
'I see things differently': James Damore on his autism and the Google memo - amiga-workbench
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-damore-google-memo-interview-autism-regrets
======
notacoward
It's kind of ironic that Damore is basically trying to put a diversity/victim
spin on his own actions, after deriding such concepts at Google. I'm not
buying it. Being on the autism spectrum means having trouble interpreting
social signals, but even pretty deeply autistic people can learn to recognize
signals like being told flat-out that one's behavior is hurtful. Awareness is
not Damore's problem. Persisting despite awareness is a whole different issue,
and one that he needs to own up to before any real progress can be made.
Because I know many people at various points on the spectrum, I find it
offensive that he would use that as an excuse. He's continuing to harm others
by feeding into stereotypes and misunderstandings that we should be learning
to avoid.

~~~
whiskyseagull
There's another irony in the article:

"Damore’s girlfriend has agreed to meet only after being assured that, like
her, I disagree with her boyfriend’s views."

Unfortunately this has become typical in some parts of the left and that is
why you see a resurgent right. Trying to maintain a position by refusing to
hear arguments against it is not a good long term strategy and gives moral
strength to the other side.

~~~
vorotato
What's ironic there? If you're a conservative you don't want to go blabbing to
some liberal rag. In the same way if you're a liberal you probably shouldn't
speak to conservative tabloids. All media likes to twist and contort
narratives, because it's in their economic best interest to do so. So, no it's
not ironic, and I wouldn't blame you for doing the same.

~~~
whiskyseagull
So to extrapolate, you believe that she was reasonably concerned that the
Guardian might be a right wing tabloid that would twist her words?

~~~
pwinnski
I'm not the GP, but I think being unaware of the Guardian's reputation is
rather the norm in the United States.

I consider it normal and reasonable to be unwilling to be interviewed by media
sources I consider dishonest and disreputable. For me that, that includes
Breitbart. For others, the list would be different, but the concept is the
same.

There is zero point in meeting with an interviewer when antagonistic bias is
known ahead of time. The resulting interviews cannot be anything other than
character assassination.

~~~
whiskyseagull
That's convenient, so you would support people only willing to be interviewed
by sympathetic interviewers who agree with them on controversial topics. How
are these things supposed to be worked through if no one is willing to engage
in a debate about them?

~~~
mcphage
> How are these things supposed to be worked through if no one is willing to
> engage in a debate about them?

The first step in getting people to engage in a debate is for them to believe
that the people in the debate will be acting in good faith. That's often not
true—I wouldn't agree to an interview on Fox News, for instance, because I
would have no confidence that they'd be acting in good faith.

~~~
whiskyseagull
Do you think media outlets that lean left act in good faith when they
interview controversial figures from the right?

~~~
pwinnski
Whataboutism is nonsense, and I am going to demonstrate what it's like to
refuse to engage with people acting in bad faith... now.

~~~
whiskyseagull
Crying "whataboutism" is just a way to deflect from charges of hypocrisy.

------
bmcusick
People who are color blind see things differently too. That doesn't mean red
doesn't exist; just that they can't see it.

It should be obvious though that Damore wasn't fired for his views per se.
There's probably plenty of people still at Google with similar views. He was
fired because he aired views in a way that upset a lot of people, and Google
is a business that needs to manage a workplace that's collegial and
cooperative. Firing Damore was more practical than firing the 20% of the
Google workforce that didn't want to work with him anymore.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> People who are color blind see things differently too. That doesn't mean red
> doesn't exist; just that they can't see it.

Right - color blindness is a recognized disability.

> He was fired because he aired views in a way that upset a lot of people, and
> Google is a business that needs to manage a workplace that's collegial and
> cooperative. Firing Damore was more practical than firing the 20% of the
> Google workforce that didn't want to work with him anymore.

Could it be argued that Damore's method in airing his views was in fact due to
his being on the Autism spectrum, and therefore protected under the ADA as a
disability (just like color blindness)?

If so, would that mean that Google's firing of Damore - due to an action
resulting from his disability - might have violated the "reasonable
accommodation" requirement of the ADA?

To be clear, I'm not stating that I believe this is the case; I'm just
considering other angles from which to view the events.

~~~
vorotato
[IANAL]

That's an interesting question. I think Google would have a reasonable
argument toward damore creating hostile environment toward a group with a
protected status. They then could argue he was unfit for employment. Obviously
a jury would then decide, but historical precedent says that no it would not
constitute a failure to provide reasonable accommodation because he was unfit
for employment.

"Nevertheless, some employees with ASD and related conditions continue to
struggle to show that they are qualified for employment.90 Courts continue to
assert that the ability to communicate appropriately with customers and
coworkers is an essential function of the jobs in question.91 Particularly in
cases dealing with employees who have contact with the public or collaborative
interaction with colleagues, communication challenges typical for those with
autism have been sufficient to derail class coverage.92 This may prove to be a
significant hurdle in litigation for employees with ASD in the future."

source: [http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/Hensel.pdf](http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/Hensel.pdf)

~~~
vorotato
If we're talking about what laws should be, I would prefer to see something
more about requirements for a good faith effort to help the employee through
sensitivity training etc.

------
f055
I don't know why, but nowadays more often than not I see people ostracised and
punished for different beliefs rather than discussed and argued with. I know
firing and shutting people down is the easier thing to do in the short term,
but discussing and understanding, maybe even convincing or reaching a
consensus, is something really good in the long term. It all feels like the
balanced, centric attitude has been lost for the exclusive extreme right or
left approach. How did we get here?

~~~
alphabettsy
There’s absolutely nothing new about that. On major topics there were public
witch hunts and blacklists, ex McCarthyism.

This guy didn’t engage in debate though, he posted a memo that really doesn’t
open a door to dialogue. And as someone who runs an organization, the
workplace is not the place for an open debate on gender and diversity. That’s
only appropriate for a closed door session.

His decision to quickly go on to make a round of videos with Alt-right
activists and anti-feminists spoke volumes in my opionion. He didn’t try to
engage with people with alternate views, he engaged with people that hold even
more extreme views.

~~~
abnry
What does "open a door to dialogue" even mean?

~~~
alphabettsy
Putting up a note on your roommates door to complain about their loud sex then
leaving does not invite a discussion. Asking if you can talk about it later
does.

------
bitcharmer
Why has this been flagged? Is there something wrong about having a discussion
on HN about these topics?

