why or why not?

I don't know what if any rules Google has on its internal systems in regards to revealing that information to the public. It is entirely possible that whoever leaked the manifesto to the public did violate an internal Google Policy and could be terminated for that violation. I don't personally believe the individual should be terminated because of the nature of the manifesto. I find what he wrote abhorrent and thus deserving of removal from society. The way I see it whoever leaked the document did the world a favor and probably saved many future individuals from a hostile and perhaps worse work environment.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

-

bandit0013 wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

What this means is that the individual who released this to the press did so because they wanted to cause damore harm beyond the termination of his job.

You're assuming more than your argument supports. There's other explanations (such as already taking it to HR and wanting to hold the corporate structure responsible.

I don't think the timeline of its posting to its release supports the supposition that they went to HR.

Now we're speculating about a hypothetical person or persons, who may or may not have done any number of things. I can't say anything about the ethics of this without some concrete details.

bandit0013 wrote:

Just answer the question, should the person who leaked the document be terminated? Why or why not?

As long as we're wildly speculating, what if Damore was the one who leaked it, in the mistaken belief that publicizing it would justify him? I don't think he did, but you're leaping from conclusion to conclusion here.

bandit0013 wrote:

search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent .

What private information was published? His name was on the memo, and he deliberately distributed the memo in public. An internal company mailing list isn't exactly a private space for the employees.

bandit0013 wrote:

They could have released the doc without the name attached if they were just trying to drum up attention.

They, uh, did. His name didn't come out for quite a while.

Look, you seem to have a major issue that's very important to you here. But, like I said above, I'm not sure this guy is the hill you want to die on. If you want to convince people and have them understand your position, I'd like to gently suggest that you back off a bit and restart the discussion without this context. I genuinely think that you'd get more people to listen to you if you let them approach you in a less charged context.

-

-

bandit0013 wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Pointing out overt sexism and hostile behavior from a co-worker makes you a Disney villain.

Oh what a time to be alive.

Reframing the facts to make a snarky comment to feel superior. Oh what a person to engage with.

Maybe actually respond to why I think that person was wrong to leak the document. I think that "pointing out overt sexism" is a laudable thing to do in your company through the channels that the company policy defines, and then seeking legal remedy if you don't get satisfaction there.

"Snark for me, but not for thee!"

Let's be really clear about something - you're trying your very hardest to adopt some righteous moral stance about doxing and you're having to twist and torture the facts to even get there. On top of that, you're out and out specifically dodging the fact that this man wrote an open essay and put his name to it specifically to get his idea out in the company and has no problem with the fact it got out in the wild.

Really, this just boils down to another example of "but what if" concern trolling with the novel twist of not actually saying "if" and instead pretending the fictional things happened.

"Let's talk about anything BUT the content of the memo" - Defenders of Damore

TheGameguru wrote:

The way I see it whoever leaked the document did the world a favor and probably saved many future individuals from a hostile and perhaps worse work environment.

Only if you believe that he will continue to post memos like that at future employers. It seems that there were absolutely no complaints against him until he published the memo, which means it likely he was just going about his job and not harming anyone.

TheGameguru wrote:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I hope you realize you can justify all sorts of evil sh*t if that's your mantra.

I hope you understand that his issue(s) run deeper than just posting the memo. Who knows exactly what issues have cropped up in the past in his 3 years of working? Just because nobody came forward with complaints didnt mean his co-workers had to endure a less than ideal workplace because of his beliefs. You are right it might have been nothing.. but we simply don't know that to be true or false. So in the belief that its more important for me as an employer to ensure the well being of many others rather than the one I stand by my belief that his needs aren't greater than the needs of others.

As to my catch phrase I was applying it to this case and not as an overall mantra. Sorry try again.

bandit0013 wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

What private information was published? His name was on the memo, and he deliberately distributed the memo in public. An internal company mailing list isn't exactly a private space for the employees.

Yes it is. Maybe that's where our main fundamental disagreement is. If it there wasn't an expectation it would be kept internally it would be a server open to the public.

I agree that if the disclosure of internal forum postings is against corporate policy, the person who disclosed should be disciplined in accordance with the policies in place.

Calling it a 'leak' is, perhaps, on the melodramatic side.

I think sending out a document to 75000 people (the approximate headcount for Google) for the express purpose of having it talked about and signing it severely limits one's ability to complain about people reading and talking about said document and associating the ideas therein with the author. (Also, as far as I know Damore isn't complaining that people are reading and talking about it - he was hardly "outed" as the author.)

Considering that this person has

1. Not recanted or even expressed any sort of remorse or apology
2. Been offered jobs by at least one notoriously public person
3. Just gave a speech to a couple of right-wing MRA types

The question of whether he was doxxed (he wasn't) or not (he wasn't) is rendered completely moot. So are comparisons to felons. Felons have paid their dues to society, and this person has not. This person is instead basking in the dumpsterfire of their words and I see no reason why anyone is defending them in any way, except if they are like minded people of course.

It seems that there were absolutely no complaints against him until he published the memo, which means it likely he was just going about his job and not harming anyone.

Do you have a citation for this? Because from what I've been seeing about his past he's had plenty of public incidents and was misleading people about having a PhD. Maybe he cleaned up his act later, but I'm not going to take that on faith. I'm all for forgiving people's past screw-ups, but I'm not going to pretend that they didn't happen.

I also have doubts about him not causing harm, given that by all accounts his manifesto was causing a lot of harm in the company. Particularly since he jumped on the alt-right talk circuit.

Yonder wrote:

I am also strongly suspicious of how much her feeling as a female outsider colored her opinion of how separate she was from her programming culture. I am a male developer, and I have worked with lots of male developers that played video games, a couple that played a lot with Arduino boards and did other technical stuff, a hockey player, a Rugby Player, a skier, family men, and general tv watchers and sports watchers that weren't particularly nerdy at all.

In my experience none of those male developers were ever made to think that they shouldn't be in the software industry because their hobbies weren't appropriate for their work.

I concur. In my experience some programmers do technical/coding stuff for hobbies... and quite a few don't. I think the amount of co-workers who mainly do tech hobbies has a lot to do with whether your workplace is primarily young men as you find in many bleeding edge startups. A workplace with primarily older programmers with kids is going to have a different balance.

There's also going to be some confirmation bias in the sense that people who have technical hobbies are going to be eager to bring that up at work whereas people who mostly binge watch Netflix... maybe not so much?

There is a certain expectation that you keep up on current practices and that can involve doing courses and reading books outside of work, but any workplace that expects that to be your only hobby is toxic.

*Legion* wrote:

IMAGE(http://donthitsave.com/comicimages/dhs_2017-08-08_the-google-memo.png)

I feel like this is a good cartoon to use as a jumping off point to express some of the thoughts that this memo has brought up for me.

I am a white male currently working in software development. I know that companies across the industry have problems with diversity, and that given my privileged position (and the nature of my personality) I will not see all that there is to see on the discrimination/hostile work environment/unconscious bias/etc. front. I am sure both that there is more that my company could be doing to encourage diversity, and that I have no idea what that more would be. I look around my company and I do not see the culture in that cartoon, and I think the company is better for it. I am certainly not denying that the culture depicted is real or widespread; it is both. I know that this company is unusual for the field in multiple ways. I am just pointing out that there are companies that are doing well (or at least better) on diversity. I really believe that diversity is achievable and good for both companies and employees (even the privileged white males like me).

karmajay wrote:

"Let's talk about anything BUT the content of the memo" - Defenders of Damore

Let's not talk about the 50% of women in tech who leave, with the majority citing hostile work environments.

Let's not talk about how the women who were called out for "lowering the bar" by their employment at Google feel about the situation.

Let's instead talk about how we're really the bad guys if we're not sympathetic to a dude who lost his job through a self-inflicted boneheaded decision.

This guy should be given every chance in the world. The women he called out will likely leave tech quietly and few will notice or care.

"No regrets" Also paints himself as the real victim.. Yep all about the repentance.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/1...

-

I don't want to get to involved here but I've just been reading some of the posts. I don't think anyone is really defending (specifically Bandit) just saying that maybe the punishment doesn't fit the crime?

I don't know this guys work history or what his background and work relationships are like. Maybe he is an opinionated ass that makes people feel uncomfortable on a daily basis. Or maybe this is his first time speaking on his opinions. I agree they are disturbing and in no way defensible. I do think that it's weird that this has become such a topic of conversation for what essentially should have been a private dismissal.

I do think this is pretty close to doxxing for the purpose of being made a social outcast and an example of social justice on the internet. I think people saying he should no longer work in the tech industry are maybe being a little harsh, hopefully he learns from this mistake and in future jobs no longer pushes this agenda. And if he continues to then perhaps that will end with him being terminated there as well. Saying he should be "removed from society" is pretty scary to me.

As for him embracing this with the alt-right groups now, I'm not sure what other reaction he could have. Issuing some sort of apology is not going to change anyone opinions on him. It's not like anyone in this thread would be accepting of that. So instead he has embraced and doubled down on it, and now he has a group atleast willing to hire him and even defend his opinions. The whole thing becomes a mess and politically charged because it was drug into the public light. Which again seems crazy to me. As far as I know this guy isn't some influential or public person, he's some jackass with a sh*tty opinion of women who should have been fired or atleast reprimanded for the document in question.

I think the internet and mob mentality is really scary and often leaves a huge impact on a persons future. It scares me to think my daughter could make some stupid mistake or have a sh*tty opinion as a teenager and that echo or shadow have an effect on her well into adulthood. People make mistakes, people learn and grow with years and hopefully change for the better. Internet justice never seems to let your mistakes be forgotten and I think it goes way to far.

-

He's not a teenager. He didn't make a stupid mistake.

He is an adult who knew exactly what he was doing with this manifesto.

He hasn't shown remorse and probably won't.

Why does personal responsibility never seem to extend to alt-right types?

-

bandit0013 wrote:
Demyx wrote:

He's not a teenager. He didn't make a stupid mistake.

He is an adult who knew exactly what he was doing with this manifesto.

Oh come now. Claiming that someone once they turn 18 can't make stupid mistakes is a stretch.

A TEN PAGE MANIFESTO IS NOT A STUPID MISTAKE.

At what age should a person be held accountable for their own totally avoidable actions?

Demyx wrote:

Why does personal responsibility never seem to extend to alt-right types?

It does. I haven't seen anyone argue in this thread that he shouldn't have been dealt with per company policy. Why do you think that internet mob justice is appropriate?

When have I advocated internet mob justice is appropriate?

I put forth that he should be unemployable by the tech industry until he retracts his document because it shows a severe misunderstanding of what software development entails (among other things).

But if you're going to be that intellectually dishonest, why do you think women being quietly run out of tech is appropriate?

I do think this is pretty close to doxxing for the purpose of being made a social outcast and an example of social justice on the internet. I think people saying he should no longer work in the tech industry are maybe being a little harsh, hopefully he learns from this mistake and in future jobs no longer pushes this agenda. And if he continues to then perhaps that will end with him being terminated there as well. Saying he should be "removed from society" is pretty scary to me.

Replace women with black people and would you have defended him in the same way? If he suggested that Black people are inferior in tech because of their "genetic" differences would you think it was just an opinion and no big deal?

He's not a teenager. He didn't make a stupid mistake.

He is an adult who knew exactly what he was doing with this manifesto.

He hasn't shown remorse and probably won't.

Why does personal responsibility never seem to extend to alt-right types?

Again so many parallels to the current administration.. Remember just a few weeks ago when Trump Jr. at the age of 39 was described as a "good kid".

-

Demyx wrote:

He's not a teenager. He didn't make a stupid mistake.

He is an adult who knew exactly what he was doing with this manifesto.

He hasn't shown remorse and probably won't.

Why does personal responsibility never seem to extend to alt-right types?

Bandit hit the nail on the head for me with this. I have changed a ton since becoming a father I am a different person then I was 8 years ago, I'd go as far as saying I am a better person since having a child.

The problem with this type of social justice is it draws battle lines. It forces people to fight and harden in stance instead of learning from mistakes. If this was handled in company and he was fired and he continued his behavior at his next job I can see him also being fired there. This would force him to look at his world views and question his belief system, or at the very least soften his resolve and make him realize he can't push his opinions on people or he will be punished.

Instead this has become political and because there is no real way to apologize for a manifesto he has no choice but to defend his stance and rush to a group that will help defend him. He is being forced into survival mode instead of learning from the situation and perhaps growing as a human being he is now an advocate for his garbage opinion.

Again as far as I know this a person with now celebrity or political status. I don't even know if he had a large social following before this. If he would have been quietly let go he would have remained a nobody. Instead he is now someone who will draw people towards defending him, he is now somebody that can get a platform out for his manefesto and people will actually listen.

I disagree.. he could have swiftly issued an apology and got out in front of this and chose not to. He ignored interview requests and sought out prominent MRA types. Again all I see is a defense and an absolution of any responsibility for his actions rather than ownership for his fate. Curious why again and again we see this from the alt-right. They are the real victims!

bandit0013 wrote:

What's the page limit for a stupid mistake? Take a deep breath and realize that stupid mistake doesn't mean not premeditated..

If something takes hours to compose it sure as hell isn't an accident.

In the same paragraph you have said you don't support mob justice but assert that he shouldn't be employable in the tech industry until he appeases the mob. You don't see that as intellectually dishonest?

I didn't say anything about appeasing the mob. If I were looking to interview this guy I would look him up on the internet, as is often done for job interviews. I would see that he wrote things that were inappropriate for working on my team. If he had since retracted them, I'd be more likely to consider him for the job instead of rejecting him outright -- but if I had other qualified candidates as possibilities I'd almost certainly recommend one of them over him. Them's the breaks.

Why do you think I believe that? I believe you're trying to put me into a box that you can attack. If you actually knew who I was and what groups I'm involved in you would know that not only do I think that it's inappropriate, but I've contributed more time and money to making sure women have the opportunity to be in tech than all of you combined. And that's not hyperbole, because the value is nearing 7 figures.

It was not a serious question, it was a commentary on your "why do you support internet mob justice" question.

How much money you've contributed is pretty irrelevant to this conversation TBH.

I was in the throes of a brief, doomed romance. I had attended a concert that Saturday night. I answered the question with an account of both. The guys stared blankly. Then silence.

From the stuff he wrote and his previous examples in sexism it is MORE LIKELY he made some crude statements about his doomed romance to his co-workers and that was why they just stared at him.

Hey y'all, women can't tech is just a NUANCED viewpoint. Don't be arguing over it!